Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective

Domestic and International Influences on State Behavior

Ryan K. Beasley, Juliet Kaarbo, Jeffrey S. Lantis, Michael T. Snarr

• Publisher: CQ Press
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781452289090
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politik & Internationale Beziehungen
• Subtopic: Internationale Beziehungen

Widely regarded as the most comprehensive comparative foreign policy text, Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective has been completely updated in this much-anticipated second edition. The editors have brought together fifteen top scholars to highlight the importance of both internal and external forces in foreign policymaking. Exploring the foreign policies of thirteen nations—both major and emerging players, and representing all regions of the world—chapter authors link the study of international relations to domestic politics, while treating each nation according to individual histories and contemporary dilemmas.

The book?s accessible theoretical framework is designed to enable comparative analysis, helping students discern patterns to understand why a state acts as it does in foreign affairs. Each of the thirteen country chapters includes: an introduction by the editors to highlight similar developments in other countries; a discussion of the linkages between internal and external factors and implications for the future; coverage of key foreign policy issues; a map to provide geographical context; and a list of suggested readings.

Chapter 1 The Analysis of Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective

Juliet Kaarbo

Jeffrey S. Lantis

Ryan K. Beasley

Recent and far-reaching changes in the world present a challenge to leaders who make foreign policy, as well as to those who study foreign policy. Consider the changes in global politics that have occurred in the past few decades. The world has transformed from one in which the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, were the primary players in an international drama dominated by military tensions, to something very different. European countries have moved toward greater political and economic integration, and new powers have emerged in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. We have also seen new transnational challenges arise, such as climate change and terrorism.

New means of interdependence have also emerged—from the Internet to satellite communications technology to global financial networks. These changes reflect broad pressures for globalization and economic liberalization. As a result more economies are opening up and becoming connected across country borders. Pressures for democratization are also sweeping the world, as witnessed by the revolutions of the “Arab Spring” of 2011. New groups inside countries are demanding a voice in governance or are competing with governments for representation. Outside of countries, organizations such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and Amnesty International argue that a state's internal affairs and human rights records are legitimate concerns of the international community. These and other events in recent years have significantly transformed international relations and domestic politics.

Although some countries and leaders today are facing an identity crisis, actions of the sovereign state remain critical to shaping global politics. They can define the level of a country's engagement with the world, economic liberalization and trade, as well as war or peace with other countries. Thus, this book adopts as its focus states’ foreign policies in the context of contemporary internal and external developments.

Studying Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective

It is precisely because states are experiencing challenges and transformations both internally and externally that the analysis of foreign policy is important. Foreign policy analysis as a distinct area of inquiry connects the study of international relations (the way states relate to each other in international politics) with the study of domestic politics (the functioning of governments and the relationships among individuals, groups, and governments). Most theories of international relations are primarily concerned with state behavior, but some include discussions of foreign policy. Theories of domestic politics, found in the study of U.S. politics and in the study of comparative politics, share this attention to internal factors. These theories tend to explain the functioning of the state or political system and the domestic policies that are chosen and rarely comment on the effects of internal politics on a state's foreign policies.

Thus, the study of foreign policy serves as a bridge by analyzing the impact of both external and internal politics on states’ relations with each other. Leaders cannot forge effective foreign policies without being aware of these connections; students cannot effectively evaluate foreign policy choices without recognizing these linkages.

Defining Foreign Policy

The first step in a comparative investigation of foreign policy is to define what we mean by foreign policy. This also raises issues concerning how foreign policy is studied and how it may be changing. We begin with the first term: “foreign.” We typically make the distinction between foreign policy and domestic policy. “Foreign” is meant to apply to policy toward the world outside states’ territorial borders, and “domestic” is meant to apply to policy made for the internal political system. Going to war with another country, signing an international trade agreement, or aiding a rebel insurgency in another country are examples of foreign policy. Taxes, education standards, and civil rights are examples of domestic policy.

In the recent past, this distinction between foreign and domestic policy was easier to make, but contemporary politics and globalization have blurred the line between what is foreign and what is domestic. For example, the revolutionary uprising in Libya that threatened the rule of authoritarian leader Moammar Gadhafi in early 2011 began as a domestic issue. Antigovernment protestors launched a rebellion in the eastern part of Libya, and Gadhafi's forces responded with a military crackdown. However, as reports of vicious attacks against the rebels and civilians circulated throughout the media, social networks, and blogs, western governments re-framed the civil war as a humanitarian crisis demanding international response. The United Nations Security Council voted to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, and members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and a few Arab states launched airstrikes to protect civilians. By mid-2011, countries like the United States and Germany were engaged in delivery of humanitarian supplies, while Italy and France deployed military advisors to assist the rebels in the civil war. What began as a domestic uprising quickly became a foreign policy issue for Libya and many other countries in the world.

Another example of this blurring between foreign and domestic issues can be found in comparative public policy, a subject area that may seem less dramatic than war, but potentially can be equally, or more dangerous to public health. Government safety standards for food are typically aimed at the citizens of a country, but they also shape the amount and type of foods exporting countries produce. When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an alert regarding Melamine—a chemical used in the manufacturing of food items like dairy products and even baby formula—Chinese exports to the United States were adversely affected. So, when countries make domestic policies that have the effect of changing the interactions between states, the line defining international and domestic policy making is unclear. Today's economic interdependence means more policies have consequences inside and outside state borders.

This does not mean that there is no longer a difference between foreign and domestic policy, and a distinction can be made based on the intended target of the policy. If the primary target lies outside the country's borders, it is considered foreign policy, even if it has secondary consequences for politics inside the country. Similarly, if the primary target is inside the country, it is considered domestic policy, even if it affects others outside the country's borders. If the intention of new economic policy is to alter the trade balance with another country by placing restrictions on imports, we consider that foreign policy. Many policies, of course, have multiple targets. Ensuring clean air for a country's domestic population and limited imports from foreign automobile competitors might be equally important in the design of the environmental policy, for example. In such cases, a single policy can be both foreign and domestic. It should be clear from our discussion that the targets of foreign policy are not limited to other countries. Foreign policy may be targeted at specific individuals such as a particular leader, nonstate actors such as international organizations, human rights groups working across borders, multinational corporations, terrorist groups, other states, the international environment, or the global economy.

Another difficulty in distinguishing foreign from domestic policy concerns the status of territorial borders. Many states’ borders are in dispute. Part of a country, like the Catalan region of Spain, may be attempting to establish its independence but has only partial control in running its own affairs. Meanwhile, the rest of the country is engaged in suppression of its attempt at secession and independence. In this case, is Spain's policy toward a group seeking self-determination foreign or domestic policy? In some ways, it depends on your point of view. If you are part of the group claiming independence, as are the citizens of the region of Catalan (some 15% of Spain's population), you see the country acting across a border that you have defined and thus it is foreign policy. If you are the leader of the government of Spain, you deny this independence and see the situation as strictly an internal, domestic affair.

For such cases, we tend to rely on the judgment of the international community to distinguish foreign policy from domestic policy. If most other countries have recognized the breakaway region as independent, the relations between it and the country are perceived as foreign policy. Although in some cases it is clear what the judgment of the international community is, in others it is not. The issue of how much a country actually controls its borders is of extreme importance in states that are so weak internally that rival factions control different parts of the territory. Such “failed” countries, or countries that are sovereign only in international legal terms, have become part of the twenty-first century international landscape and raise further questions regarding the distinction between foreign and domestic policy.¹

Now that we have defined foreign, let us further clarify the term “policy.” This is a broad term, representing a whole range of activities and/or subjects. It can include specific decisions to sign a treaty on climate change, for example, and general guidelines to support initiatives to address global warming. Policy can include observable behaviors by countries, such as the Australian commitment of troops to Afghanistan, or verbal pronouncements that do not necessarily lead to follow-up action, such as Turkey's condemnation of Israeli foreign policy toward the Palestinians. As you can see, foreign policy is not limited to military or security policy. It also includes such areas as foreign economic policy, international environmental policy, and human rights policy.

Who makes policy? The answer to this question is also an important part of the definition of “foreign policy.” Policies are typically thought of as the product of governments, and thus governments are the “actors.” Other players whose actions are intended to influence targets outside a country's borders may also be foreign policy actors. For example, businesses may market their products in other countries. Multinational corporations are businesses that are owned by interests in various countries or divide their production across country borders. International organizations, such as the United Nations, act across borders. By traveling to foreign countries, you may be supporting their economies and interacting with foreign nationals. Although these actions are certainly “foreign,” and are an increasingly significant part of international politics, we rarely consider them “policy.” Instead, the term “policy” is typically reserved for the actions of governments, government institutions, and government officials. Hereafter, when we refer to “countries” or “states” in a discussion of foreign policy, we are referring to the governments or their officials that are acting in their name.

Comparing Foreign Policies

This book focuses on analysis, or explanation of foreign policy. To begin such an inquiry, one must ask why a state makes certain decisions in foreign affairs and how the foreign policy may have developed from these decisions. We then use this information to look for understandable patterns—across time, space, and issues—in order to formulate or test explanations of foreign policy. In other words, we assume that at least some of the same reasons behind Catherine the Great's Russian foreign policy in the eighteenth century might influence Dimitry Medvedev's Russian foreign policy in the twenty-first century; some of the same motivations for India's border conflict with China can perhaps be found in Argentina's decision to start a war with Great Britain; and some of the same factors affecting France's nuclear policy are useful for understanding French foreign policy toward Senegal and Mauritania.

In the search for regular and identifiable patterns, the field of foreign policy analysis rejects the view that every event is completely unique. Finding patterns is important to reach the end goal of a general understanding and an increased capability for prediction. In other words, we seek to explain the factors that influence not just a specific policy, but state behavior generally because general knowledge can be used to anticipate future action. If we know the factors that shape decisions for war, we are better able to predict, control, and possibly even prevent future international conflicts.

This is not to say that we assume all states’ foreign policies can be explained in exactly the same way. In order to discover similarities and differences across foreign policies, we use the “comparative method.” The ...