Chapter Two: Understanding Foreign Policy and Diplomacy PDF

## Chapter Two: Understanding Foreign Policy and Diplomacy ### Introduction Foreign policy of a state is the actions, decisions and goals that states pursue towards the outside world. It is shaped by both external/systemic factors and internal factors. International regimes, international organiza...

## Chapter Two: Understanding Foreign Policy and Diplomacy ### Introduction Foreign policy of a state is the actions, decisions and goals that states pursue towards the outside world. It is shaped by both external/systemic factors and internal factors. International regimes, international organizations, the prevalence of great powers at international level are some of systemic factors that im pin ges on the foreign policy of a state. Internally, the economic, technological and military capabilities of states heavily affect foreign policy. On top of these, the idiosyncrasy of leaders contributes much in affecting the foreign policy making and implementation of a country. In this manner, it is important to understand the deriving motives behind foreign policy, viz., the pursuit of national interest. States adopt foreign policy to achieve and promote their national interests often defined as the short term, medium term and long term goals. To this end, states establish diplomatic relations and contacts and use different tactics to protect, often to maximize, their national interest. In this chapter attempt has been made to examine the debates on national interest and foreign policy, patterns and instruments of foreign policy, and finally an overview of Ethiopia's foreign policy. ### Objectives Upon completing this unit, students will be able to: * Acquaint themselves with the debates on national interest * Appreciate different patterns of foreign policy behavior * Understand the different tactics and instruments of foreign policy * Analyze how power or capabilities influence foreign policy decisions and behavior * Critically examine the foreign policy determinants of Ethiopia under successive regimes ### Brainstorming Exercise Have you ever thought about national interest? If so what do you think it is? As a citizen have you ever participated in setting the national interest of your country? If 80 explain how? What are its characteristics and whose interest is represented in it? ### Global Affairs Module 2.1. Defining National Interest National interest is the raison de'tat, (the reason of state), to justify its actions and policy towards other states at international level. National interest refers to set of values, orientation, goals and objectives a given country would like to achieve in its international relations. It has been the main driving force that determines the contents of foreign policy. However, there are controversies on the exact meaning, scope and contents of national interests. So, this section is devoted to examining the meaning and debates of national interest. It also discusses realist and idealist interpretations of national interest. A. K. Holsti, a prolific writer on the topic, defines national interest as "an image of the future state of affairs and future set of conditions that governments through individual policy makers aspire to bring about by wielding influence abroad and by changing or sustaining the behaviors of other states" (139). I his implies that national interest is something related to the ambition of governments, viz., what governments aspire to full fill in its future interaction with others. Holisti als0 underlined on the means that states employ to realize their future ambitions. Power or the ability to influence the behaviors of other states is underscored as the primary instrument to implement national interest. Another scholar that provided normative and descriptive definitions of national interest is Seabury. In the normative sense, national interest is related to "...set of purposes which a nation... should seek to realize in the conduct of its foreign relations". In the descriptive sense as well, national interest may be regarded, "as those purposes which the nation (states] through its leadership appears to pursue persistently over time" (Seabry cited in Holisti). However, there is a major division of opinion in the field of international relations regarding whether national interest can be defined objectively or whether it is a subjective enterprise, viz., an art. This debate on whether national interest is a science or and art can be traced as far back to Plato's philosophy. For Plato, the good of the polis (that is the public good) could best be arrived at by philosopher king aided by a few highly learned, detached and fair-minded advisors. These individuals could make wise and well informed decisions regarding the common good without accounting for the yearnings of lesser-minds or accommodating selfish and sectarian pressures. The basic assumptions of this thought include: (1) that wise and well informed decisions can be made by a Global Affairs Module few carefully selected individuals who have been expressly trained to think in terms of the collective good of the state; (2) that these few individuals, who possess awesome and unchecked power, will not be corrupted by this power; and (3) that once socially optimal decisions have been made, they can be implemented effectively by loyal, well trained, and obedient bureaucracies. More often, Plato's ideas have been used as the inspiration for dictatorial forms of government. Dictatorial or Authoritarian governments assume that they should emphasize substance and wisdom of policies rather than procedural issues such as public debate, consultation, participation and criticism. Defenders of such regimes believe that one person with strength, wisdom, knowledge, and, above all, power can make good decisions than participatory decision making (Columbis & Wolfe 1981:74) Io further complicate the problem of identifying national interest, foreign policy decision is not necessarily a clear-cut and rational process. Policies are often generated through great internal political and bureaucratic debates. Multiple conflicting criteria compete for priority in the minds of the decision maker as they shape the contents of national interest. Scholars in the field point out that often official statement made for purpose of propaganda and public consumption cloud the picture and prevent the analyst from identifying the real motives of state action. Colmbis has provided a multiplicity of criteria used in defining national interest, including "operational philosophy, moral and legal criteria, pragmatic criteria, ideological criteria, professional advancement, partisan criteria, bureaucratic-interest criteria, ethnic/racial criteria, class-status criteria and foreign - dependency criteria" (1984: 82-87). ### Activity: Discuss in groups whether national interest is a subjective or an objective concept, whether it is static or dynamic? What are the criteria's used to determine the national interest of states? ### Operational Philosophy Depending on time, location, your orientation toward the world around you, and in particular the action of your predecessors, you may choose one of two major style of operation. First, act in a bold and sweeping fashion. Up on taking office, introduce major new practices, policies, and institutions and discontinue others. This style is often referred to as synoptic in the decision Global Affairs Module making literature. The decision maker with synoptic orientation assumes that he/she has enough information about an important issue to develop a major policy with some confidence that its consequence can be predicted or controlled. The second major style of operation is to act in caution, probing, and experimental fashion, following the trial and error approach. This style is called incremental in the decision making literature. The decision maker in an incremental orientation assumes that political and economic problems are too complex to proceed with bold initiative without worrying about their consequence. Thus the incrementalist usually seeks to perfect existing legislations, policies, institutions and practices. ### Ideological Criteria Most of the time, governments employ ideological criteria and establish their relations on the basis of that criteria. They may identify their friends or enemies countries using the litmus test of ideology. During cold war, the ideology of communism and capitalism had been often used to establish cooperation or conflict with countries. Hence, national interest may be shaped by underlying ideological orientations of the regime in power. ### Moral and Legal Criteria On the other hand, sometimes states are expected to act morally as this is equated with acting honestly and making your public decision accordingly. Thus moral behavior, in international politics involves keeping your promise-treaties, living and letting others live (the poor and the disadvantaged), avoiding exploitation and uneven development between the developing countries and the developed ones; and generally standing up for the principles to which you are morally committed and that are widely accepted in your culture. Acting legally means, abiding by the rules of international law to the extent that such rules are identified and accepted. If there are lacunas, areas where no international regimes have been developed, then you act in a general sprit of equity and justice. ### Pragmatic Criteria As pragmatist, your orientation is low key, matter of fact, not on emotions and professions. You look at issues and events around you and the world with sense of prudence and with sort of rationality. On the basis of the scientific analysis of cost and benefit or merit and demerit to your country interest, you may act. Here, your decisions are made without considering normative Global Affairs Module issues, issues that involves judgment, be it bad or good. So the practical utility of merit of your action will be counted other than morality and personal sentiments. ### Professional Advancement Criteria In this case, your action may be manipulated and adjusted in consideration of your professional survival and growth, in short your personal success. Quite often, in large bureaucracies that lack good governance the trick to success is to "play the game" and "not to rock the boat." This attitude has been referred to cynically as the "go along to get along" effect. So, bureaucratic behavior is conformist behavior that is marked strong resistance to new policies and thinking. Even leaders might choose conformity to either to popular pressure or to strong elites whose support they consider indispensable for their political survival. ### Partisan Criteria Here you tend to equate the survival and the success of your political party, or ethnic or religious origin with the survival and success of your country. In similar fashion, you may use bureaucratic criteria to prioritize the policy issues. You may tend to equate the interest of your organization (the army, the foreign office, and so forth) with the national interest. Given limited budgetary resources, battles among different offices for more budget allocation might be waged. ### Foreign Dependency Criteria These criteria usually applies to less developing countries, who had fallen under the yoke of colonialism, and now, even after political independence, kept the colonial ties with their exmasters intact. These countries are still dependent on their ex-colonial states for technical aid, expertise and technology, sometimes even for their security. Governments in these countries are therefore heavily dependent on the support of the outside powers, sometimes, for their survival. As a result of this state of dependency, the less developing countries face difficulties to defend and promote their national interest. Looking at these conflicting criteria, one can conclude that national interest is not a purely scientific endeavor that results in optimal advantage for states. On the contrary, determination of national interest appears to be a product of conflicting wills ambitions, motivations, needs, and demands. ### Activity: Discuss in groups whether there is any single superior criterion for determining national interest of states? Explain how? ### Global Affairs Module However, realist international scholars reject the ideological, legal and moral criteria to define and shape the contents of national interest. Realist scholars, particularly, Hans Morgenthau advised leaders to prioritize pragmatic criteria when defining national interest and employing foreign policy. Morgenthau defines national interest in terms of pursuits of power. And power is about establishing control or influencing the behaviors of others, either diplomatically or use of coercion. In anarchical international system, power for him is a means for achieving and promoting the interest of state. International politics is a struggle among states and thus the prime interest of state is survival and security among other things. So, national interest in the competitive and anarchical international environment should be objectively defined in terms of ensuring survival and security of a state, than talking about justice and morality. Morgenthau emphatically argues that pragmatism and practical necessity should be the guiding principle, than any le gal, ideological or moral criteria, of foreign policy of state. Morgenthau also warns leaders of states to be cautious enough in calculating the range and scope of their countries national interest. The scope of national interest and their foreign policy should be proportional to their capabilities. 80, prudence should be the virtue of leaders, if there is virtue and morality; otherwise miscalculations and moral and ideological visions might lead to chaos and destruction. A good diplomat according to Morgenthau is a rational diplomat and a rational diplomat is a prudent diplomat. Prudence is the ability to assess one's needs and aspirations while carefully balancing them against the needs and aspirations of others. On the other hand, idealists have strong belief in the relevance of le gal, ideological and moral elements which realists fail to recognize as the constitutin g elements of national interest. They don't see legal and moral factors apart from the so called "reality". According to this view, specific actions and objective of foreign policy have often been derived from general moral and legal guidelines and principles. Even such policies as the formation of alliance, declaration of war, covert foreign intervention, humanitarian intervention, foreign aid and others have always been justified on moral and legal grounds. So, national interest reflects the marriage of different criteria that include legal and moral criteria, ideological criteria and prudence or pragmatism practical necessities on the ground. ### Realists, however, fail to recognize and prescribe solutions for addressing global problems because of the exclusive emphasis given to state and national interest. Idealists believe on the prevalence of common problems of human beings as, environmental pollution, ecological imbalance, depletion of resource, population growth, poverty, war, arms race, uneven development and the north-south gap...etc. Cognizant of such cross-cutting issues, idealists call for global solutions than local (national) solutions. The establishment of new institutions with global orientation may play vital role in addressing global problems, instead of the state-centric particularism. States could no longer be viable actors in addressing cross-cutting problems by themselves. Brainstorming Exercise: Think of your country and imagine how foreign policy is made. What possible processes, actors and interests are involved in making them? ### 2.2. Understanding Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Behaviors Foreign policy refers to the sets of objectives and instruments that a state adopts to guide its relation with the outside world. The objectives of foreign policy which a state wants to achieve are in one way or another related to national interest. So, national interest is often considered as the objectives of foreign policy of a state. And these objectives can be classified as long range, middle range and short range. The scope and content of foreign policy of a state is often determined by the capabilities of the concerned state. As the capabilities of states vary across the board, the foreign policy orientation, percepts, visions as well as the instruments varies as well. Despite this, however, one can still identify certain patterns of foreign policy behavior. So, this section is devoted to examine the meaning and foreign policy objectives of a state. It touches up on the three dimensions of foreign policy patterns such as scope, alignment and methods of operation at skin-depth level. ### Activity: How do you analyze US military presence in Afghanistan using realist and idealist perspectives of national interest? ### Global Affairs Module 2.2.1. Defining Foreign Policy Foreign policy is something that a state would like to achieve in its external relations with others. It involves the general purposes and specific strategies a state employs to achieve or promote its national interest. According to Rochester, foreign policy refers to "the set of priorities and percepts established by national leaders to serve as guidelines for choosing among various courses of action in specific situations in international affairs" (p111). The foreign policy thus involves general purposes, priority of goals to be realized and achieved. It also encompa8808 specific strategies and instruments, economic and diplomatic tools that states employ to achieve their objectives. These objectives, visions and goals state aspire to achieve is commonly referred as national interest. All states would like to promote their national interest as their capability or power allows them to do. Morgenthau suggests that the minimum goal a state would like to achieve is survival. Every state should protect their physical, political, and cultural identities against any encroachment by other states. Translated into more specific objectives, the preservation of physical identity is equated with the maintenance of the territorial integrity of a state. Preservation of political identity is equated with the preservation of existing politico-economic systems. And the preservation of cultural identity is equated with ethnic, religious, and linguistic and historical norms of the peoples residing in the state (Columbis: 78). Foreign policy also involves specific instruments and tactics that must be employed to realize those objectives and goals. The most widely employed instruments include, diplomatic bargaining, economic instruments, propaganda, terrorism (sabotage), and use of force (war). Each instrument is used to affect the behaviors of other states, and has an element of power. In diplomacy, states attempt to affect the behavior of others through bargaining that involves less element of power as compared to other instruments. Yet states may manipulate carrot and stick methods such as reward or threats so as to induce agreement whenever there appears to be incompatible goals and objectives. Security and survival of a state, as explained above, has always been considered as the first priority, among various foreign policy objectives, which a state aspires to achieve in the short run. In this regard, K. I. Holisti (138-160) categorizes the foreign policy objectives of states into Global Affairs Module three, namely the short range, middle ranges and long range objectives. Let us, then, take up the foreign policy objectives in the following section. ### Activity: Discuss in groups and present your reflection to the class as to what constitutes the foreign policy priorities of states? Why? Assume that you are involved in the decision making and implementation process of foreign policy, which criteria are you willing to prioritize? ### 2.2.2. Foreign Policy Objectives Foreign policy, just like any policy, sets short term, middle term and long term goals and objectives to be achieved in proportion to a state's capability. Such classifications of foreign policy objectives is based on the combination of the three criteria:(1) the value placed on the objective; (2) the time element placed on its achievement; and (3) the kind of demands the objective imposes on other states in international system. Based on these criteria, the objectives can be classified as: (1) core values and interests, to which states commit their very existence and that must be preserved or extended at all time; (2) middle range goals, which normally impose demands on several others states (commitments to their achievement are serious and time limit is also attached to them); and (3) universal long range goals-which seldom have definite time limits. In practice leaders rarely place the highest value on long range goals and it's very much dependent on the capability and ideology of the state. ### Core Interests and Values (Short Range Objectives) Core values and interests can be described as those kinds of goals for which most people are willing to make ultimate sacrifices. They are usually stated in the form of basic principles of foreign policy and become article of faith that society accepts without any questioning it. So core interests are sacrosanct by entire peoples residing in the state. Core interests and values are most frequently related to the self preservation of political and economic systems, the people and its culture, and the territorial integrity of a state. These are short-range objectives because others goals cannot be realized if the existence of the state and its political units are not ensured. The exact definition of core value or interest in any given country depends on the attitudes of those who make foreign policy. Some governments place great values on controlling or defending neighboring territories, because these area contain asset such as man power and resources that can increase the capabilities, or because they believe that the major threat for their Global Affairs Module territorial integrity might materialize through adjacent countries and then conquering the part or whole of neighboring countries might be considered as the core interests of states. These have been the underlying reason behind colonialism-a belief that direct acquisition of foreign soil and people will help to bolster the capability and economic needs-national interest-of the colonial power. Still to day countries such as Israel and the United States pursue such policies called extraterritoriality. Extraterritoriality is there when the national interest and claims of a country is projected beyond the limit of its geographic boundary. Israel, although, did not publicly state that it had a major objective of expanding its territories at the expense of Arab states, its military actions, wars with Arab countries, had demonstrated its intentions. Israel has always considered those areas and territories it had conquered through its successive military succe88 08 strategically favorable frontiers to be a core value related to national survival. States may think that their national interest is at risk when the interests and security of citizens, or kin ethnic or religious groups living in the neighboring states and other states are threatened. So, liberating or protecting the interests of such individuals and groups might be considered as part of its core national interest. Nevertheless, the most essential objective of any foreign policy, core interests and values, is to ensure the sovereignty and independence of the home territory and to perpetuate a particular political, social, and economic systems based on that territory ### Middle Range Objectives Unlike, the short range objective, the middle range objectives drastically varies across states. The variation is obviously due to the difference in the level of economic and technological progress, as well as the military capability, the middle range objectives of states. Yet it can be said that the bottom point that a state would like to achieve in its medium term is to take a course of actions that have the highest impact on the domestic economic and welfare needs and expectation. This would include the attempts of government to meet economic-betterment demands and needs through international action. Social welfare and economic development, ca not be achieved through self-help, as most states have only limited resources, administrative services, and technical skills. Interdependence means that to satisfy domestic needs and aspirations, states would have to interact with others. Frade, foreign aid, access to communication facilities, sources of supply, and foreign market are for most states necessary for increasing social welfare. Global Affairs Module it can be argued that with the very great demands people have placed on governments to provide them jobs, income, recreation, medical services, and general security, government increasingly have to develop policies to satisfy expectations of face political defeat. In these circumstances, it may be difficult to gain much public support for other type of objectives, such as glory, territorial expansion, or power for its own sake. Hence, the primary commitment of governments must be to pursue those course of action that have the highest impact on domestic economic and welfare needs of its people. ### Long- Range Objectives Long range goals are those plans, dreams, and visions concerning the ultimate political or ideological organization of the international system, and rules governing relations in that system. The difference between middle-range and long range goals relates not only to different time elements inherent in them; there is also a significant difference in scope. In pressing for middle range goals, states make particular demands against particular interest; in pursuinglong range goals, states normally make universal demands, for their purpose is no less than to reconstruct an entire international system according to a universally applicable plan or vision. Here it must be noted that such long range visions and dreams may have international repercussions as far as they are complemented by the capabilities and powers; otherwise the long range visions will not have any international significance beyond paper consumption and rhetoric level. This, however, doesn't necessarily imply that states that are less capable, often those middle powers and less developing countries, does not formulate long range objective. Every country has its own visions and ambition proportional to its relative strength and capabilities to be realized in the long run. ### 2.2.3. Foreign Policy Behavior: Patterns and Frends Foreign policy behavior refers to the actions states take towards each other. It is important to note that these actions usually are not as ends in themselves, but are tied in some way with larger purposes, from long range objectives to short term objectives that leaders hope to achieve in their Activities: What do you think distinguishes foreign policy objectives into short range, medium and long range? Do you think that such distinctions are relevant? In light of practical circumstances explain how this is necessary. Global Affairs Module dealings with other countries. The nature of foreign policy is such that one can expect to find double standards and inconsistencies in the records of all countries. It is not easy to label countries as simply peace loving or war-like or to use other such categorizations. Nevertheless, patterns of foreign policy behavior can be identified. Arnold Wolfers, a famous specialist in the field of International Relations, suggested that all foreign policy behavior ultimately boils down to three possible patterns: (1) self-preservation (maintaining the status quo); (2) self-extension (revising the status quo in one's own favor); self-abnegation (revising the status quo in some else'8 favor). Seen from the above perspective, the foreign policy patterns of countries such as United States can be categorized as self-preservation. United States, following second world emerged as one of the strongest actor, super power in international relations. One can say, with no doubt, that the international institutions (IMF, World Bank, GAII/WIO) that were established following Second World War have been strongly shaped by United States. The underlying philosophy of such institutions, and even the decision making procedures are all shaped to serve the global interests the country. Even the United Nations has been serving the interest of United State as the country has key position in the Security Council as one of Veto power among the few. Cognizance of all the advantages that accrue from the existing international system and international economic order, U.S has become the staunch supporter of the international order. Any attempt to reform the international system and the politico-economic order will face strong criticisms, if not threat or use force, and sanctions. These days U.S has become the sole defender of the international system and the liberal economic-political order after the collapse of USSR and decline of communist ideology. On the other hand newly emerging powers such as China, India, Brazil, Germany and others are competing to restructure the international institutions and different regimes so as to create enabling environment to promote their national interest. Such policy trend can be equated with Wolfers' model of self-extension. The third model, i.e. self-abnegation reflects the foreign policy trends that are being displayed in Less Developing Countries (LDC). This can be seen in the weak states of the world which fail to defend and promote their national interests in their external relations. States that are weak and very much dependent on foreign aid are profoundly caught with many problems in order to Global Affairs Module pursue an autonomous policy. Such countries may succumb to such challenges and compromise its long lasting national interest for temporary and immediate benefits. ### Activity: Discuss in groups as to which foreign policy behavior do the BRICS are promoting and why? ### 2.2.4. Foreign Policy Dimensions The analysis of foreign policy behavior can also be done along a number of specific dimensions, keeping in mind that behavior can change over time and with different style of leaderships and circumstances. These dimensions include alignment, scope and modus operandi. A brief discussion of specific foreign policy behaviors in light of these dimensions would be illustrative. ### Alignment One can first speak of alignment tendencies, in particular whether national leaders choose to ally with certain countries or to remain neutral. The focus here is not to discuss the alignment configuration at international level as in the form of bi-polarity or multi-polarity but we are discussing the alignment decisions of individual states or governments. A country's alignment behavior can vary from time to time during its history in response to changing circumstances and policy decisions. Yet one can identify the alignment tendencies such as alliance, neutrality and non-alignment. Alliances are formal agreements to provide mutual military assistance; as such, they carry legal weight and certain benefits as well as risks. Allied countries can pool their military resources, acquire access to foreign bases and stake out territories that enemies are on notice will be denied them by force if necessary. Yet an alliance state also risks interference by allies in its domestic affairs, the possibility being dragged. Neutrality is a stance of formal non partisanship in world affairs. By keeping a low profile, neutrals may avoid some of the problems associated with alliances, particularly the generating of potential enemies and counter alliances. However neutrals must also be aware that if war clouds gather, there may be no one committed to providing a protective military umbrella. Switzerland is one country that has carried neutrality to an extreme case in refusing membership to United Nations till 2002. While the term alignment as used above refers to formal agreement on Global Affairs Module alliances or neutrality, it can also describe the general affective orientation of a country, i.e., which state or states tend to side with on key issues, countries can tilt towards one side or another in some strategic issues without necessarily becoming part of formal alliance. For example, Israel, which is not a formal ally of U.S, has sided with the United States on many issues. Nonalignment has been the foreign policy pattern of most developing state during cold war. Most developing countries had a movement-Non Alignment Movement (NAM) in which they called for a new foreign policy path/choice/ to be followed disregarding the both the West and East bloc politics and alliances. Although that was practically impossible, NAM had noble agenda that called for the South-south cooperation. ### Activity: Distinguish between the three patterns of alignment of states. What determines states' pattern of alignment in their foreign policy behavior? ### Scope A second foreign policy dimension is the scope of a country's activities and interests. Some countries have extensive, far-reaching international contacts, while other countries have more limited activities abroad. A country's scope of contact can affect the outcome of disputes and crises. With regards to the scope of activities a state has in international relations, one can identify at least three patterns of foreign policy behaviors. Some actors act in Global terms, others as Regional terms, and those that follow policy of Isolationism. Major Powers in international relations have historically been those that have defined their interest in global terms, interacting regularly with countries in nearly every region of the world. A country such as U.S.A has often defined its national interest in global terms, and it has more or less the wherewithal and the capability to influence world events. Despite it has been declining in economic terms, the country's military presence and diplomatic communication in every part of the world make her global actor. Most countries in the world are essentially regional actors, interacting primarily with neighboring states in the same geographical area except for contacts, frequently concerning economic issues such as trade; with major actors like United States and China outside their Global Affairs Module region. For example, South Africa is a regional actor in Africa in general and in Southern Africa in Particular. It is the most important actor in regional organizations such as SADDIC and AU. India can also be considered as the most important actor in South Asian region, so is China in entire Asia. China's activities is not limited to Asia only, the country presence is well felt in every region of the world, and China is the best candidate to assume global responsibility and leadership. In recognition to this fact, America is doing everything to contain Chinese economic progress and hence its role in the world. It must be noted that China has hugely engaged itself in extraction activities and related investment in Africa. Some moments in history, such as key weakness or geographic remoteness, may cause the scope of a country's foreign policy to become so narrow that isolationism results. This was the case with Burma in 1960 and 708. Few countries have ever been totally cut off from the outside world, and in an age of interdependence, isolationism becomes an increasingly less viable foreign policy orientation. Some of the known global actors such as United States of America, China, and the ex-USSR all have passed through period of relative isolationism and of mainly regional interests, finally branching out in to global concerns. ### Activity: Examine the distinction between the three patterns of foreign policy behavior based on scope? What causes a state to behave particular manner? Discuss in groups. ### Mode of Operation/"Modus Opernadi" In addition to the alignment and scope dimensions of a country's foreign policy, we can also identify certain patterns of foreign policy behaviors on the basis of the modus operandi-the method of operation. Some countries often rely on multilateral institutions to address different issues. Still others very much rely on unilateral means. They may choose to solve the problems by themselves. The more multilateralist a state is, the greater its tendency to seek solutions to problems through diplomatic forums in which several states participate, such as the United Nations, rather than utilizing purely bilateral, country to country approaches. Most developing countries used the multilateral approaches to address many issues of concern. The multilateral forum would enhance collective barraging power of these countries vis-a-vis other developed countries. In addition, establishing bilateral relations (establishing Embassies and assigning diplomatic staffs) are often found to be costly. Regardless of the power and capability question, Global Affairs Module countries may opt to use multilateral frameworks as the best strategy to address issues with the spirit of cooperation and peace. Germany, though it is an economic power, is known to be multilateralist in its external relation. Most of Scandinavian countries fall under this category. Whereas countries may opt to rely on unilateral means of settling different issues with other countries that have strong economic and military muscles they would prefer this approach to settle problems. They play the carrot and stick diplomacy to affect the outcomes of events. Intervention, threat of use of force and some time, use of force....are some of the tactics that will be employed to influence the behaviors of others. The more unilateral a state is the more likely to initiate actions in international relations or to resist initiatives taken by others (Rochester; p118). ### 2.2.5. Instruments of Foreign Policy Brainstorming Exercise: Assume that you are a diplomat representing your country in the United States of America. What possible range of activities do you think you will conduct? ### Diplomacy Diplomacy has probably existed for as long as civilization has. The easiest way to understand it is to start by seeing it as a system of structured communication between two or more parties. Records of regular contact via envoys travelling between neighboring civilizations date back at least 2500 years. They lacked many of the characteristics and commonalities of modern diplomacy such as embassies, international law and professional diplomatic services. Yet, it should be underlined that political communities, however they may have been organized, have usually found ways to communicate during peacetime, and have established a wide range of practices for doing so. The benefits are clear when you consider that diplomacy can promote exchanges that enhance trade, culture, wealth and knowledge. Diplomacy can be defined as a process between actors (diplomats, usually representing a state) who exist within a system (international relations) and engage in private and public dialogue Activities: Define and differentiate between the patterns of alliances, scope and 'modus operandi' Do you think that these foreign policy dimensions affect the nature and structure of international system? Why? Global Affairs Module (diplomacy) to pursue their objectives in a peaceful manner. Diplomacy is not foreign policy and must be distinguished from it. It may be helpful to perceive diplomacy as part of foreign policy. When a nation-state makes foreign policy it does so for its own national interests. And, these interests are shaped by a wide range of factors. In basic terms, a state's foreign policy has two key ingredients; its actions and its strategies for achieving its goals. The interaction one state has with another is considered the act of its foreign policy. This act typically takes place via interactions between government personnel through diplomacy. To interact without diplomacy would typically limit a state's foreign policy actions to conflict (usually war, but also via economic sanctions) or espionage. In that sense, diplomacy is an essential tool required to operate successfully in today's international system. Diplomacy is a complex game of maneuver in which the goal is to influence the behaviors of others in ones interest. In the past diplomacy had been practiced in formalistic and somewhat rigid manner that was limited to the bilateral relations of countries as being represented through the ambassadors hosted in foreign soil. The bargaining process and other diplomatic process, such as exchange of ideas were the business of ambassadors, undertaken under closed and secret manner. Nowadays the nature of diplomacy, its strategy of doing diplomacy has been radically different from the old practices. After WW1 and formation of the League of Nations, the old style of diplomacy has been drastically reformed. There arose multilateral diplomacy, public diplomacy, leader-to-leader (summitry diplomacy) in sharp contrast to secret diplomacy and bilateral diplomacy. Regardless of whether diplomacy is conducted openly or secretly, multilaterally or bilaterally, tacitly or formally, by ambassadors or leader-to-leader, the essence of diplomacy remains bargaining. Bargaining can be defined as a means of settling differences over priorities between contestants through an exchange of proposals for mutually acceptable solutions. There must be conflict over priority in order for bargaining to take place, for if there is total agreement there would be nothing to bargain. Diplomatic bargaining is used primarily to reach agreements, compromises, and settlements where governments objectives conflict. It involves, whether in private meeting or publicized conferences, the attempt to change the policies, actions, attitudes and objectives of other government and their diplomats by persuasion, offering rewards, Global Affairs Module exchange concessions, or making threats. Thus, like any foreign policy instruments, diplomatic bargaining also espouses an element of power or influence. In the modern context then, a system dominated by states, we can reasonably regard diplomacy as something that is being conducted for the most part between states. In fact, the applicable international law that governs diplomacy - the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) - only references states as diplomatic actors. Yet, the modern international system also involves powerful actors that are not states. These tend to be international non-governmental organizations (1NGOs) and international governmental organizations (1GOs). These actors regularly partake in areas of diplomacy and often materially shape outcomes. For example, the United Nations and the European Union (two (GOs) materially shaped diplomacy in the case studies highlighted later in this chapter. And, a range of INGOs such as Greenpeace - have meaningfully advanced progress toward treaties and agreements in important areas tied to the health and progress of humankind such as international environmental negotiations. ### Activity: Assume that you are a diplomat working for the UN. You are asked to mediate an international conflict? How do you mediate the parties that do not want to talk to each other? How do you examine diplomacy as an instrument of maintaining international peace and security? To enable the student to get a sense of what diplomacy is and why it is important to see an example that involves the quest to manage the spread of nuclear weapons. The second half of the twentieth century came to be dominated by conflict between two nuclear-armed superpowers, the United States of America (US) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) - often called the Soviet Union. In this tense climate, diplomacy ensured that few other nation-states developed nuclear weapons. Hence, the diplomatic success in curbing the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a major one, and one that involved non-state as well as nation-state actors. ### Rules of Effective Diplomacy The following are some of the basic rules that diplomats have employed with greater effectiveness over the years: * Be realistic: It is important to have goals that much your ability to achieve them * Global Affairs Module Be careful about what you say. The experienced diplomats plans out and weighs words carefully. * Seek common ground: Dispute begins negotiations; finds common ground ends them successfully. Almost any ne gotiation will involve some concession, so it is important to maintain a degree of flexibility. * Understand the other side: There are several aspects to understanding the other side. One is to appreciate an opponent's perspective