Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy: US Pivot to Asia

Btari Istighfarrah P. P. and I. Gede Wahyu Wicaksana

Department of International Relations, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Airlangga

Keywords: Domestic Politics, Congress, Democratic Party, Republican Party, Pivot to Asia, Non-Unitary

Abstract: In both terms of Barack Obama’s Administration, United States of America has focused to intensify its

relations with the Asia-Pacific. This foreign policy is considered as an effort to support the United States in

obtaining its national interest. However to implement this policy, the United States needed to make

adjustments from two levels, international and domestic politics. There are many actors in the dynamic of

domestic politics that contributed and constrained the foreign policy to bring an optimum result. Many views

which are non-unitary because of the diverse domestic actors were involved in the United States’ foreign

policy making. In the United States, the foreign policy got influenced by the dynamics of Congress, the public,

and the media. United States policy to pivot to the Asia-Pacific region is affected by several biased party

interests in the Congress. Barack Obama as the candidate of one of the dominant party in the United States,

the Democratic Party, of course, will get a certain response from the Republican Party as the opposition. When

those non-unitary domestic actors determined the foreign policy, sometimes cross-interests and negotiation

might happen. Not only the Congress, there are many other domestic actors that are trying to put their group

interests into the government’s consideration. The dynamics of domestic politics can be one of the factors that

affected the Asia-Pacific pivot policy of the United States in Obama’s Administration

1 INTRODUCTION

The United States during Barack Obama's

administration has taken a significant step of change

in its foreign policy, shifting the focus of its foreign

policy to the Asia-Pacific region. The United States,

which during the period of previous governments,

was heavily involved in the Middle East region then

began to look at the Asia-Pacific region and

strengthen economic and security relations in the

region. The Asia-Pacific region comprising of

emerging countries was later recognized by the

United States as a prospective partner who could

assist the United States in achieving its national

interests. This region does have a smooth and rapid

trade flow that it can support the efforts of the United

States to cultivate its economic capabilities. In

addition, the United States also tries to engage as well

as protect the beneficial economic activity by

increasing its militarized presence in the region. The

United States seeks to join multilateral forums and

bilateral negotiations and take steps as facilitator in

various ongoing cooperation. Of course, the shift of

US axis to start paying more attention in its foreign

relations towards Asia-Pacific is influenced by

various factors of consideration, one of which is

domestic politics.

In this case, the author seeks to focus on analyzing

the formation of a shifting foreign policy through the

domestic political layer of the United States. In

essence, to discuss and analyze foreign policy,

domestic political analysis will be sufficiently related

to the level of analysis of the international system.

Because in the process of foreign policy

determination, a country also has what is called a two-

level game, ie national or domestic level

considerations and international considerations

(Putnam 1988: 434). In the game's two-level

approach, a win-set policy or policy that is in line with

the international situation is required but also

accepted by domestic actors. This domestic political

actor can be an obstacle to the preparation of foreign

policy. Thus, the United States must not only bring its

international character into its foreign policy, but also

weigh the responses of various domestic political

actors. In looking at the changes in foreign policy

during this period of the Barack Obama

administration, the writer uses three players in

domestic politics, the political elite, the society, and

the idea or discourse in which the various elements of

domestic politics reflect the state of the uniterate state

because of differences in focus and interests. In this

discussion, the three domestic players seen in

presenting the limitations of the formation of

448

P., B. and Wicaksana, I.

Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy: US Pivot to Asia.

DOI: 10.5220/0010278600002309

In Proceedings of Airlangga Conference on International Relations (ACIR 2018) - Politics, Economy, and Security in Changing Indo-Paciﬁc Region, pages 448-454

ISBN: 978-989-758-493-0

alternative US foreign policy are the two dominant

parties in Congress, public or public voices, and the

media. The author discusses whether there is

significance of domestic political actors attracting

each other in influencing the shifting of the United

States axis toward Asia-Pacific.

1.1 Domestic Politics and Foreign

Policy

Foreign policy of a country can be analyzed through

domestic political approach. The central assumption

of a country's domestic politics approach is that the

state is not a unitary entity (Fearon, 1998: 302). This

domestic political-level analysis seeks to see that a

country's foreign policy is influenced by diverse

domestic actors with different goals and values. Due

to the dynamics of the country being met by different

components and interacting with each other, thus the

state seen as a non singular entity. Each domestic

group will encourage the state to take or set foreign

policies that are in line with the interests of the group

(Putnam 1988: 434). Through the domestic political

level as well, it is explained that there are other forces

of the country that can provide an explanation of

foreign policy output. Domestic political factors will

be important in determining foreign policy when

several actors within the country can explain different

foreign policies. Fearon (1998: 301) explains that this

level of analysis of domestic politics provides a

limitation for countries to adjust to the international

situation, which then leads the country to a less than

optimal policy. Because the state is deemed necessary

to make policies that meet the two-level game. This

limitation arises because the state has several

elements such as political institutions, culture,

economic structures, and other significant aspects in

the formation of choices in foreign policy and may

bind other options.

Kaarbo (2015: 207) states that the approach of

foreign policy analysis using domestic political level

can be seen through several theories of International

Relations. Some of these theories will show different

actors in domestic politics, as are neoclassical realist

groups focused on the political elite. While liberalist

groups will focus on institutions and community

barriers, as well as constructivist groups will look at

ideas and discourses. Basically every factor in

domestic politics presents a certain limitation for

foreign policy making. This can be clarified by seeing

that the political elite, the community, and the idea or

discourse bring their own interests and concerns into

consideration of a foreign policy. There are five

consequences given by domestic political layer

interaction with foreign policy. These include the

extent of foreign policy habits, the credibility of

commitments to foreign policy, the stability of

foreign policy, the ability to mobilize forces, and the

strategies of domestic actors in influencing foreign

policy (Rogowski 1998, Fearon, 1998: 303).

While Schultz (1998 in de Mesquita & Smith,

2012: 166) argues that the main actor who is

influential in the domestic politics of a country is the

government and the legitimate opposition groups.

Two players in government as a political elite will

interact and bring dynamics to decision-making

related to a policy. It can be seen that with the politics

of the government and opposition groups, the state

will get a variety of voice and alternative inputs that

describe the non-authoritarian conditions of a

country. Such conditions may affect the

implementation of existing foreign policy. It said that

opposition groups could reject government policies if

they are deemed ineffective, too risky, or predicted to

fail. Thus, the governing group finds discretion in

determining the choices in foreign policy made

because of the considerations of the opposition. The

existence of these opposition groups also has

implications for foreign policy by encouraging state

leaders to review the effectiveness of foreign policy

that is still being drawn up. The projection of the

success or failure of the implementation of the foreign

policy in bringing the interests of the state and the

interests of society indirectly can influence the

public's view of its position as a leader. Thus, the

consideration of the opposition group is not only

important in the outcome of the country's foreign

policy, but also in the coalition of maintaining the

position of the state leader (Putnam 1988: 434;

Fearon, 1998: 303). Thus, there is a party within the

political elite of the legitimate opposition group

which then presents the boundaries and obstacles or

caution for the leader of the state in determining

foreign policy.

Page and Barabbas (2000: 347) state that a

country's society as one of the elements of domestic

politics has little to do with foreign policy making. It

is said that the interests of foreign countries are often

not preferred or do not get the attention of the

community. People have a tendency to influence

decisions on government spending that takes care of

domestic needs. However, the contribution of people

who may be less than optimal in influencing this

foreign policy will be aided by the role of the media.

Soroka (2003: 28) adds that the media is a bridge for

the general public and the policy makers themselves.

Media raises awareness of the public to give attention

and opinions regarding policies to be taken by the

Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy: US Pivot to Asia

449

United States. When people know an important issue

through the media, the community can then respond.

With the response then the government can present

the process of re-evaluation and provide some

changes to the policy being discussed.

Society will be more concerned with foreign

policy changes if the policy can directly affect the

community. The possibility of the impact that will be

accepted by the domestic group over the

implementation of a new foreign policy will be the

problem of the community in determining the policy

preferences taken (Fearon, 1998: 304). Some public

affairs that will be feared to be directly affected by

foreign policy are those that intersect the level of

mutual prosperity and state security, for example on

how foreign economic policy will have an impact on

the sustainability of economic distribution in

domestic groups. The United States itself considers

that the protection of the welfare of the people in

terms of the level of employment is one of the

important objectives to be achieved through foreign

policy (Page & Barabas 2000: 351). One of the

influences of US society on foreign policy can also be

seen through its views on security aspects. People

tend to reject the policy of sending US troops abroad

because their effects can be felt directly. Powell (1993

in de Mesquita & Smith, 2012) argues that domestic

considerations often do not meet the wishes of the

government and again raise certain limits for leaders.

In addition, there has been a lot of criticism of the

influence of public opinion as an element that

coloring the dynamics of domestic politics. Criticism

of public opinion has arisen because some of the

general public are often not rational and have an

inadequate understanding of issues to influence the

consideration of a country's foreign policy (Baum &

Potter, 2008: 44). However, society and the media are

the elements of domestic political dynamics and can

influence the outcome of a country's foreign policy.

1.2 Actor in US Domestic Politics

From domestic political elements that have been

conveyed by Kaarbo (2015: 207), domestic politics

within the United States consists of several elements,

namely the two dominant parties in the US Congress

as political elites, public voices and institutions as a

society, as well as the media as an idea or discourse.

The three domestic actors of the United States

become actors who may have interests attracting each

other and influencing US foreign policy. King (1986:

86) states that the decisions or measures on foreign

policy are influenced by the political instruments of

the United States through Congress. Congress as a

representative of the United States community

contributed to policy making. One such contribution

is made by Congress by reviewing the budget and

state requirements of other resources when

implementing the established policies. In general, the

United States Congress is filled by two dominant

parties namely Democrats and Republican parties.

While public votes by institutions and communities

may present other inputs in Congressional

considerations through lobbyists or lobbyists.

The two dominant parties in the Congress acted as

a legitimate power of the government and opposition

forces, both of which are elements of domestic

politics as Schultz (1998 in de Mesquita & Smith,

2012: 166) has pointed out. In everyday life, both

parties have different characteristics and focus issues

that result in two different views on the decision-

making process. Partisan attitudes or the inclination

of attitudes toward a party often occur in the

dynamics of Congress. The partisan attitude of the

Democratic and Republican parties is what creates the

constraints of non-unitary situation on the state that is

in Congress (Spanier & Nogee, 1981: xxi).

Level of analysis on domestic politics does see the

state as a non unitary entity, but consists of several

actors that cause differences and limitations on policy

making in it. Different interests and voters from the

Democrats and the Republican party will initially

produce different policy plans. But to determine the

foreign policy, the Congress does not immediately

choose one of the two alternatives proposed from

both parties. This is due to the different focus and

position of the President as well as the two parties in

Congress who have certain insistence. Thus, what

Congress should do is to bring together and review

the foreign policy that has been proposed by both

parties (Spanier & Nogee, 1981: 195). Cooperation

between every player in the United States Congress

will then convey the pressures of each parties that can

be taken into consideration in the preparation of

foreign policy. To this end, each of the two parties

will deliver a special focus and value, whereby the

specificity of the different actors raises restrictions on

foreign policy. Although again the limit for the

government in taking steps, but this is a natural thing

of the dynamics of domestic politics. In order to

produce a fixed and definitive output of foreign

policy, the government and the United States

Congress as non-unitary domestic political actors

need to work together (Halperin, et al., 2006: 63).

Thus, the bipartisan or cooperative attitude of the

Democratic and Republican parties becomes

necessary to facilitate the process of foreign policy

making.

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

450

In the formation of foreign policy itself, the

United States Congress has a tendency to meet each

other's point of view rather than in shaping domestic

policy. US foreign policy will be achieved through

Congress when both parties in Congress are

bipartisan or cooperative (King 1986: 85). Bipartisan

attitude is more common when discussing

international issues or determining foreign policy. In

decision-making related to foreign policy, Democrats

and Republican parties have more tendency to unite

because of the pressures that still cross each other

between the focus of one party with another (King,

1986: 87). It is said that the differences between the

two parties in the Congress are not so rigid when

discussing foreign policy so that the cooperative

attitude of the Democratic and Republican parties is

more easily achieved. When bipartisan attitudes have

arisen in Congress, domestic political interests will

not be a major constraint or limitation for countries in

shaping foreign policy. Parties' cooperation within

the Congress will make it easier for countries to adapt

policies that address domestic and international

situations. So it can be said that non-partisan attitudes

or non-partisan attitudes to certain party biases are

more supportive to carrying out foreign policy.

The United States Congress was also later

accompanied by the presence of certain institutions or

interest groups which later entered to lobby. Interest

groups in the United States can be present in Congress

to lobby in the foreign policy-making process.

Interest groups in the United States also come from

various backgrounds and identities, such as groups of

students, non-governmental organizations, and

groups with a particular focus on issues (Caicedo,

2009: 5). The lobbyist will then try to influence the

considerations of actors in the government who make

policies by giving new considerations. This is quite

alarming for US relations in other countries. The

lobbyists in the Congress illustrated the United States,

which later experienced obstacles because of the

many actors who played as group representatives and

presented the non-authoritarian situation of their

domestic politics. The many interests that fall within

the preparation of US foreign policy need to be taken

into account so that the existing input does not

remove the values and character of the United States

internationally. Public opinion becomes one of the

other elements in the domestic dynamics of the

United States as a liberal democracy (Baum & Potter,

2008: 44). Although the issues of state relations to the

international situation or foreign policy are often

considered unattractive, the United States will pay

attention to international issues in times of crisis.

While the media is also a third element in US

domestic politics that can influence decisions related

to foreign policy.

1.3 Obama Pivot to Asia

In the Barack Obama Administration, the United

States implements foreign policy emphasizing its axis

position towards Asia. Asia-Pacific became a shifting

focus in US foreign policy on Barack Obama's

administration when compared to policies in the

previous regime. The United States before the reign

of Barack Obama had much to do with the countries

of the Middle East because of the backdrop of the

tragedy of 9/11. However, in the period of Barack

Obama, US foreign policy is just beginning to be

implemented and aims to establish strategic

relationships with the Asia-Pacific region and

enhance the sharpness of cooperation in the field of

economy and security (Manyin, et al., 2012: 2). Mills

(2015: 1) also mentioned that the implementation of

US foreign policy towards the Asian region is

implemented by strengthening security cooperation,

increasing the intensity of relations with developing

countries, joining multilateral institutions of Asia-

Pacific region, expanding trade scope, ensuring the

existence of the US military in the Asian region, and

strengthen the values of democracy and humanity.

To strengthen US-Pacific relations in the Asia-

Pacific region on various fronts, first the United

States needs to eliminate certain tensions with

countries in the region. One of the United States'

efforts to embrace the Asia-Pacific is to build

sustainable diplomatic relations. This effort was made

to several countries, such as Myanmar and Vietnam

which had certain previous tensions, to eliminate

unnecessary tension and build the foundation for US-

Asia-Pacific relations (Dian, 2013: 3). Not only has a

good relationship with all elements in Asia, the

United States also needs to strengthen that

relationship with various forms of cooperation.

Barack Obama then exploited the open diplomatic

doors of the Asian region through multilateral

relations. As the Southeast Asian region is indeed

opening up to maintain its regional stability, the

United States is then facilitated to discuss various

cooperation issues by the presence of multilateral

forums such as ASEAN Regional Forum (Manyin, et

al., 2012: 17).

The United States also deepens economic ties

with the Asia Pacific region. The United States

successfully negotiated and implemented one form of

intensification of economic relations of the United

States, namely through cooperation Trans Pacific

Partnership (Manyin, et al., 2012: 6). This is one way

Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy: US Pivot to Asia

451

for the United States to enter and engage with

economic relations in the Asia-Pacific region as it

focuses its trade on the United States. The United

States sees that some countries in the Asia-Pacific

region are partners of export and import activities that

are profitable for the United States economy because

the region has such a rapid economic flows. Countries

in East Asia and Southeast Asia alone, such as China

and Indonesia, are countries that are climbing tiers as

an emerging country. This effort to strengthen

economic relations is done by helping to facilitate

countries in the Asia-Pacific region to smoothen and

clarify the trading mechanisms within existing

multilateral trading platforms. Of course with the

intensive cooperation that is woven through this

foreign policy, the United States will be able to

increase its export and import activities to support its

economic growth.

The economic relations that the United States

wants to strengthen by joining Asia-Pacific regional

cooperation indirectly have an impact on security

relations. The rapid export and import activities

demand the United States to protect such trading

activities. This is manifested by the United States in

the field of security by actively presenting navigation-

navigation to maintain trade routes and other

economic interests through the Asia-Pacific region.

The United States also has an Air-Sea Battle concept

that focuses on air and sea strength within the region.

Related to the increase of military and security

cooperation, the United States in the Obama

administration has launched many military and

military aid to countries in the Asia-Pacific region,

such as Singapore and Australia (Tsai, 2013: 15).

Cooperation in the form of joint military training is

also not little implemented. The United States has a

strategic interest in the region so that it began to

deploy bases and military units at some points that

were considered flexible. Increased security by the

United States as its foreign policy is not limited to

military force alone, but also to intensify regional

security from transnational crime threats, such as

drug trafficking and terrorism groups. In essence,

security cooperation in the form of sending military

instruments to other countries is a foreign policy that

has been run frequently by the United States since the

administration before Barack Obama. However,

shifting shafts in the Obama administration period

present a new implementation focus in US foreign

relations. It can be said so because previously the

Asia-Pacific region was not the recipient of intensive

military assistance from the United States (Manyin, et

al., 2012: 4). This suggests a shift in direction from

the United States to give more attention to the new

region of Asia-Pacific. The difference from US policy

to pioneer Asia itself can be seen in how the United

States seeks to show its presence in the Asian region

through military aid deliveries.

2 CONCLUSION

US foreign policy that pivots to Asia can be seen

through domestic political dynamics of foreign policy

as signify through the congress which will then weigh

the budget and potential issues that may arise in the

legislative layer. Considerations made at the congress

will indirectly affect the policy of the United States to

move the bow toward the Asian region (Manyin, et

al., 2012: 24). The United States Congress

contributed a lot to US foreign policy through the

views of both the Democratic and Republican parties.

Democrat Barack Obama then faced a response from

the opposition party, namely the Republican party

linked to this policy (Harold, 2015: 90). The

Republican Party and other conservative groups

responded that the shift of focus on US policy to the

Asia-Pacific region was not supported by the

country's supposed spending so the budget became a

constraint emphasized by the party. Nevertheless,

Democrat Obama is still working on this policy from

a variety of inputs that constrain the implementation

of Asian axis. For, the Democrats themselves

consider that the budget cuts in US security interests

will allow for a weakening of the capability for the

United States in the future. These cost constraints

may prevent the United States from presenting its

military presence in Asia-Pacific or other efforts to

establish relationships with the region. This policy

also brings the fundamental values of the United

States and will assist the United States in achieving

its national interests. Despite the distinctive features

of the issue focus, the two dominant parties in

America tend to be bipartisan in US foreign policy

leading to the Asian region (Sutter, et al., 2013: 27).

In regards to this foreign policy, the two parties which

usually deal with each other can then cooperate in

Congress.

As discussed by the frictions of the Democrats and

the Republican party, the Congressional contribution

in US foreign policy toward the Asia-Pacific is seen

in its consideration of the budget of the proposed

policy. Prior to Asia-Pacific's ongoing foreign policy

implementation, criticism over this policy budget has

even been alluded to since the election of the

president as one of the obstacles. When the Barack

Obama administration reign, this Asia-Pacific axis

has been successfully implemented with certain

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

452

considerations and limits, one of which is its

financing. One form of congressional influence on the

implementation of foreign policy in the Asian axis

period began to appear in the United States, which

previously sent many soldiers to Japan and Korea and

then planned to move the military base to Guam

Island to facilitate the families of the soldiers.

However, this policy is then considered to be costly.

Congress conducts a review and proposes to postpone

the implementation of this policy (Manyin, et al.,

2012: 11). The limitations of the budget drawn up

also become one of the limits by Congress to US

foreign policy. To be able to run a program of

bonding between the United States and Asia-Pacific

countries in various fields, the United States needs to

make certain savings. But Congress has the

significance of agreeing to the implementation of a

policy or not on its effectiveness in the short or long

term. Meanwhile, in an effort to strengthen economic

relations between the United States and the Asia-

Pacific region, such as through the Trans Pacific

Partnership, Congress will determine whether the

policy will be implemented or not. The domestic US

policy does not really shape US foreign policy

shifting from the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific

region, but some elements in US domestic politics

contribute to the priorities and determination of the

policy.

The element of public opinion as part of domestic

politics is seen through how the United States society

responds to the discourse of foreign policy in this

Barack Obama administration. Basile & Isernia

(2015: 109) shows the results of a United States

public assessment survey when it recognizes a shift in

international relations shaft that will focus on Asia.

The results of the survey indicate that throughout

2008 to 2011, 51% of the US community tended to

prefer an overseas-oriented policy of intensifying

relationships toward Asia compared to Europe. The

importance of the Asian region in supporting the

United States reaches its interests more perceived by

the general public so that public opinion demonstrates

the support of foreign policy in this Obama period.

The Asia-Pacific is considered a lucrative new partner

focus and which needs to be embraced more closely

in bilateral and multilateral relations. Thus, the

implications of public opinion on the implementation

of US policy are seen in the support provided. While

the role of the media as part of domestic politics can

be seen through broadcasting in the campaign and the

election debate Barack Obama as a Democratic

candidate. Through broadcasting Obama's election

debates with Republican party candidates, the media

can encourage public awareness of the policy focus

and encourage opinions from the American public on

the issue of US relations with other countries.

With the analysis of the domestic political level

described above, the authors conclude that domestic

politics has only a minor influence on shifting the

focus of US foreign policy toward the Asian axis.

Although domestic politics plays a role in

determining the implementation of US policy to Asia,

domestic politics is not the main element of policy

making and has shifted the policy to pivot from the

Middle East region to Asia-Pacific. Analysis with a

domestic political approach sees a state as an

uniterate entity and this situation can result in

suboptimal foreign policy. This is because many

players in domestic politics then have their own

interests, focus, values, and considerations so as to

create limits on alternative policy options.

The US domestic political actors themselves are

divided into congresses with two dominant parties as

political elites, public voices as societies, and the

media as ideas or discourses. In the United States

itself, the Congress then consists of government and

opposition groups that gain legitimacy played by the

Democratic and Republican parties. The non-

authoritarian nature of the state in the domestic-level

outlook is reflected through the difference in focus

and character by the Democrats and the Republican

party in drafting a policy. The Democratic Party

nominating Barack Obama as a candidate certainly

supports Asia's full axis policy as an effort to support

the achievement of the national interest of the United

States. But the Republican party as opposition then

responds to this policy and presents restrictions by

reminding government budget allocation constraints.

This can be an obstacle to the United States in

practicing its policy, because in its own determination

there are two different wishes from both parties in

Congress.

Both parties then need to collaborate and be

bipartisan to achieve the implementation of a fixed

policy.. The Democrats succeeded in defending their

foreign policy by considering the considerations

posed by the Republican party. In foreign policy

making, both parties must bring together the focus on

the relations of the United States with other countries.

Both parties in the Congress were cooperative in

order to support the achievement of policies that

support the acquisition of US national interests.

Through the Congress side as a domestic political

aspect, the role of domestic politics in influencing

foreign policy is limited to the process of approving

Asian axis policies to implement or not. The existing

debate between the two parties does not lie in what

areas need to get intensified relationships by the

Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy: US Pivot to Asia

453

United States, but on the effectiveness of policies,

particularly those tangled with large expenditures and

resource availability.

Society as an element of public opinion in the

domestic politics of the United States only plays a

minor role to give a positive or negative response,

which also does not affect the direction of the axis of

foreign relations that will be done by the United

States. The positive response of American society

emerged as support for policy implementation. This

response is known through a survey that shows most

societies believe that Asia-Pacific is becoming a more

important area to be embraced as a United States

partner than Europe. While negative responses from

the public also appear to criticize the same thing as

the political elite opposition groups, namely the

discussion related to the effectiveness of the United

States policy with the reality of the budget and

existing resources. The two responses given by the

general public regarding the new direction of the

United States to forge closer relations with the Asia-

Pacific region are also influenced by the media as

facilitators of providing information, such as on

broadcasting electoral debates that shape public

perceptions. However, the role of the media and the

public of the United States as a public voice is then

insignificant because the two domestic actors are not

the founders and compilers of the draft foreign policy

to shift the course. Thus, briefly there is no significant

indicator in showing the domestic political elements

of the United States as the major composers or causes

of US foreign policy to pivot in Asia-Pacific. Various

domestic actors in this level tend to contribute only to

approving or critiquing the policy design so that it can

be more effective. Despite the diversity of voices and

inputs and making non-authoritarian situations in

foreign policy setting, US political elites in Congress

cooperate with each other to consider policy through

the consideration of various groups. Society can only

show response or support. The US domestic politics

of minor significance as a weighing actor, setting

limits on policy alternatives, and approving the

implementation of foreign policy to pivot to Asia-

Pacific because it considers this policy to help the

United States to achieve its national interests in

various fields.

REFERENCES

Basile, Linda & Pierangelo Isernia. 2015. “The US

Rebalancing to Asia and Translatlatic Public Opinion”,

in The International Spectator, Vol. 50, No. 3

Baum, Matthew A. & Philip B. K. Potter. 2008. “The

Relationships Between Mass Media, Public Opinion,

and Foreign Policy: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis”,

in Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 11, pp. 39-

Caicedo, Aparicio. 2009. Lobby and Foreign Policy in the

US: How Foreigners can Understand (even influence)

the Outcomes of US Foreign Policy

De Mesquita, Bruce Bueno & Alastair Smith. 2012.

“Domestic Explanations of International Relations”, in

Annual Review of Political Science 15, pp. 161-181

Dian, Matteo. 2013. Japan and The US Pivot to the Asia

Pacific.

Fearon, James D. 1998. “Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy,

and Theories of International Relations”, in Annual

Review of Political Science, 1

Halperin, Morton H., et al. 2006. Bureaucratic Politics and

Foreign Policy, 2

ed. Washington D.C.: Brookings

Institution Press

Harold, Scott W. 2015. “Is the Pivot Doomed? The

Resilience of America’s Strategic ‘Rebalance’”, The

Washington Quarterly , Vol. 37, No. 4

Kaarbo, Juliet. 2015. “A Foreign Policy Analysis

Perspective on the Domestic Politics Turn in IR

Theory”, in International Studies Review 17, pp. 189-

216

King, Gary. 1986. “Political Parties and Foreign Policy: A

Structuralist Approach”, in Political Psychology, Vol.

7, No. 1, pp. 83-101

Manyin, Mark E., et al. 2012. “Pivot to the Pacific? The

Obama Administration’s ‘Rebalancing’ Towards

Asia”, in CRS Report for Congress

Mills, Colonel Chris. 2015. The United States’ Asia-Pacific

Policy and the Rise of the Dragon. Canberra: The

Centre for Defence and Strategic Studies

Page, Benjamin I. Dan Jason Barabas. 2000. “Foreign

Policy Gaps between Citizens and Leaders”, in

International

Putnam, Robert D.1988 “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics:

The Logic of Two-Level Games”, in International

Organization, Vol. 42, No. 3

Soroka, Stuart N. 2003. “Media, Public Opinion, and

Foreign Policy”, in The International Journal of

Press/Politics, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 27-48

Spanier, John W & Joseph Nogee. 1981. Congress, the

Presidency, and American Foreign Policy. Pergamon

Press Inc

Sutter, Robert G. Et al. 2013. Balancing Acts: the U. S.

Rebalance and Asia Pacific Stability. Sigur Center for

Asian Studies.

Tsai, Sabrina. 2013. Obama’s Second Term in the Asia-

Pacific Region: Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the

Future

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

454