Decision-Making and Executive Power Departments’ Adaptation. Barack Obama’s Pacific Policy Case

• Published in: Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Serii͡a︡ 4, Istorii͡a Istorii͡a, 2021-08 (4), p.222-235
• Main Author: Boldyrev, Vitalii
• Format: Article
• Language: eng ; rus
• ISSN: 1998-9938
• DOI: 10.15688/jvolsu4.2021.4.19

Introduction. In the Barack Obama’s government and administration’s decision-making process related to the Asia-Pacific, the interaction of specific officials, rather than general policy goals, played a determining role. Methods. Using the structural method, the history of everyday life, and adaptology, the author analyzed the hidden sides of decision-making process that influenced the official narrative. Analysis. The analysis is related to interaction with counterparts and behavioural strategies of the president, his administration, the State Department, the Department of Defense and the United States trade representative as the key centers involved in the struggle for policy elaboration. Results. Because of high competition among them and the desire of each center to stand for its position, the decision-making process has acquired several peculiarities. To mark their own position and reduce the influence of their competitors, the agencies developed their own strategies supported by created related concepts and narratives, opened new jobs, concealed their real attitudes towards each other as well as the real meanings of the strategies, and proposed new forms of interaction with non-state actors. To prevent the strengthening of other parts of the process Barack Obama and his advisors developed the concept of rebalance. Hillary Clinton responded with the concept of pivot. The Department of Defense, as these narratives struggled, was forced to side with the president, thereby disguising its true goals. United States trade representative R. Krik avoided the struggle and concentrated on adapting to objective conditions. As a result of the struggle, the Barack Obama’s government and administration have not developed a common regional strategy based on common goals and understanding of the region.