Current Affairs Notes by Shanza Faiq (CSS 2018, FSP)

As a process , foreign policy is a complex phenomenon and therefore subject to many interpretations. As one IR scholar once suggests, eve n the simplest foreign policy action such as the announcement that a head of state will be travelling abroad can bring multiple interpretations. It can be interpreted as reflecting “the decision of an individual, the deliberations of a committee, the ouco me of a policy-making process, the sum of clashing interests groups, the values of a dominant elite, the product of a society’s aspirations, the reinforcement of a historical tradition, the response to an opportunity or challenge elsewhere in the world” (Rosenau, 1987:2). Thus, in doing analysis, analysts would have to come across with multiple explanatory layers of foreign policy.

Conceptualizing Foreign Policy:

Scholars generally define foreign policy as authoritative measures or actions undertaken by governments with certain purposes in regard to interactions with governments of other states.

• Rosenau conceives of foreign policy as authoritative actions taken by governments or are committed to take, in order either to maintain the desirable aspects of the international environment or to amend its undesirable aspects. It is necessarily calculated and goal-oriented, and it has unintended consequences which greatly affect the kind of adaptation that the society makes during a certain period of time; its initiation is purposeful (Rosenau, 1974:6).
• Holsti (1983:9 7), suggests that it also incorporates ideas that are planned by policy makers in order to solve a problem or uphold some changes in the environment, which can be in the forms of policies, attitudes, or actions of another state or states.
• Modelski defines it as ‘the system of activities’ that are evolved by communities with the purpose of altering the behavior of other states and of adjusting their own activities to the international environment (Modelski, 1962:6).

The main problem of the definitions presented above is the confining sense of actions of foreign policy as only being between sovereign units or states, a notion that very much reflects the influence of the realist tradition of state -centered approach perceiving state as a unitary actor in the international system. These conceptions do not conform to the evolving reality that the international system has become increasingly complex, especially due to the emerging importance of non-state actors. It is now important to understand that the first target of foreign policy is a foreign state or non -state actor (Wurfel & Burton, 1990:5). For the purpose of analysis, the concept of foreign policy is responsive to the actions of other states and NSAs and seeks to fulfil national interests outside territorial boundary.

Equally, foreign policy is a continuation of domestic policy because it serves and reflects national interests (Plano & Olton, 1969:127; Morgenthau, 1978:553), and is also considered as “the point at which influence arising in the international system cross into the domestic arena and at which domestic politics is transformed into international behavior” (Hopkins & Mansbach, 1973:133).

In the complex process of FP analysis other basic concepts are built-in with foreign policy. Modelski perceives foreign policy as a system of activity in which policy makers become one important element in the process of formulating foreign policy. Two other elements are closely integrated with FP, first a capability (power) to execute and second, the context in which policies are formulated and executed. These policies are composed under particular principles as guidance and in turn are conducted with specified objectives. In short, the basic concepts in foreign policy are policy makers, aims, principles, power to execute, and the context of foreign policy (Modelski, 1962).

Rosenau (1976), unlike Modelski’s system of activity, distinguishes three integral parts of foreign policy known as three concepts of foreign policy:

• Foreign policy as a cluster of orientations: Attitudes, perceptions, and values, and all these derive from state’s historical experience and strategic circumstances . These serve as guidance for state officials when they are confronted with external conditions requiring them to make decisions and take actions.
• Foreign policy as a set of commitments and plans for action: revealing strategies, real decisions, and observable policies, which are taken when states get linked to its external environments. These commitments and plans for actions are translations of the cluster of orientations used by FP analysts.
• Foreign policy as a form of behavior: concrete steps or activities that follow the translation of generalized orientations of foreign policy

Rosenau argues that in the process of analysis, considerable confusion is likely to mount when analyst fails to distinguish these three concepts involve different problems and phenomena. Therefore, clear identification about these concepts is essential prior to commencing the analysis stage.

Holsti (1983), expands and divides Rosenau’s concept into four components:

• Foreign-policy orientations: general attitudes and commitments toward the external environment
• National roles: the policy makers’ definitions about the general kinds of decisions, commitments, rules, and actions that are suitable to their state, and of the functions their state should perform in a variety of geographic and issue settings
• Objectives: the aims of foreign policy
• Actions

The first three components are composed of images in the minds of policy makers, attitudes toward the outside world, decisions, and aspirations. Meanwhile, the fourth component, actions, are the things that “governments do to others in order to effect certain orientations, fulfil roles, or achieve and defend objectives”, and “an act is basically a form of communication intended to change or sustain the behavior of those upon whom the acting government is dependent for achieving its own goals” (Holsti, 1982:144).

Hopkins and Mansbach (1973), suggest that factors that should be kept in mind when analyzing FP decisions are:

• the relative capability of a state and its strategic location in relation to other states within the structure of international system at any moment of time.
• individual factors comprise of personality, experience, values, political and leadership style that all make states’ leaders unique in influencing the way decisions are made and the quality of decisions as outputs.
• role refers to a set of socially prescribed behaviours related to all individuals occupying similar official positions within a political system. These officers assume a set of responsibilities and are therefore assigned to undertake certain tasks, which in turn form a kind of interaction among them.
• types of governmental institutions, the distribution of influence among these institutions, the interests that these institutions are representing, and the extent to which these institutions are open to societal influences.
• societal factors include all nongovernmental aspect of a society that could encompass elements such as economic capability, political culture, and the degree of industrialization, territorial size, natural resources, social cohesion, and basic values (Hopkins & Mansbach, 1973:136-151).

The main task of analysts in analyzing foreign policy is “to throw light on the ways in which states attempt to change, and succeed in changing, the behavior of other states” (Modelski, 1962:7). This is often a challenging task given the complexity of foreign policy when certain decisions are veiled in secrecy (Lovell, 1970:3).

The complexity of the structure and the process through which foreign policy decisions are formulated is manifested in the influence of above-mentioned factors as well as psychological factors underscoring on the role of individual perceptions, values, and interpersonal relations.

It is therefore understandable that approaches (perspectives and theories) FPA have evolved within the discipline of IR. History is one of the earlier social science disciplines. An historical approach tends to describe broad trends in states’ foreign policies and relates those policies to the social, economic, ideological, and geographic conditions within a certain period of time. It focuses on the analysis of reactions to other nations or the behavior of interests groups within a broader historical background. This early approach has contributed to the rise of liberalism/idealism and realism approaches which offer different basic postulates describing and understanding the nature of international politics.

The decision-making approach has three variants, namely bureaucratic politics, Organisational process or group dynamics, and individual decision -making or some called it the presidential (leader) management model. The first -bureaucratic politics- points to the proposition that perceives foreign policy decisions as being resultant from “a game of bargaining and compromise between upper-level decision makers”. Sometimes the compromise process is beyond the control of the leader of the state. Thus, decision -making is considered as the result of bargaining process within the states’ bureaucratic organizations. The second -Organisational process or group dynamics- is a variant of decision-making approach whose proponents argue that the interests of organizations involved in the process of foreign policy decision -making dominate such process. Within this variant, therefore, foreign policy is being understood a s the product of group interactions in the process of decision -making. Meanwhile the third -individual decision-making is a variant of decision-making approach whose advocates argue that it is the leader who actually generates and controls the system in which foreign policies are formulated, partly as an effort to maintain leadership. Thus, foreign policy is being considered as the result of individual leader’s choice in the process of decision -making .

Barkdull and Harris (2002:63 -90) suggest, theories or approaches for analyzing foreign policy can be categorized in three groups: systemic theories, societal theories, and state-centric theories.

• The first category refers to theories or approaches that are seeking to analyze and explain foreign policy by emphasizing on the important influence of international system. In other words, foreign policy is seen more as a product of states’ efforts in adjusting towards the international system or states’ external environment.
• The second category points to foreign policy as being a product of combination between domestic politics and culture of a given state. These theories underscore the influence of domestic political factors on the states foreign policy.
• The third category approaches FPA within the structure of the state, and the individuals who transmit and implement foreign policies on behalf of their country. In other words, it points to the role of actors involved in decision -making process of foreign policy.

In a slightly different, Smith (1989:375 -379) identifies five main ways of analyzing foreign policy, i.e. through a domestic politics perspective, international relations theory, comparative foreign policy, case studies, and combining theory and empirical research .