Do all states make foreign policy in the same way?
Do all states make foreign policy in the same way?
PIED 2520 - Foreign Policy Analysis
Daniel M. Rose
Dr. C. Jones
Word Count: 2762
Foreign policy is when a state pursues objectives in its dealings with other states, and the methods and course of action used to pursue them. P. A. Reynolds defines foreign policy as "The range of actions taken by varying sections of the government of a state in its relations with other bodies similarly acting on the international stage . . . in order to advance the national interest"1. When shaping foreign policy there are many determinants that make an impact on how the policy is formed. These determinants can be placed in two broad categories, the global or external influences, and the internal or domestic influences. Social factors can affect the way foreign policy is shaped as well. For instance, a country which faces high internal unemployment figures will not pursue a foreign policy that will increase the number of immigrant workers. There are also economic and political factors which also changes how foreign policy is made. Every state experiences the same factors when deciding policy, yet from region to region the factors will change as will the way policy is implemented. States will also differ in the decision-making models they use for deciding policy. The main two models which will be analyses are the rational actor model, and the bureaucratic decision model. These will, and have done in the past provided decisions for states on the outcome of foreign policy.
The main external influence upon a state when deciding foreign policy is its' geopolitical location, this is where on the globe the country is located. It matters whether the country has natural frontiers: that is whether it is protected by oceans, high mountains or deserts. It matters who one's neighbours are and whether a given country is territorially large, populous, affluent and well-governed. Israel for example, is located amongst many potential enemies in the middle-east. This is reflected in the size and strength of their military which is one of the best in the world. A further example is in the UK. As an island not connected to the continent, many in Britain do not feel European, especially the former Conservative governments; as a result we are one of the few countries within the EU which is not involved with the single currency. Therefore, states often base their foreign policy in relation to their geopolitical location on the globe.
The internal determinants on states' foreign policy focus attention on "variations in states' attributes, such as military capabilities, level of economic development and types of government"2. Military capabilities depend on the size of the military within the state, the technological level of the equipment used, along with the level of training and leadership within the military. A further important factor is whether the military has nuclear capabilities. This is due to the fact that states with nuclear capabilities pose a greater threat on the world stage, especially if the state is one seen as an 'aggressor'. Recently, a factory capable of manufacturing weapons grade plutonium in North Korea was reopened; this led to an outcry from President Bush as it violated a UN mandate. Also the continuing weapons search in Iraq by UN weapons inspectors hoping to find some chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry, shows how states become nervous when an other state has nuclear capabilities.
Further determinants which make states' foreign policy are the economic capabilities and what type of economy the state has. As a planned economy will not have a foreign policy that puts them in a free trade area, whereas a free market economy will pursue a trade union with other states. An additional determinant is the type of government within the state. A constitutional democracy (i.e. a presidential or parliamentary system) will have different foreign policies to that of a military dictatorship. A classic example is Hitler, he formed many policies that were aggressive, radical and that directly affected ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Further determinants which make states' foreign policy are the economic capabilities and what type of economy the state has. As a planned economy will not have a foreign policy that puts them in a free trade area, whereas a free market economy will pursue a trade union with other states. An additional determinant is the type of government within the state. A constitutional democracy (i.e. a presidential or parliamentary system) will have different foreign policies to that of a military dictatorship. A classic example is Hitler, he formed many policies that were aggressive, radical and that directly affected other states. Whereas even at the start of World War II, the USA were not involved and only became involved once they were attacked at Pearl Harbour by the Japanese who were allies with Germany.
There is some evidence to suggest that democracies do not usually go to war against each other. As the world in general becomes more democratic, it is hoped that war will be replaced with peaceful methods of conflict resolution. It is further held that ideological conflict has come to an end with the fall of communism in 1991. President George W. Bush puts the matter as follows in his 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States: "The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom --and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. In the twenty-first century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity"3. This alleged victory of liberal democratic values throughout the world has been called the 'end of history'4. President Bush also stated, "While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary to exercise our right of self-defence by acting pre-emptively against terrorists"5. This shows how a constitutional democracy, which is also a superpower, reacted to a terrorist attack.
There are many factors that influence foreign policy which apply to all states. These include the actions of other states as foreign policy is in part a product of the attitudes and realities of surrounding nations. Civil society also affects foreign policy as governments create policy, but they are influenced by different groups within society. Grassroots movements and pressure groups can sometimes affect the direction of policy. A further factor is the history of a state. Despite the changes in the world, countries often cling to traditions within foreign policy including relationships with neighbours and their reputation on the world stage. The style and personality of states leader can also affect the making of foreign policy, along with the image and the actions the state projects. The media also play a pivotal role in making foreign policy. The public attitude towards foreign policy issues such as refugees, amounts of foreign aid or declaring war are partly shaped by media coverage and point of view. For instance, in a Communist state like China, the government control the media so can pursue policies and ensure there will be public support as they will only print favourable reviews. Whereas in the USA there is the freedom of the press, this ensures that the government are scrutinised in all their actions. The economic interests of a state are also key in making policy. Most countries use foreign policy to protect trade and access to resources.
As stated earlier, there are different decision-making models in foreign policy. The rational actor decision making model assumes that the international environment actually determines what states do, and that all foreign policy decision makers are essentially alike in their decision making process. This model also assumes that each state's decision making process can be viewed as if there were a single unitary actor making decisions and each unitary actor makes a rational choice. Yet for rational decision making to occur it requires the policy makers to perceive an external problem and attempt to define objectively its distinguishing characteristics, and also assumes that full information is available. Policy makers must also ascertain their goals and keep them in focus. The policy makers must identify all other alternative options before pursuing one. There are two good examples of when rational decision making was used in crisis situations. Firstly, John F. Kennedy's rational decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, resulting in nuclear war with the Soviet Union being averted. The second example is President Bill Clinton's 1999 Kosovo intervention. Yet there are some limitations on rational choice. Firstly there is bounded rationality, humans are prone to errors and do not know everything. Cognitive dissonance also occurs, where humans block out information that does not agree with what we already believe to be accurate. Often policy makers have overloaded agendas, with many issues to handle at the same time and there are the pressures of circumstance that limit the ability to choose. Policy makers also make satisfying decisions rather than optimising ones, whether it is to satisfy the government, the people or other states. It is clear to see that not all states act in this way that is why there is conflict between states. There have been many irrational decisions taken by states in the past that have resulted in conflict, for instance, Hitler invading Poland, and Iraq invading Kuwait in 1990. It is clear to see then that not all states make foreign policy in the same way.
There is a further model on which policy decisions are made. This is the bureaucratic politics model, according to this model policy decisions are not made by rational choice or by unitary actor. Rather policy decisions are determined by an activity of give and take between organizational units which can best be described as a process of bargaining. Allison explains the bureaucratic politics model as individuals in a group who are players bargaining for position and power. As a result government interaction can be understood as a bargaining game, with the outcomes resulting from competition. Bureaucratic politics sees no unitary actors but many actors who focus not on a single issue but a variety of issues. The bureaucracy makes policy through the exercise of discretion. Since the end of World War II the role and responsibilities of government have become increasingly numerous and complex. As a result legislators can not be expected to understand or anticipate issues and problems they face. Therefore elected officials depend on the bureaucracy for advice and to 'fill in the blanks'. The administration is also affected by influences outside the agencies internal environment. This may include lobby groups and public pressure groups; this means the decisions made by the bureaucrats can be affected by outside influences. In a system of bureaucratic politics the role of the executive is to coordinate, integrate and synthesize bureaucratic politics. This condition is more evident in the United States where the role of the executive is played out by a single actor, the president. In Canada, with the tradition of cabinet secrecy and solidarity it is more difficult to observe the role of the Prime Minister as a facilitator integrating conflicting policy perspectives. The bureaucratic model has both good and bad attributes. The good attributes are that policy is made by debate, compromise, consultation and consensus. Policy is made in intense debate and deliberation with a variety of views represented. The policy is also made by experts and specialists, which tends to reduce the extremist perspective. Yet the bad side to bureaucratic politics is that there are problems of coordination, and lack of accountability to the electorate by professional bureaucrats. Most constitutional democracies use the bureaucratic decision model when forming foreign policy, as the bureaucrats have more extensive knowledge and expertise in specific areas. Whereas in military dictatorships, it is usually up to the sole head of state to make foreign policy decisions, that is why these decisions can be irrational and result in conflict between states. The best example of bureaucratic politics is the Executive Committee of top officials that deliberated over the potential options which was formed by JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The personality of a leader of a state is one of the most important factors which make states form foreign policy in the same way. Over time there have been, many leaders with strong personalities, which have resulted in decisions being made either against public support, or support from their party. Thatcher during the Falklands War attacked Argentina, even though it was against public support at the time. This proves how strong her personality was because even her cabinet were not supporting her. A further example is in Israel, where Mr Sharon has taken a hard line action against the suicide bombers, retaliating every time there is an attack, whereas a different president could take a different, more lenient view. Yet there are instances in history where certain actions have resulted in conflict and no matter who was in charge the outcome would have been the same. For instance, Pearl Harbour and the terrorist attacks on the USA on September 11th, both resulted in the USA either starting or entering a conflict.
There are many factors that change the way states make foreign policy. These factors affect all states but differ between each resulting in different outcomes of foreign policy. For instance, Japanese foreign policy will not be that aggressive because they do not have a fully equipped army. Therefore they will not want initiate any type of policy that will directly affect another state. Whereas, states like Iraq, with a reasonably strong military, will often make foreign policy that will anger other states. For example, their invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was aggressive and resulted in the Gulf War. It is not only military capability that affects the way states make foreign policy, further factors are economic capabilities, political situation, geographical position and the personality of the leader. Many states make their foreign policy decisions based on two different models. The rational actor decision making model states that there is a unitary actor making a rational choice in foreign policy areas. An example is the decision of the USA to invade Iraq during the Gulf War. A further model which affects the way a state forms foreign policy is the bureaucratic decision model. This model helps to understand what contributes to a decision, as rational actors occasionally come out with irrational decisions. This model creates better decisions as there are more checks and balances and responsibility is shared and there is less aggression. Yet this model reaches slow decisions as the bureaucrats need to look at al available alternatives. Yet this model was used well and quickly in the Cuban Missile Crisis and it averted a clash between to superpowers both with nuclear capabilities.
All states adhere to certain factors when making foreign policy, yet each one will view the factors differently. Most democratic states use bureaucracies when determining foreign policy in order to achieve the most beneficial decisions. Some states use a unitary rational actor; some even just rely on a single head of government, especially in military dictatorships. In most states foreign policy is so important to the national interest of the state that senior officials will oversee and control the policy process. After the main decisions are made, it is then handed over to their foreign departments for implementation. This ensures that the public have some say in foreign policy as they elect the officials to begin with. States make foreign policy depending on the position of their party, personality of their leader, as well as economic, military and social situations. Foreign policy between states is not made in the same way, but the factors which influence how foreign policy is made are the same between states.
Bibliography
M Clarke & B White Understanding Foreign Policy, The Foreign Policy Systems Approach, Edward Elgar, 2002
J Baylis & S Smith the Globalization of World Politics, Oxford, 2001
Kegley and Wittkopf World Politics, 8th Ed, 2001
P. A. Reynolds An Introduction to International Relations
G. Allison Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications, 1972
New York Times, September 20, 2002
P. A. Reynolds, An Introduction to International Relations
2 Kegley and Wittkopf, World Politics, 8th Ed (2001), p. 57.)
3New York Times, September 20, 2002
4 Kegley and Wittkopf, World Politics, 8th Ed (2001), p. 63.
5 New York Times, September 20, 2002