National Security Council Essay

The recent trend characterizing the US security policy is the gradual strengthening of the National Security Council. Under G. Bush administration this body gained significant power and influence. In this paper I’m going to investigate the reasons for this trend as well its advantages and disadvantages. In the international practice, National Security Council is generally defined as an executive body coordinating national security issues. National Security Council consists of the heads of departments involved in diplomacy and defense with a relatively small number of staff members. The US National Security Council was established in 1947 and substantially amended in 1949; the same year it was placed in the Executive Office of the President. The powers and influence of the US NSC has been gradually increasing during the second half of the 20th centuries; this trend is evident presently, too. As for the structure of the council, it is chaired by the President and encompasses Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the statutory military advisor to the Council, the Director of Central Intelligence as the intelligence advisor. The Chief of Staff to the President, Counsel to the President, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy have a right to be present at any meeting of the Council; others can be invited to attend NSC meeting if appropriate. The functions of the NSC are â€Å"considering national security and foreign policy matters with his senior national security advisors and cabinet officials. † (National Security Council official website, http://www. whitehouse. gov/nsc/) Every President made major or minor change in the powers and functions of the NSC in order to adjust it to his own management style. The ultimate goal of the NSC under Bush administration is to ensure collegiality among different departments coordinating military and diplomatic issues. But the functions of the NSC nowadays are much wider. The expert report that â€Å"the NSC today conducts ongoing relations with the media, Congress, the American public, and foreign governments. † (Daalder & Destler, 2000, A New NSC for a New Administration, http://www. brookings. edu/comm/policybriefs/pb68. htm) Even the official sources define the Council as â€Å"as a means of controlling and managing competing departments† and it’s functioning â€Å"depended in no small degree upon the interpersonal chemistry between the President and his principal advisers and department heads. † (Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs, History of the National Security Council, http://www. fas. org/irp/offdocs/NSChistory. htm) The NSC is refered to as the â€Å"key foreign policy player in every administration since John F. Kennedy’s. † (Daalder & Destler†¦) I strongly deem that the trend of NSC becoming more influential reflects the general trend of Presidential power becoming more authoritative. The fact that Condoleeza Rice rivals Colin Powell in influence is to a certain extent causes to the relations between Condoleeza Rice and the President. Another reason is that she had been an influential public figure in academic and political circles before joining the NSC. Karl Inderfurth and Loch Johnson (2004, p. 180) in their book Fateful Decisions: Inside the National Security Council states that â€Å"Rice perhaps most closely resembles McGeorge Bundy, of the Kennedy Administration, who was the first non-invisible national-security adviser†¦Ã¢â‚¬  George Bush in the first National Security Presidential Directive stated that â€Å"The NSC shall meet at my direction. † (National Security Presidential Directive, 2001, http://www. fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-1. htm) The positive side of it is that the President can quickly obtain a qualified advice when needed. The negative side is that the NSC is an easy tool for controlling and redefining diplomatic and military policy of the county without consulting other major defense bodies. The same Directive states: â€Å"Except for those established by statute, other existing NSC interagency groups, ad hoc bodies, and executive committees are also abolished as of March 1, 2001, unless they are specifically reestablished as subordinate working groups within the new NSC system as of that date. † George Bush adjusted the Council to his own needs approximately after a year in the office. This is one more important reason why the President relies more on the NSC than on traditional bureaucracy. The structure of the NSC is relatively transparent and clear; it includes a limited number of members, although it has grown in size recently and resembles a governmental agency rather than an advisory committee. I would like to elaborate on another factor that contributes to the situation with the NSC. After the tragic events of 9/11 George Bush established the Office of Homeland Security under the governance of Tom Ridge, the President’s close friend. The functions of the NSC and the OHS often overlap; the possibility of the NSC becoming hegemonic in the sphere of homeland security decreased. Still, its role in the national security is hard to overestimate. Daalder & Destler (2000) propose a clear list of reasons why the NSC evolved in the key agent in defence and foreign policy. They state that it was caused by â€Å"the half-century development and legitimization of the NSC as presidential coordinator for mainstream national security issues†¦[and]†¦the post-cold war expansion of the foreign policy agenda, with more issues that require coordination across more agencies†¦[and]†¦the deepening of partisanship in Washington, particularly over the last decade. † It’s hard to give a solely positive or negative evaluation of this trend. From one angle, the NSC is flexible and is able to react rapidly to any security threat. It may seem rational to grant excessive powers to the NSC. There would be no need to employ the bureaucratic machine of numerous agencies dealing with diplomacy, military aspects and homeland security. The NSC should be organized in such a way so that â€Å"the president can make clear foreign policy choices in a timely manner. † (Daalder & Destler†¦ ) Daalder & Destler study emphasises that the NSC major task is integrating the US foreign and defence policy, and it’s of high importance in the era of global terrorism. From another angle, the NSC is powered by the President, and there exists much space for manipulation. Recently, the NSC doesn’t manage efficiently with coordinating the national security bodies. For instance, some tension exists in relations between the NSC and the agencies like CIA. Now let me proceed with drawing the final conclusion of the paper. There exists a clear trend of the National Security Council becoming more influential and powerful under the George Bush administration; this happens for compelling reasons. The positive or negative evaluation of his trend largely depends on the degree of efficiency of the NSC organization and functioning. References 1. The White House, National Security Council http://www. whitehouse. gov/nsc/ Last accessed: 15 Oct 2004 2. Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs, United States Department of State, History of the National Security Council, 1947-1997 http://www. fas. org/irp/offdocs/NSChistory. htm Last accessed: 15 Oct 2004 3.National Security Presidential Directive, February 13, 2001 http://www. fas. org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-1. htm Last accessed: 15 Oct 2004 4. The Brookings Institution, Foreign Policy Studies, Daalder, I. H. , Destler, I. M. , A New NSC for a New Administration, Nov 2000 http://www. brookings. edu/comm/policybriefs/pb68. htm Last accessed: 15 Oct 2004 5. Inderfurth, K. F. , Johnson, L. K. 2004. Fateful Decisions: Inside the National Security Council. Oxford University Press.