Foreign policy
From Encyclopædia
Foreign policy is a goal or series of goals (ends) that a country hopes to achieve with respect to other countries and international issues. Countries are not the only actors in international politics, and increasingly a country's foreign policy extends beyond relations with other countries to include interactions with other international actors including international organizations, multinational corporations,
alliances, regional organizations, and others. Foreign policy also includes the tools or instruments (means) that a country employs to achieve its international goals. Many scholars also extend the study of foreign policy to the process by which a country decides on which goals it will pursue and which tools it will use to implement those goals. In sum, foreign policy includes how a country decides, what it decides, and how it acts.FOREIGN POLICY PROCESSThe foreign policy process is how a country decides on policy and its implementation. Some analysts believe that policy choices are influenced by who makes decisions and how decisions are made. Recent scholarship, for example, shows that authoritarian governments are more likely to go to war with other authoritarian governments or with democracies than democracies are likely to go to war with other democracies.There is also strong
evidence that within a particular type of government, such as a
democracy, there is no single foreign policy process, but rather a variety of processes. There are several explanations about how and why the policy process varies, but the most common is the idea that different types of issues are processed differently. One distinction is between crisis and noncrisis policy. Crisis policy is normally decided by the political leader (such as the
president or
prime minister) and a small circle of the leader's close advisors with little general debate or public dissent. Noncrisis policy is subject to wider discussion and dissent and may even be decided by lower levels of the government.Domestic Impact ConsiderationsForeign policy and domestic policy have traditionally been distinguished, but in many
cases they overlap. These issues that have both international and domestic aspects are sometimes called "intermestic" policies. Deciding on federal highway funds is an example of pure domestic policy. Making a decision on which of the various political factions to support in a given country is a pure foreign policy, which has little or no domestic impact within say, Canada or the
United States. The question of whether or not to have a free-trade treaty between the
United States and Canada is intermestic policy because it involves international relations with another country but, at the same time, is a domestic political matter insofar as it affects jobs and industries in both countries. Intermestic issues tend to activate stronger activity by legislatures (Congress or Parliament),
interest groups (business, labor unions), and
public opinion.Multiple Branches of GovernmentPeople often refer to "the government," but in a system such as that in the
United States or Canada, there is a dispersion of powers among various branches of government. This is essential in a
democracy, but it is also true that the process can be cumbersome and even produce contradictory results. While the U.S. Constitution reserves to the
executive branch the authority to negotiate treaties, for example, they must be ratified by the Senate. Since Congress is more sensitive to a variety of domestic political
pressures, the Senate often has different priorities in seeking agreement with foreign governments.In a
democracy, therefore,
public opinion plays a role in determining foreign policy since Congress responds to voter and
interest group sentiment, and because the
president is not only a statesman but is a political leader who keeps an eye on public and congressional opinion. The freedom to protest foreign policy decisions also can produce direct
pressure on decision makers, as happened during the
Vietnam War.Congress has great potential foreign policy power, and
presidents must inform and persuade members of Congress who can deny funds for a particular foreign policy initiative or write legislation requiring that funds be spent in specified ways. The growing tendency for Congress to involve itself in the conduct of foreign policy is a trend that frustrates and alarms many in the
executive branch who charge Congress is trying to "micromanage" policy.Models of Foreign Policy MakingThere are a
number of models of the foreign policy process. One of the most common is the "rational-actor model." This model suggests that policymakers examine their options, define their goals, examine the various alternative ways of achieving their options, and select the most efficacious method to implement the chosen policy. Another widely discussed view is the "bureaucratic model." Here, various parts of the
executive branch have differing views of what policy should be. These views are based, in part, on the divergent, self-interested goals of the bureaucratic units. Policy, according to this model, is the result of the struggle among the bureaucratic actors. A third model might be called the "political model," and it holds that policy is the outcome of many elements in the political system struggling with, reacting to, and compromising with one another. In addition to executive leaders and bureaucracies, these elements would include legislatures,
interest groups, political opponents of the government, and the public.FOREIGN POLICY GOALSThe international goals that a country is trying to achieve range from the very specific (resolve a border dispute) to the general (enhance the country's influence). In an international system of sovereign, often competing, countries, foreign policy goals are usually self-interested objectives. Less frequently, goals may be
cooperative among several countries (
alliance behavior) or, still less often, motivated by idealism (humanitarian
foreign aid). When countries pursue self-interested goals, they are said to be following their "national
interest."The core element of national
interest is national DEFENSE--providing for the physical safety of a country's citizens. A second element is providing for the economic prosperity of the country insofar as it is affected by the supply of resources, trade balances, monetary
exchange rates, and other factors of the international political economy. A third element of national
interest is providing a favorable political environment. At a minimum this includes the ability of a country's citizens to choose their own form of government, and it may also include promoting values (individual rights) and processes (
democracy) in other countries that are compatible with one's own values and processes. A fourth national
interest element is ensuring national cohesion. This means avoiding foreign policies or other
pressures (separatist movements that threaten civil war), irreconcilable domestic divisions, or other clashes that could fragment the country.The concept of national
interest assumes that at least to some degree the rational-actor model is used to formulate policy. To the degree that other models govern the policy process, then a country's goals may be either in the narrow
interest of the prevailing bureaucrat?c or political actors or a lowest common denominator
interest reached through compromise rather than an expression of a more general
interest.FOREIGN POLICY IMPLEMENTATIONCountries have a variety of instruments by which they can attempt to achieve their foreign policy goals. These tools include the military instrument, the penetration and
intervention instrument, and the diplomatic instrument. The degree to which a country can use any of these instruments will vary according to the country's power, which is defined as its ability to force or persuade another country to act in a desirable way. A country may be powerful in some ways and not in others. Japan has vast economic power and much less military power. The former Soviet Union had enormous military power and little economic power. The applicability of power will also vary with the situation.The military instrument relies on the implicit or explicit threat to use force and the actual use of force. The possession of military power is also a tool because it enhances a country's reputation and increases its influence. Despite its staggering economy and political disarray, the Soviet Union remained a superpower until its dissolution at the end of 1991 because of its military capability. Some scholars contend that military power is becoming a less important and acceptable instrument.
Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait was almost unanimously condemned in the United
nations.
cross-border invasion is now less acceptable behavior, although some still justify the application of limited force, especially within implicitly recognized spheres of influence by a major power (the U.S. incursions into Grenada and Panama, for example). Penetration and
intervention involves trying to manipulate another country's domestic political situation and process. This instrument can be accomplished through such methods as
propaganda, military support of dissidents, co-opting political leaders,
sabotage, and
terrorism. The diplomatic instrument involves communicating with another country. Methods include direct, government-to-government negotiations and presenting its
case in the arena of an international organization. The United
nations, for example, is the forum for debates and diplomatic maneuvering on a wide variety of issues, and it has rendered decisions (often rejected or ignored) on many international disputes.
