KIPS

Foreign Policy:
Determinants, Decision
Making and Analysis
International Relations
Salman Raza
9/28/2018
Foreign Policy
A set of actions or rules governing the actions of an independent political authority deployed in the
international environment. (Jonathan Paquin, 2018)

Nonetheless, we cannot
hide the fact that the
boundary between foreign
and domestic policies is
increasingly porous in
today’s world. Several issues
that were previously
considered strictly
international now include
domestic policy.
Homegrown terrorism in
Western democracies
where citizens perpetrate
terrorist acts on behalf of
international terrorist
organizations such as the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or al- Qaeda is a case in point.
It led governments to adopt public policies to prevent and to tackle citizens’ radicalization. Conversely,
other issues traditionally perceived as domestic public policy now have obvious international
ramifications, Chinese environmental policies on greenhouse gas emission being an obvious example.

The Goals of foreign Policy

This goal is then considered as timeless, universal and valid for every country under all circumstances.
Depending on their theoretical preferences, analysts consider that foreign policy aims at the stability of
the international system, the accumulation of wealth, the increase in relative power, the maintenance
of leaders in power or the reproduction of national identity. Stephen Krasner, for example, suggests that
foreign policy aims to protect national sovereignty and presumes that “all groups in the society would
support the preservation of territorial and political integrity”

A foreign policy goal stated clearly in a public declaration should indicate four elements: the target,
the direction, the expected outcome and a timescale . For example, a specific foreign policy
objective could be to improve (the direction) the conditions of access to medicines in sub- Saharan
Africa (the target) to combat the spread of HIV (the outcome) in the next decade (the timescale)

Doctrine
A doctrine is a set of beliefs, rules and principles guiding foreign policy. It is a self-imposed coherent
framework that helps a government carry out its mission and objectives in the world. A doctrine is often
but not always summed up in a statement or in an official document to communicate a government’s
priorities and goals to its domestic audience as well as to foreign actors. Doctrines are often assimilated
to the notion of grand strategy, yet they are not limited to great power politics. Canada, for example,
had its “Ax worthy doctrine” in the 1990s, named after its Minister of Foreign Affairs, which emphasized
the need to protect human security through several initiatives such as the campaign to ban anti-
personal landmines.

National Interest
Political leaders often hide behind the notion of national interest the moment they are asked
to specify their foreign policy goals. This behavior allows them to depoliticize foreign policy
and generate some legitimacy. In fact, it is often the political objectives that define the
concept of national interest and not the other way around. As Henry Kissinger commented,
“When you’re asking Americans to die, you have to be able to explain it in terms of the
national interest”. For safeguarding of the national interest, every country sets certain goals
and objectives to be pursued through various policies. American foreign policy which is an
integral part of its overall national policy, aims to achieve the following distinct but inter-
related objectives and accompanying strategies namely

National security/territorial integrity

One of the goals is building sufficient capability to counter foreign aggression and internal
subversion by maintaining well-equipped and well-trained armed forces which are backed
by economic wherewithal, public support and state resources.

Economic wellbeing of the people

One of the goals is improving the quality of life of its citizens through rapid economic
growth based on access to foreign resources and market if needed

Preserving internal harmony/promoting its soft image

One of the goals is promoting its own set of moral/cultural values outside

Ensuring regional/global peace

One of the goals is to ensure the realization of above three. For a super power like USA,
which is technically if not physically, neighbor of every country, maintaining peace in every
region is part of its national interest.

Preservation of its Global Hegemony

USA is trying to maintain its global hegemony including dollar dominance which it has been
enjoying since the fall of its arch rival USSR in 1990. It is under threat less due to internal
weaknesses and more due to changing global power equations. While an economically
emerging China has eroded the economic pre-eminence of the USA and is threatening its
dollar dominance, one of the main pillars of American hegemony, a resurging Russia is
challenging its military supremacy in every theatre of conflict. Thus, to preserve its global
hegemony, it has a set of strategies by utilizing all the diplomatic and other means at its
disposal.

National Security/Territorial Integrity

While direct land attack on mainland USA is next to impossible, they are worried about
international terrorism and nuclear missile attack by any hostile state or non-state actors on
USA or its allies. As such elimination of Global Terrorism including Cyber terrorism and
nuclear proliferation along with missile technology is one of the prime goals of its foreign
policy.
Access to Resources
USA may be self-sufficient in all the resources needed for economic growth, its allies are
dependent on almost all the resources they need in this respect. Ensuring access to these
resources and their safe transportation is thus its prime concern for which USA through its
policy of freedom of global maritime navigation by direct military operations if needed.

Access to Markets
Similar is the case in respect of access to markets to sell its and its allies’ manufactured
products to major and emerging markets and ensuring that its multinational corporations
are free to invest in profitable ventures abroad

Diplomatic Engagement
Just like USA being a super power, USA has the largest global network of embassies; its
ambassadors enjoy a very privileged position in their respective country of accreditation.
Because if its clout they can influence the policy formulation process as well as get extra
concessions from the political elite and executive institutions using carrot and stick
approach

Alliance Building
Co-opting countries sharing the same interests and values as strategic partners against its
potential rivals (China, Russia etc) by concluding partnership agreements in multiple fields

Threat/ Use of Force

Power projection by establishing military bases around the rivals’ territorial soft bellies as
well as maintaining battle-ready warships stationed in the seas.

Resource Denial
Denying access to resources/ technology, markets, sea-lanes to potential rivals through
force or coercion

Hostile Engagement
Engaging them in regional conflicts directly or through proxies, assisting their enemies to
challenge,

Wooing the rivals’ friendly states

Through offer of foreign aid and access to markets and utilizing its clout in the global
institutions

Threatening the rival’s friendly states

To back away from supporting those through denying concessional aid provided directly or
through global institutions, fomenting troubles in their sensitive areas etc.

Poking Soft Bellies

Fomenting trouble in their sensitive regions, backwaters and soft bellies by carrying out
covert terrorist operations
Regime Changes/Support
Changing anti-USA regimes through every means possible but propping up its compliant
regimes how oppressive they may be etc.

Tools of Foreign Policy

Tools of Intelligence and Information
➢ Information and intelligence gathering
➢ Dissemination of information, analysis, and ideas
➢ Dissemination of propaganda and misinformation

Toolsof Diplomacy:
➢ Cultural and scientific exchanges
➢ Offering diplomatic recognition.
➢ Expelling/recalling diplomats.
➢ Holding or withdrawing from diplomatic exchanges and discussions
➢ Joining or withdrawing from negotiations, treaties, summit meetings
➢ Offering or joining alliances, membership in international and
regional organizations
➢ Suspending or withdrawing from alliances, membership in international
and regional organizations

Tools of aid, economic development, and trade:

➢ Provision or withholding of humanitarian aid,
technical/engineering/scientific/professional assistance
➢ Economic and trade relations inducements, development aid, trade
treaties, creation of trade zones, help in attracting investments
➢ Economic and trade sanctions, tariffs, quotas, restrictions on investment,
trade restrictions, bans on specific imports, general import bans, seizure of bank accounts and
financial assets

Tools of military influence, power, or force

➢ Joining or offering military alliances or security pacts, provision of
military foreign aid or military technical assistance and training. Withdrawing from military
alliances or security pacts, suspending or ending military foreign aid, or military technical
assistance and training
➢ Secret paramilitary operations, assassinations (e.g. Navy Seals, drone strikes,
etc.)
➢ Military buildups, mobilizations, troop movements, test weapons firings, shows of
strength
➢ Blockades, armed intervention
➢ War
Foreign Policy Determinants

Those factors that influence and determine the foreign policy of a country are its determinants. Some of
these factors are static or of unchanging nature whereas others are in a state of flux and their dynamics
are continually adjusted to the changing circumstances.

External Determinants
Power Structure
The relations that nations establish among themselves are backed by their respective national interests
and powers. In fact, such relations involve struggle for power among them. The net effect is that
international relations constitute a power structure in which the more powerful nations—the super
powers and the major powers—play a more vigorous and leading role than the relatively less powerful
nations.
The power vacuum caused by the weakened power of the formerly powerful European states, because
of their involvement in two World Wars compelled the U.S.A. to come out of its isolationism and
assume a new global role in international relations.
The emergence of the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. as the two super powers with cold war in between them,
made it imperative for the newly independent states like Pakistan, to adopt a policy of keeping away
from the cold war and yet attempt to have friendly co-operation with both the super powers which
lately sided with USA support.

International Organizations
The role and importance of international institutions as instruments of states’ foreign policies, and the
political, military, functional, economic and humanitarian roles played principally by the United Nations
in international relations cannot be overestimated. These international organizations to varying degrees
serve as modifiers of state behavior and as independent actors in their own right. They have profound
impact on the determination of the foreign policy of a state. No state can decide and conduct its policy
arbitrarily to the detriment of other states. UN and other multilateral forums come to the rescue of the
aggressed state. Usually sanctions are imposed which in some cases become very effective provided the
international community imposes them sincerely.

Reaction of other states

Likewise the system of states is fast transforming into a society of states state where each and every
individual states has regard for the rights of other states. Being sensible to the sensibilities of other
states, no state can adopt a unilateral policy. It has to take into account, and accommodate, if possible,
the interests of the other stake-holders as well. India and the US have to take stock of Pakistani interests
in Afghanistan. They are also cognizant of the fact that no plan for Afghanistan can work until and unless
Pakistan is taken aboard in this regard.

World Public Opinion

The state, while formulating its foreign policy has to take into account the world public opinion. World
public opinion is more effective when it is supported by the domestic public opinion of the given state.
Power is not about military hardware or nukes and ammunitions; it’s equally important component is a
state’s prestige known as ‘soft power’. It is well known that the US administration was made to effect
changes in its Vietnam policy largely due to hostile world public opinion.
The real strength behind the objectives of Disarmament, Arms Control and Nuclear Disarmament, Anti-
colonialism, Anti-apartheid policies of various nations, has been the World Public Opinion.

Alliances and Treaties (Bilateral and Multilateral)

The extensive and intensive system of alliances that emerged in the Post-1945 period had a big impact
on the foreign policies of all the nations. During 1945-90 both the United States and the USSR,
recognized and used alliances as the means for consolidating their respective positions.
Their foreign policies, as well as the foreign policies of their allies were always governed by the goal to
secure new partners in their respective alliances and to maintain and consolidate the alliance
partnerships. Even now, after the demise of Warsaw Pact, the U.S.A. continues to consider NATO as the
mainstay of its foreign policy in Europe.
NATO’s support to the US decision to declare a war against Taliban’s Afghanistan decidedly gave
strength to the US foreign policy. However, many other nations, the Non-aligned nations, still continue
to regard alliances as a source of tension and distrust and their foreign policies are still governed by the
anti-alliance principle.
Recently, another factor has become an influential factor in Foreign Policy- making. The realization for
mutual inter-dependence has given birth to a large number of regional organizations, arrangements,
agreements and trading blocs. European Union, ASEAN, SAARC NAFTA, APEC, SCO and several others
have been major players in international economic relations.

Economic Developmental Needs

Pakistan and India are bargaining with Iran for the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline and with
Turkmenistan for the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline project. Besides, a
proposal for exporting gas from Qatar is also under consideration. India has received a big boost in this
regard with the coming into force for the US-India deal on the peaceful nuclear technology. This has
virtually legitimized Indian nuclear program much to the chagrin of Pakistan which has since been
strenuously lobbying for getting the same status.

INTERNAL DETERMINANTS
Historical and Cultural Influence
The cultural and historical traditions of a country also deeply influence the foreign policy. Generally
people possessing a unified common culture and historical experience can pursue an effective foreign
policy because of the support of all sections of society who share the same values and memories.
Equally important are the processes through which the contents of Shared norms and practices of
society, as distinguished from the degree of unity that supports them shape the plans that are made and
the activities that are undertaken with respect to the external world.
India’s apprehensions of China and Pakistan are the product of their historical traditions. India and China
have to some extent shelved their historical mistrust in order to pave ground for their mutual trade. It is
believed by the Complex Interdependence theorists that in the present age of interdependence, it is
highly improbable that the two countries would go to war.

Size and Geography

The size of a state's territory as well as its population greatly influences its foreign policy. Generally the
leaders and people of countries with small territory and population do not expect their country to carry
great weight in international affairs. On the other hand the leaders and people of large countries are
ready to assume special responsibilities. Size has been a factor in the foreign policies of the U.S.A.,
Russia, China, India, Brazil, France and others.
However, sometimes even small states which have rich resources also leave a deep impact on world
politics. For example, Britain, a small country, played leading role in world politics in the nineteenth and
early twentieth century. In our own times the oil-rich countries of the Middle East, though small in size
are playing a significant role in international politics.
On the other hand large states like Canada and Australia have not been able to pursue effective foreign
policy. Commonwealth of Independent states (CIS) which came into existence after the disintegration
of the Soviet Union, though quite large in size, is not able to play an effective role in contemporary
international relations.
The geography of a country, including its fertility, climate, location in relation to their land masses, and
water-ways etc. also influence the country's foreign policy. It is a major factor in determining self-
sufficiency of a country.
The role played by English Channel in the development of Britain as a major naval power and
consequently as an imperial power is well known. The influence of the Atlantic Ocean on the US Foreign
Policy has been always there. Pakistan’s Foreign Policy now definitely bears the influence of the
geographical location of Pakistan in perspective of CPEC as a key state of the Indian Ocean and region.
Generally land-locked countries, nations in the tropics and those bordering a superpower are less self-
sufficient in comparison to the countries which have access to warm-water ports or are located in the
temperate zones and far removed from superpowers. For example in the nineteenth century USA
adopted isolationist policy chiefly on account of its geographical location. Though the importance of
geographic factors is acknowledged almost at all hands, its importance has considerably declined due
to technological and scientific developments.

Population
The human force constitutes another determinant of foreign policy. The strength of a nation depends
upon the quality and quantity of its human factor. The enormous population of China enabled it to
pursue a forceful foreign policy. On the other hand the falling birth rate in France compelled her to toe a
weak foreign policy during the inter-war period. Qualitatively, the population should be healthy,
educated and prosperous. It should also possess technical know-how. It is however, to be noted that the
population of a country has to be evaluated in relation to its other attributes. If the resources of a
country are not sufficient to meet the requirements of the large population, the latter may pose a
serious challenge to the very existence of the state. But if there are sufficient resources to meet the
requirements of a large population, then it certainly adds to the power of the state, as this may enable it
to mould its foreign policy accordingly. Instances from USA and the defunct Soviet Union’s history can
be quoted to substantiate this point. On the other side if the state possesses sufficient natural resources
but less population, then it may not be able to assert it. The example of Canada can be quoted in this
respect. Canada has been pursuing a liberal Immigration Policy to overcome this deficiency.

Natural Resources
The natural resources of a country also profoundly influence the determination of a foreign policy. The
natural resources apart from minerals, gas and water resources also include the food grain. During the
present century, food has tended to be an important factor in the determination of a country’s foreign
policy. It is said that during the Second World War the foreign and military policy of Germany was to a
large extent, determined by her limited food reserves. She resorted to massive action because she was
to win a quick victory in view of the danger of starvation faced by the German army. In the post-World
War II, Oil diplomacy in the Middle East has greatly determined foreign policy not only of the states of
the region, but also of the entire world. The attitude of the super powers during the cold war, towards
the region of the Middle East in particular, was to a large extent, dictated by their desire to control the
oil.
We can say that the natural resources and raw material exercise considerable influence upon the foreign
policy of a country. In the absence of a sound industrial complex, they can make a state vulnerable to
foreign intervention, but with their domestic consumption and indigenous input, they can be a real boon
for any country. In such a case, the state would pursue its foreign policy more confidently and
assertively.

Economic and Industrial Development

The stage of economic development which a country has attained also has its impact on its foreign
policy. Generally the industrially advanced countries feel more deeply involved in relations with other
countries because they have to import different kinds of raw materials and commodities from other
countries.. Again, an industrial country is expected to have a higher gross national product (GNP) and
can devote greater funds for external purpose, economic aid program, military ventures and extensive
diplomatic commitments.
The global perspectives and policies of the two super-powers (1945-90) were again governed by their
vast economic and industrial resources and their needs for foreign markets and trade. In fact, all
economically and industrially developed nations (Group of seven plus one, countries in particular) are
now playing a more a vigorous role in international relations than the lowly developed and developing
countries.
This is but natural in view of fact that economically developed countries possess greater military
capability than the less developed countries, and can exert greater influence on international relations.
In our own times the decline of Russia's economic power has considerably undermined her political role
in the international arena.
Advancement in technology, which affects the military and economic capabilities of a state, also
exercises profound influence on the foreign policy.

Military Power
Besides all the preceding factors, the military strength of a country also determines the effectiveness of
its foreign policy. A state possessing sufficient military strength has greater initiative and bargaining
power in the international arena. The case of Israel can be quoted as an example. She continues her
precarious existence despite the combined opposition of the Allied nations; she has power to maintain
an assertive foreign policy. Unlike geographical and natural resources, the military capacity is not a static
factor. It keeps on changing. The states try to impress about their military superiority in a number of
ways, such as nuclear tests, mobilization of army, periodical display of military forces, devices and
techniques.
Military strength of a country is closely linked to its resourcefulness and the development of its industry.
A developed civil industry can be made to manufacture military hardware during the time of wars and
crises.

National Capacity
The national capacity of a state also exercises profound influence on the foreign policy of a state.
National capacity of a state depends on its military preparedness, its technological advancement and
economic development. It is well known that United States which continued to pursue policy of
isolation till the beginning of the present century got deeply involved in the international arena in the
present century mainly due to tremendous increase in her national capacity due to rapid economic
development. Similarly, the foreign policy of Britain underwent great transformation in the post-World
War II period, mainly due to decline in her national capacity.

Social Structure
The social structure of a society also exercises profound influence on its foreign policy. A society which
is sharply divided on the basis of wealth, religion, regional imbalances, etc. cannot pursue effective
foreign policy on account of division and lack of co-operation among various groups. It is well known
that Britain stood as one person under the leadership of Churchill during the Second World War and
the people gladly suffered all kinds of hardships to preserve their unity because of social solidarity.

Public Opinion
Public mood is another important determinant of a country's foreign policy. Though public mood usually
follows rather than guides the foreign policy making process, it can exercise lot of influence on the
determination of a foreign policy if the basic realignment in the prevailing great power structure takes
place and the state becomes more involved or more isolated from the world affairs. It may be noted
that generally in an authoritarian system the public mood does not influence the foreign policy, but in
a democratic system based on political accountability considerable weight has to be accorded to the
changing public mood and sentiments.
The American Senate’s refusal to ratify the American membership of the League of Nations, and the
opposition of Vietnam War by the Americans and other peoples, had a big impact on the Foreign Policy
of the U.S.A.

Political System
The political system found in a country also greatly influences the foreign policy. Generally under
authoritarian system quick foreign policy decisions are possible because the decision making power
rests with an individual assisted by his clique
On the other hand in a country possessing a democratic structure the citizens can freely express their
opinion on the domestic as well as foreign policy which naturally leave its impact on the foreign policy of
the country.

Role of Press
The press contributes to this process by supplying factual information on the basis of which the people
take decision by publishing specialized articles on current international developments. The press also
plays an important role in publicizing the foreign policy of the country. The role of the press, however,
depends on the political system prevailing in the country, the rate of literacy as well as the attitude of
government.

Leadership
No doubt, the qualities of leadership have a deep impact on the country's foreign policy but their role is
greatly constrained by the governmental and social structure. Further the role of leadership is not
identical in all countries. In less developed countries their role is greater as compared to industrialized
societies. In industrialized societies the individuals enjoy very limited discretion in high governmental
and non-governmental positions.

Internal Situation
Like the external situational factors, sudden changes, disturbances or disorders that occur within the
internal environment of a nation also influence the nature and course of foreign policy. The resignation
of President Nixon over the issue of Watergate Scandal considerably limited the foreign policy of USA
under President Ford.
The internal opposition to the military regime in Pakistan during 1947-89 was a determinant of
Pakistani foreign policy. A change of government is always a source of change in the foreign policy of a
state.

Personalities of Leaders
Since the Foreign Policy of a nation is made and implemented by leaders, statesmen and diplomats,
naturally it bears an imprint of their values, talents, experiences and personalities. The ideas,
orientations, likings, disliking, attitudes, knowledge, skill and the world-view of the national decision-
makers are influential inputs of Foreign Policy. The differences among the leaders are also influential
inputs of a foreign policy. The differences between the Foreign Policy decisions of various U.S.
Presidents have been due to the differences in their attitudes and personalities.
However, leaders are always guided by the dictates and demands of national interest. Each leader is
committed to the securing of national interests of the nation. The vital interests of the nations are a
source of continuity if the personalities and attitudes of the leaders are a source of change. The two
have to be balanced before these serve as foreign policy inputs.

Foreign Policy Decision Making

Models of Decision Making
The foreign policy process is a process of decision making. States take actions because people in
governments— decision makers —choose those actions. Decision making is a steering process in which
adjustments are made as a result of feedback from the outside world. Decisions are carried out by
actions taken to change the world, and then information from the world is monitored to evaluate the
effects of these actions. These evaluations—along with information about other, independent changes
in the environment go into the next round of decisions. A common starting point for studying the
decision-making process is the rational model. In this model, decision makers set goals, evaluate their
relative importance, and calculate the costs and benefits of each possible course of action then choose
the one with the highest benefits and lowest costs. The choice may be complicated by uncertainty
about the costs and benefits of various actions. In such cases, decision makers must attach probabilities
to each possible outcome of an action. For example, will pressuring a rival state to give ground in peace
talks work or backfire? Some decision makers are relatively accepting of risk, whereas others are averse
to risk. These factors affect the importance that decision makers place on various alternative outcomes
that could result from an action. Of course, one may believe decision makers are rational, but not accept
the realist assumption that states may be treated as unitary actors. Governments are made up of
individuals, who may rationally pursue their goals. Yet, the goals of different individuals involved in
making a decision may diverge, as may the goals of different state agencies.
An alternative to the rational model of decision making is the organizational process model. In this
model, foreign policy decision makers generally skip the labor-intensive process of identifying goals
and alternative actions, relying instead for most decisions on standardized responses or standard
operating procedures. For example, the U.S. State Department every day receives more than a
thousand reports or inquiries from its embassies around the world and sends out more than a thousand
instructions or responses to those embassies. Most of those cables are never seen by the top decision
makers (the secretary of state or the president); instead, they are handled by low-level decision makers
who apply general principles—or who simply try to make the least controversial, most standardized
decision. These low-level decisions may not even reflect the high-level policies adopted by top leaders,
but rather have a life of their own. The organizational process model implies that much of foreign policy
results from “management by muddling through.”

Another alternative to the rational model is the government bargaining (or bureaucratic politics)
model , in which foreign policy decisions result from the bargaining process among various government
agencies with somewhat divergent interests in the outcome. In 1992, the Japanese government had to
decide whether to allow sushi from California to be imported a weakening of Japan’s traditional ban on
importing rice (to maintain self-sufficiency in its staple food). The Japanese Agriculture Ministry, with an
interest in the well-being of Japanese farmers, opposed the imports. The Foreign Ministry, with an
interest in smooth relations with the United States, wanted to allow the imports. The final decision to
allow imported sushi resulted from the tug-of-war between the ministries.