Foreign Policy In A Transformed World

Mark Webber, Michael Smith

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781138836983
• eBook ISBN: 9781317903345
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

For 2nd and 3rd year courses in international politics and foreign policy. This text examines foreign policy in relation to'change and transformation.' It discusses traditional assumptions about foreign policy and foreign policy making, and develops a framework to facilitate analysis of the challenges faced by foreign policy makers in the late 1990s. The central elements of the framework are the foreign policy arena, decision-making and implementation. The book then applies the framework to a set of regional case studies, to explore the global and regional arenas and the challenges to which they give rise. Finally, specific case studies of two countries per region highlight the range of impacts for the changing global and regional context, to focus on the analysis of decision-making and implementation, and to illustrate the benefits of comparative analysis.

Part One

Frameworks

Mark Webber and Michael Smith

1

Problems and Issues in Foreign Policy Analysis

In the Introduction, it was argued that in analysing foreign policy, the key element was the focus on national governments and their responses to changing global conditions. In this chapter, we aim to identify a number of key issues in foreign policy analysis, and to ‘problematise’ them, that is, explore their analytical implications for the assessment and comparison of foreign policies.

This chapter falls into five main sections. First, we identify a number of the ‘puzzles’ which have long preoccupied students of foreign policy. Second, we consider some conventional assumptions about foreign policy. Third, we look at the ways in which global transformation has questioned the continuing relevance of such assumptions. Fourth, we offer an overview of the main schools of thought in foreign policy analysis. Finally, we summarise the main elements of the framework of analysis developed in this chapter. This will then be carried forward in Chapters 2–4 (which explore specific areas of foreign policy itself: the policy arena, the policy-making process and the implementation of policy) and will also be used as the basis for case studies in Part Two.

Foreign policy puzzles

In common with other areas of policy analysis, foreign policy analysis (FPA) starts with a number of central questions about the nature of what is to be studied. Perhaps the most fundamental question is the broadest: what is foreign policy? In the Introduction, we set out a definition, and it is useful to repeat it here as the basis for moving on to a more detailed enquiry:

Foreign policy is composed of the goals sought, values set, decisions made and actions taken by states, and national governments acting on their behalf, in the context of the external relations of national societies. It constitutes an attempt to design, manage and control the foreign relations of national societies.

Just how useful is this definition? Consider the following example. During late 1997, there was a severe financial crisis affecting a number of the countries of East Asia. The impact of fluctuating currencies, of financial speculation and of instabilities within the governments of the region caused wild shifts in confidence and undermined the ability of national governments to maintain stable economic conditions. The Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohammed, made a number of sharp public attacks not on the other countries in the region, but rather on the activities of international financiers, who were accused of deliberate economic destabilisation for the sake of private financial gain. Major commitments were made by leading countries such as the United States (US) and Japan, and by international financial institutions, to the re-establishment of economic stability and to containing the crisis. The latter was a particular concern given fears (in part, subsequently realised) that the ‘infection’ could spread to the countries of Latin America, Eastern Europe, and even into the US and Western Europe.

Do the responses to this crisis constitute ‘foreign policy’? In many respects, the answer would have to be ‘yes’ in that actions taken clearly conform to the definition of foreign policy set out above. Efforts were made by national governments aimed at identifying goals, setting values and taking action – all in the light of their external financial position and the needs of their national societies. There was also a clear effort to ‘design, manage and control’ the foreign relations of those societies, specifically their external economic relations. But even the brief outline of the case stated gives rise to some key puzzles:

First, were the goals of foreign policy always clear, and were the values set equally acceptable to all members of the national society? Although the aim of economic growth and stability is very widely shared in national societies everywhere, there will always be those who see their interests as lying in speculation, profit and individual gain. In other words, a tension exists between the general good and a sectional or specific good.

Second, is it always national governments who take decisions or action? Foreign policy implies essentially that the government acts on behalf of the country, but it seems that on occasion at least, there can be doubts about the unity or stability of the government itself. During the crisis outlined above, not only did one government in the region (that of Thailand) change, but the country concerned was also in the process of adopting a new constitution which would lead to major political changes. So national governments need not be regarded as monolithic.

Third, are national governments the only actors on the international stage? As the above example makes plain, a number of governments were assailed by the activities of international speculators. In other circumstances, they have been challenged by international criminal cartels, terrorist organisations and migratory flows of population.

Fourth and related to the points above, how much power to ‘design, manage and control’ do national governments really have? It seems clear that in many international economic transactions, national governments are only a part of the story, and the flows of international finance, together with the activities of firms or individual speculators, can have important effects in constraining or undermining the authority or ‘management capacity’ of the governments in question.

Each of the elements in our initial definition is thus subject to questioning. That said, as an analytical convenience some definition has to be offered. That presented above provides us with a check-list of the characteristics to look out for in any national foreign policy. But teasing out some of the implications of the definition alerts us to the fact that in seeking to pin down the meaning of foreign policy, some uneasy questions arise. However, for any foreign policy, the simple questions ‘what’s going on here?’ and ‘who is doing what to whom?’ are an essential starting point. We now move on to consider the ways in which analysts have attempted to deal with these types of question in the past, and the ways in which they might need reformulating.

Foreign policy: traditional assumptions

Traditionally, foreign policy has been seen as inextricably linked to the ‘world of states’, in which the primary actors are nation states and their governments, and in which a series of policy problems emerge to reflect the competitive and insecure nature of international politics. This has given foreign policy a very powerful image in the study of International Relations. To put it very simply, foreign policy is often seen as ‘special’ or ‘privileged’ by virtue of the answers given to the types of question raised above: What are the aims and values of foreign policy? Who makes foreign policy? How is it made? How is action taken?

In this light, let us first look at the links between foreign policy, statehood and the world of states. The study of International Relations for many years was conducted within the context of what has been termed ‘state-centric realism’. Central to this perspective was the assumption that states were the primary actors in world politics (if not the only actors), that foreign policy was pursued by governments on behalf of the state and that a sharp distinction existed between domestic policy making and foreign policy making. The aims of foreign policy by this view were related to the pursuit of sovereignty and independence. The key value espoused was that of the ‘national interest’, defined in terms of independence and security. But the fact that the national interest was pursued in a world where all states were pursuing the same aim had a number of important consequences. Specifically, it meant that international politics was characterised by competition and insecurity and the chief task of foreign policy makers was to guard against threats and the actions of competitors. This state of affairs was exacerbated further by what some realists viewed as a central driving force of human motivation, namely a quest for power (Aron, 1962: 21–93; Morgenthau, 1960: 3–15).

Given these basic assumptions about the world of states and the place of foreign policy within it, there was in principle little difficulty in establishing the main characteristics of foreign policy. During the Cold War era, there was a strong tendency in many countries to identify foreign policy very closely with ‘national security policy’, and to see the military security of the society as the principal if not the only aim of policy making. This had direct and important implications for the question ‘who makes foreign policy?’ The answer simply was that foreign policy was made by a specialised elite defined by education, training and experience. This elite had the role – indeed, the duty – of establishing and pursuing the national interest and of speaking on behalf of the national society. When it came to the formulation of decisions and actions, this elitist context had further effects. Decision making was necessarily confined to a small circle, and was characterised even in democratic societies by a pervasive secrecy.

From this it might reasonably be inferred that foreign policy was not only specialised but also dangerous. The stakes were high, ultimately expressed in terms of national independence or national survival. Competition from other states might generally be muted and peaceful, but in principle it could always turn nasty and lead to conflict if not war. Whereas national societies could be described as ‘security communities’, the wider world was an ‘insecurity community’, in which there were no universally accepted rules and in which there were constant risks of damage. But this was not a ‘war of all against all’. What saved the system from constant system-wide conflict was the institution of statehood itself, through which responsible authorities could practise diplomacy, adjust their differences and cooperate either tacitly or openly to avoid the worst risks and costs of international competition (Hobson, 2000: 50–5; Morgenthau, 1960: 167–223).

Foreign policy in the traditional view, therefore, was conducted not only within a world of states, but also within a society of states, in which there was a number of powerful unwritten rules about the ways in which national governments should behave (Bull, 1977: 13–16, 23–52). The essence of ‘responsible statehood’ was in the conduct of responsible foreign policies – not shirking international competition or the defence of the national interest, but using the practice of diplomacy to conduct the business of the nation. Only in extreme circumstances could the use of force or a declaration of war be justified. Governments which flouted this rule could easily find that large numbers of others would group up to retaliate or to contain them, as in the case of Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany or (during the Cold War) the Soviet Union. But to state this ‘rule’ is to raise further questions. National governments would be faced in such a context with constant delicate choices, and the consequences of those choices were by definition uncertain. Foreign policy, therefore, hinged ultimately on the judgement and decisions of a small number of specialists whose knowledge of the consequences of their actions was imperfect; if things went badly wrong, it could mean national loss or national extinction.

According to this view, foreign policy action is one of the most demanding of political acts. The attempt to influence behaviour across national boundaries where there are none of the supports provided by national law, culture or habits of obedience, where knowledge is restricted and where the consequences of actions are very difficult to estimate, gives a fundamental element of delicacy and risk which is absent from any other areas of policy making. Even between the closest of national allies, there is the potential for confusion, recrimination, escalation and ultimately war. While the practices of ‘responsible statehood’ can contain many of these uncertainties and risks, they cannot eliminate them. In addition to being elitist, secretive and linked with national security, foreign policy is consequently also risky.

Thus far, we have established that the essence of foreign policy, as traditionally viewed, is the same for all states. The problem, however, as you may have suspected, is that foreign policies are characterised by considerable variety. Traditional views of foreign policy do not entirely neglect this variety. Central to much traditional thinking is the notion of power. Often described in terms of military power, this can be seen as an essential way of discriminating between foreign policies, not only in terms of their key characteristics but also in terms of their prospects for success. Thus descriptions of countries as ‘Great Powers’, ‘Middle Powers’ or ‘Small States’ are intended to give an indication of the scope and responsibilities of foreign policy; they also give a broad description of the potential for action and of success in any given venture (Berridge, 1992: 9–25). During the Cold War period, the description of the US and the Soviet Union as ‘superpowers’ was intended to convey the impression that they were unlike any previous global powers, and thus, by extension, that their foreign policies were shaped by a distinctive if not unique set of influences. The 1960s and 1970s saw not only the consolidation of this superpower status for the two states concerned, but also the emergence in the Third World of a large number of new, often small and poor states, which greatly increased variety within the world of states.

Another element in the variety of foreign policies accounted for by traditional views concerned the policy makers themselves. Policy, arguably, is not formed until the commitment to pursue a goal is brought into balance with the capabilities necessary for its implementation. Not all policy makers or governments are going to be equally competent at performing this balancing act, and much of the effort of traditional FPA has been devoted to understanding the ways in which performance can fall below expectations or potential. One of the key distinctions between foreign policies is thus the efficiency and effectiveness of the ‘foreign policy machine’, and one of the key problems is that the ‘machine’ is really a collection of rather imperfect human beings.

Size, status, resources and human factors are thus key elements in the traditional study of foreign policies. Another is what might be described as ‘circumstances’: both the long-term geopolitical situation of a country and the short-term challenges it faces. For a very long time, foreign policies have been described in terms of location – the ‘island state’, the ‘buffer state’ – and in terms of the general political context within which governments operate – democracy, dictatorship, stability and instability (Wallace, 1971). Such factors are clearly important in shaping the choices available to foreign policy makers, and in influencing the ways in which actions are taken. As much as anything else, they affect expectations and perceptions, both on the part of foreign policy makers in one country and on the part of their counterparts in other countries. But these long-term factors can also be supplemented if not supplanted by short-term factors, such as those contained in threatening or crisis situations.

We hope it is clear from this discussion that what we have described as ‘traditional’ views of foreign policy based on state-centric realism do not eliminate complexity or variety from the study of the policy-making process. It is also clear, however, that such views seem most appropriate to the conditions of the Cold War and do not happily encompass the processes of change and development which were already apparent in the Cold War period itself but which have become much more prominent with its demise. We now discuss a number of these processes, and then look at the ways in which these have generated new approaches to the study of foreign policy.

A transformed world

One of the most common descriptive labels of world politics in recent years has been that of transformation (Held et al., 1999). In this section, we discuss a number of the far-reaching processes of change that have been identified in global affairs and link them to the ideas about foreign policy outlined earlier.

An important point must be made at the outset. Although the period from the late 1980s on has frequently been presented as constituting ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Contributors
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• Map
• Publisher's Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part 1 Frameworks
• Part 2 Case Studies
• Part 3 Conclusion
• Glossary
• Index