This chapter turns to the third “outside-in” influence considered in this section of the text: social movements and interests groups. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are important societal actors in the U.S. foreign policy process. Unlike traditional domestic-policy interest groups, NGOs involved in foreign policy often cross national boundaries and fill an important and expanding sovereignty gap. In this sense, both transnational organizations and multinational corporations place political pressure on U.S. foreign policy makers. NGOs represent multifaceted foreign policy interests, as some groups are focused on environmental issues while others are driven by religious motives. The sheer number of NGOs and the self-interests of their members make developing foreign policy difficult.

This chapter discusses NGOs at a broader level in the context of social movements—large-scale efforts for political and social change. Issues such as war and the environment have dominated the large social movements inside and outside the United States, influencing the foreign policy agenda and decision-making process. The antiwar movements from Vietnam to Iraq are discussed in detail as they embody some of the most familiar means through which social movements express their preferences.

NGOs are able to influence the foreign policy process because of the fragmented institutional setting and the large role societal forces play in the United States. Many transnational NGOs focus on issues involving public goods, such as energy and environmental policy. NGOs, whose numbers continue to grow, can generally be categorized in two ways: particularistic groups and cosmopolitan groups. Combined with multinational corporations and think tanks, these groups advance political agendas and are bestowed with the possibility of having a substantial impact on foreign policy formation and implementation.

Although NGOs have direct links to citizens, they are not democratic institutions, and their missions and roles in the foreign policy process are often dissonant and controversial. Not all groups can organize equally and not every foreign policy issue and problem has a group to represent it. NGOs, like other institutions discussed in this book, are self-interested, which leads to mutually exclusive policies, close ties to political officials, and propaganda campaigns; their often extreme religious or ideological missions are also of concern. The recent evangelical/Christian conservative movement is a large focus of this chapter. Their successful organizing inside the United States has led them to considerable power; for example, the evangelical movement was critical during the election of President George W. Bush and has influenced foreign policy priorities.

Interest groups are also more than advocacy groups and can be found in the private sector around the world. Multinational corporations (MNCs) have increasingly been eyed as powerful political actors influencing most foreign policy areas, including trade and energy policies. The classic example is the military-industrial complex that links the Department of Defense with construction and defense corporations. In addition, NGOs are used to distribute aid and even to engage in warfare. “Corporate warriors,” or private military contractors, have been used increasingly by the United States during the post–Cold War period and in the war on terrorism.

NGOs have close ties to global governance and U.S. foreign policy. Through political contributions, lobbying, protests, and even forms of terrorism, groups can exhibit political clout. Some groups form around transnational issue networks. Other NGOs influence policies based on their own conceptions and interests. This form of “privatized diplomacy” has become a recognizable hallmark of the American foreign policy process. As this chapter concludes, NGOs are an inherent part of the U.S. foreign policy process and continue to influence government actors.