FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS

. Objectives: The course is designed to develop conceptual and analytical skills among the
students to understand the objectives, determinants and importance of foreign policy. It also
covers the patterns and approaches to the formulation of foreign policy, and actors playing role
in this regard. Foreign policy making process of certain countries is included in this course as
models.

Contents:

1. Importance of foreign policy in international relations.

2. Principles and objectives of foreign policy.

3. Determinants of foreign policy.

4. Foreign policy making/formulation

a. Approaches to the study of foreign policy-formulation

b. Internal and external inputs/pressures and limitations in the formulation of foreign policy

5. Foreign policy-making Process:

 Leaders, Institutions and Process

 Foreign Policy, Media, Public Opinion and Domestic Politics
 Foreign Policy; National and Transnational Actors

6. Various strategies for the achievement of the aims and objectives of Foreign Policy; foreign
policy implementation-opportunities and obstacles

7. Foreign policy-formulation and the political systems

8. Foreign policy-formulation in USA and China

Core Books: 1. Younas, Muhammad Foreign Policy: A Theoretical Introduction, Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2003.

2. Rosenau, James, (Ed.), International Politics and Foreign Policy. London: Francis Pinter;
1980.

3. Rosenau, James, N. The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy, London: Francis Pinter, 1970.
Recommended Books: 1. Deutsch, K. W., The Analysis of International Relations. New York:
BS POLITICAL SCIENC

Semester –Vll FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS 03 Cr. Hrs (CODE=PS-402)

Objectives: The course is designed to enlighten the students about the concepts and schools of
thought in foreign policy analysis, concentrating particularly on the process of decision- making
in the International System. The students will study the foreign policies of selected countries in
order to understand the policy debate in the light of great power actions and weak state problems.

Course Contents:/Topics

1. Conceptual Framework of Foreign Policy: Definition, Principles, determinants and objectives

2. Importance of foreign policy in international relations

3. Role of Institutions in foreign policy making

a) Role of Head of the government

b) Foreign minister

c) Foreign office

d) Parliament

e) Media

f) Public opinion

g) Political parties and pressure groups h) Intelligence agencies

4. Foreign policy making process

5. External factors of foreign policy making 6. Foreign policymaking in America

7. Foreign policy of India 8. Foreign policy making in Pakistan

Topic no.1. Conceptual Framework of Foreign Policy: Definition, Principles, determinants and
objectives.
DIFINITION AND MEANING.

“Foreign Policy is the use of political influence in order to induce other states to exercise their
law-making power in a manner desired by the states concerned: it is an interaction between
forces originating outside the country’s borders and those working within them”.
Prof. F. S. Northedge

Foreign policy of a state is concerned with the behaviour of a state towards other states. It refers
to the ways in which the central governments of sovereign states relate to each other and to the
global system in order to achieve various goals or objectives. Through its foreign policy it
endeavours to persuade others in accordance with one’s own ends. It is primarily in proportion to
its national power that its persuasive power is effective in this regard. However, even a powerful
state cannot afford to enjoy a solo flight in this regard. It has to take into account, not only its
own objectives and interests, aspirations and problems, but also those of other states. This
process involves intricate processes of diplomacy short of war. It is also based on the
observations regarding the traditional behaviour of a given state. Moreover, a state while
implementing its foreign policy cannot afford to ignore the rules of International law and canons
of international morality. The whole essence of this prelude is that the term foreign policy cannot
be studied in isolation from the factors that determine it.

“Foreign policy is the key element in the process by which a state translates its broadly
conceived goals and interests into concrete course of action to attain these objectives and
preserve interests”
Padelford and Lincolin

So foreign policy is the bundle of principles and practices that regulate the intercourse of a state
vis-à-vis other states. Through foreign policy a state seeks to achieve a variety of objectives. The
objectives sought to be attained by a state are of different types and categories, yet there are
certain objectives which are uniformly pursued by all states i.e. Political independence and
territorial integrity, economic well being and, prestige and status of a nation. They have been
classified into short range, middle range and long-range objectives.

FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS

Foreign Policy Analysis is the systematic study of and research into the processes and theories of
foreign policy. It is that branch of political science, which deals with the study of and research
into the processes and theories of foreign policy.
Foreign Policy Analysis involves the study of how a state makes foreign policy. Because Foreign
Policy Analysis involves the study of both international and domestic politics, the academic
discipline is located at the intersection of international relations theory and public policy. Foreign
Policy Analysis also draws upon the study of diplomacy, war, intergovernmental organisations,
and economic sanctions, each of which are means by which a state may implement foreign
policy. In academia, foreign policy analysis is most commonly taught within the disciplines of
Political Science or Political Studies, and International Relations.

The importance of foreign policy in international relations.

The importance of foreign policy is accepted widely and it basically defines a state’s approach
towards the other states.

1-Protection Of Territorial Integrity 

A foreign policy should protect the territorial integrity of the country and protect the
interests of its citizens, both within and outside the country. Generally for this purpose
the states prefer to follow policy of status quo. If a state pursues a policy which seeks to
upset the status quo it is branded as revisionist and arouses the suspicion of other
members of the international community. It has to protect the interests of its citizens both
inside and outside the state, for the maintenance of its prestige. 
2-Link With International Community
Secondly, the objective of foreign policy should be the maintenance of links with other
members of international community and adoption of policy of conflict or cooperation
towards them with a view to promote its own interests. Moreover, the foreign policy of a
country should seek to promote and further its national interests of the country. The
primary interests of each state is preservation, security and well-being of its citizens.
Often, the interests of various states come in clash and the states have their interests
bearing in mind this factor. 

3-Protection And Promotion of Economic Interest

At the same time, the foreign policy should aim at promotion of economic interests of the
country. As the status of a state is largely determined by its economic status, the states try
to pursue a foreign policy which can contribute to their economic prosperity and enable it
in turn to play a more effective role in international politics.
Equality of Nation states
People of a country 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. However, sometime even
small states which have rich resources also leave a deep impact on world politics.
Accordingly, foreign policies are the strategies governments use to guide their actions in
the international arena. In other words, foreign policies spell out the objectives state
leaders have resolved to pursue in a given relationship or situation. Generally,
international relations (IR) scholars are less interested in specific policies than in the
foreign policy process. That is, how policies are arrived at and implemented.
4-Promotion of democracy:
 Now a day’s democracy is considered the best form of government. By establishing
foreign relations the states promoting democracy can convince the other states that the
system possess several advantages.
5-Cooperation during Natural Disaster:
By using the foreign policy techniques the fight against the natural disaster can be fought
effectively. As thousands of human lost lives due to these disasters every year.
6-Availability of Economic Aid
Through successful foreign policy the developing states can fulfill their needs by taking
economic aid from developed states on easy terms.
7-Protection of Global Commons
The natural resources of the universe can be protected by the cooperation the
international community so they can be transferred to the next generation.
8-Promotion of Peace
Through the use of diplomatic techniques the world can be saved from wars. The two
world wars have proved that war is the enemy of humans. So it is only possible when
conflicts are resolved through negotiations.
9-To Fight With Common Enemy
Now in modern days the enemy of humanity is hunger, diseases, and natural disasters.
The foreign policy or establishment of relations with all other states is necessary to fight
with these enemies.
10-War against Terrorism
Now globally the war against terrorism is continued all over the world and to make it
logically successful the states need to cooperate with each other. Even the super power’s
think tanks of u.s.a are accepting that without the cooperation of Pakistan the war against
terrorism cannot be successful.

PRINCIPLES OF PAKISTAN’S FOREIGN POLICY

Introduction

No country today can think of a life independent of other nations. Every country has to develop
relations with other countries so as to meet its requirements in economical, industrial and
technological fields. It is thus necessary for every country to formulate a sound foreign policy.
Pakistan is an important third world country, in its developmental stage. It also has formulated
her foreign policy keeping in mind its geography, politics and economics.
Definition of Foreign Policy

Foreign Policy can be defined as

Relations between sovereign states. It is a reflection of domestic politics and an interaction

among sovereign states. It indicates the principles and preferences on which a country wants to
establish relations with another country.

Pakistan's Foreign Policy in Light of Quaid-e-Azam's Words

The father of the nation, Quaid-e-Azam defined Foreign Policy towards other countries of the
world in 1948, as follows

Our Foreign Policy is one of friendliness and good-will towards all the nations of the world. We
do not cherish aggressive designs against any country or nation. We believe in the policy of
honesty and fair play in national and international dealings and are prepared to make our utmost
contribution to the promotion of peace and prosperity among the nations of the world. Pakistan
will never be found lacking in extending its material and moral support to the oppressed and
suppressed peoples of the world and in upholding the principles of the United Nations Charter.

Basic Goals of Pakistan's Foreign Policy

1. Maintenance of territorial integrity.

2. Maintenance of its political independence.

3. Acceleration of social and economic development.

4. Strengthening its place on the globe.

5. Keeping cordial and friendly relations with all countries.

Guiding Principles of Pakistan's Foreign Policy

Following are the basic principles of Pakistan's Foreign Policy:

1. Protection of Freedom and Sovereignity

Pakistan came into being after great sacrifices of million of Muslims. Like any other country, she
also considers with deep regard the need for preservation of its independence and does not allow
any country to harm its freedom. Therefore, the principle of protection of independence and
sovereignity is the corner stone of Pakistan's Foreign Policy.

2. Cordial Relations with Muslim Countries

Pakistan always tries to establish cordial and friendly relations with Muslim countries. It has
always moved its concern against Israel, India and U.S.S.R capturing Palestine, Kashmir and
Afghanistan respectively. She has shouldered high responsibilities and used her influence for
safeguarding the rights of the Muslims. Pakistan is also an active member of the Islamic
Conference.

3. Non-Interference in Internal Affairs of Other Countries

Pakistan has sought to establish normal and friendly relations with all countries especially in
neighbouring countries, on the basis of universally acknowledge the principle of national
sovereignity, non use of force, non-interference in the internal affairs of states.

4. Implementation of U.N Charter

Pakistan's policy is to act upon UN charter and to support all moves by the UN to implement it.
Pakistan has been the member of UN since the year of its birth.

5. Promotion of World Peace

Pakistan's policy is to promote peace among nations. It has no aggressive designs against any
country. Neither does it support any such action. Pakistan has always held that the international
disputes should be settled through negotiations rather than non-battlefield.

6. Non-Alignment

Pakistan follows the policy of Non-Alignment i.e. to keep away from alignment with any big
power bloc, and avoids taking sides in the cold war. It has also given up its association with
SEATO and CENTO and was included in NAM in 1979.
7. Support for Self-Determination and Condemnation of Racial Discrimination

Pakistan is a stomach supporter of the right of self-determination and has been in the fore front
of efforts to eliminate colonialism and racism. It has advocated the right of self-determination
of Kashmir.

8. Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament

Pakistan is deeply conscious of the fact that international peace and security cannot be achieved
and sustained in the world with arms. Disarmament is the imperative condition for truly durable
peace in the world. Pakistan has a vital stake in promotion of disarmament both in the nuclear
and conventional fields. It is included in the principles of its foreign policy that a collective
endeavour by countries at the regional level to promote disarmament and enhance security at the
lowest possible level of armaments is an indispensable result to their advocacy of global
disarmament.

9. Member of International Organization

Pakistan had become the member of the British Commonwealth with the time of its
establishment. In addition it is the member of United Nations (U.N), Non-Aligned Movement
(NAM), Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO),
South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC), Association of South East Asian
Nations (ASEAN), and D-Eight. Being a member of International Organizations the objectives
of Pakistan are to struggle for world peace, to unify the Muslim countries and to promote
regional co-operation.

Conclusion

The guiding principles of Pakistan's Foreign Policy are rooted in the country's Islamic ideology,
its rich cultural heritage and historical experience. As an Islamic and non-aligned country,
Pakistan supports Islamic causes and firmly upholds the above mentioned principles, which hold
out the promise of a just and equitable world order in which nations can live in peace and
security.

Objectives of Foreign Policy

1-NATIONAL SECURITY
The first and foremost important function of foreign policy is the national existence of a state on
the map of the world. That’s why the sovereign states of the world respect the national integrity
and solidarity of other states.
2-ECONOMIC INTEREST
Most of the nations of south Asia like Pakistan came into being with the legacy of poor
economic condition, that’s why these states give much importance to their economic
development while establishing foreign relations with other states.
3-IDEOLOGICAL SOLIDARITY
The states came into being on the basis of an ideology would likely take keen interest in
protecting their ideology which caused the formation of these states. For example Pakistan is
very keen to protect its ideology of Islam.
4-PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE
The objective of the foreign policy of modern states is the peaceful co-existence and non-
interference in others internal affairs.
5-NON-ALIGNMENT
Now after the disintegration of USSR (1989-90) the world is converted into unipolar but now
china is having all the capabilities to convert the world again into bi-polar. Most of the states
now wanted to remain no aligned in case of a war between two powers.
6-BILATERALISM
Now the objective of most of the states of the world is the policy of give and take. It means the
states have to co-operate others to get some benefit from other states.
7-SUPPORTING INTERNATIOANL ORGANIZATIONS
In the modern days the U.N.O is considered an effective organization to resolve the disputes
arising among the states. Although it has been criticized but it is a reality that it has been playing
its role in stopping the third world war.

DETERMINANTS OF FOREIGN POLICY

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
1) Power Structure
The modern state system has been in existence since 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. The modern
state system includes major, middling, and small powers. All states conduct their own foreign
policies. One primary objective of each county's foreign policy is to maintain its own political
independence and security. In the traditional multi-polar system, it was easier for states to switch
sides and gain maximum gains from all sides. Thus Italy used this skill deftly and switched sides
during the height of World War I to gain its share in the post war colonial arrangement. 
During the bipolar world system, however, the ideological fault lines were more clearly marked,
and it was not easy for states to switch sides frequently. Thus during the cold war, the countries
of the Eastern Europe under the security umbrella of the Warsaw Pact were under the direct
influence of the former Soviet Union. And the countries of the Western Europe together with the
US and Canada entered into an alliance known as North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
The states were faithfully wedded to their respective alliances, and any signs of freedom were
strictly checked by the two superpowers. The demise of the Soviet Union and the advent of the
uni-polar world has its own system dynamics. Bush’s ‘either with us or against us’ sort of
declaration made many states from the margins of the system to come forward and play effective
roles in the so- called Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). Pakistan was to take a smart strategic
U-turn in order to be able to take advantage from the changed international structure. Every type
of power structure at international level has its own particular dynamics and that has its impact
on the foreign policies of the states. 
2) 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 behaviour 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.

3) 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. In 1939,
Hitler embarked upon the course of aggression vis-à-vis Poland and didn’t assess and anticipate
British reaction to such a misadventure. This led to disastrous consequents for Germany and the
Global system generally speaking. Pakistan though not fully comfortable with being a willing
partner in the Global War on Terror, has to be committed to the same owing to international
concerns and being apprehensive of international backlash. 

4) World Public Opinion

Similarly 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. Israel usually flouts agreements and canons of international law with a
least regard for them, but in the process it has lost international goodwill. Power is not about
military hardware or nukes and ammunitions; its 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. 

5) Alliances

Alliances concluded by various states also influence their foreign policy. The states parties to the
alliances have to respond to the requests and demands of their allies and refrain from formulating
policies or taking actions which are offensive to the alliance partners. During the decade of fifties
when Pakistan was known as the most allied ally of the United States, Pakistan had to exercise
its vote against the People’s Republic of China blocking its entry into the world forum. China on
its part did understand Pakistan’s compulsions and didn’t entertain any ill-will against Pakistan.
During the height of cold war, neither the member of the ‘Warsaw Pact’ nor those of ‘NATO’
could pursue any independent foreign policy.

INTERNAL DETERMINANTS

1.Historical Influence

The foreign policy of a country is to a large extent the legacy of its history. Each country
possesses an individuality of its own, which is the outcome of its historical and geographical
configuration. The cultural and historical traditions go a long way in moulding the foreign policy
of a state. To a large extent the approach of a nation to the foreign problems is determined by its
traditional values and beliefs which have emerged on a period of history. Though the leadership
can make modifications in these values and beliefs, yet it cannot go very far. 

Pakistan’s apprehensions of India and India’s those of China 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.
They apply the same formula to India and Pakistan whereby increased trade volume and
interdependence would raise the stakes of both states in the maintenance of peace. When they
would refrain from creating any war mania for sometime, that would decrease trust deficit
between the two nuclear armed neighbours which in turn may help them to resolve their
outstanding issues down the road. 

However, this is only one viewpoint. There are analyses and views, mostly on Pakistani side, that
no trust could be build up unless and until both the parties are able to make any substantial
movement towards the resolution of their outstanding issues. They therefore consider Confidence
Building Measures (CBMs) a useless tactic unless there is a real progress on the count of issues
resolution.

2. Size and Geography

The geopolitical location of a state is one of the external determinants on its foreign policy. It
matters where on the globe a country is located. It matters whether the country has natural
frontiers: that is whether it is protected by oceans, high mountains, or deserts. It matters who
one's neighbors are and whether a given country is territorially large, populous, affluent, and
well-governed. Geographical factors exercise a permanent and paramount influence on the
foreign policy of a country. Dr Eayers has rightly said,

“Pacts may be broken, treaties unilaterally denounced, but geography holds its victims fast”

It may, however, be noted that when we speak of the impact of geography on the foreign policy
of a country, we keep in mind the extent of its territory, its general configuration, the texture of
the soil, climatic conditions, rainfall, waterways and location of the country vis-à-vis the other
powers. Geographical location has exercised a great impact on the foreign policy of Britain.
Similarly USA could follow a policy of complete isolation mainly because of her geographical
location. The foreign policy of France has been determined by the presence of Germany on her
border, while that of Nepal by its proximity to India and People’s Republic of China. It has been
contended by some of the theorists that the development of modern means of communication and
the invention of sophisticated weaponry have rendered the importance of geographical factor
obsolete. This view, however, cannot be fully subscribed to. Even today the vast size of states
like China and Russia renders the talk of their conquest problematic.

3. 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.

4. Economic Development

The level of economic development attained by a country has deep impact on the foreign policy
of the state. One of the middle range objectives of the foreign policy of a state is to expand,
diversify and strengthen its economic relations with the external world. An increased economic
activity warrants that the surplus goods, raw material and services of the country have markets
outside the country and that the state may ensure the procurement of the needed products, raw
material and services at economical rates. Pakistan and India are energy deficient courtiers. This
deficiency on the part of these countries in particular and the rest of the world in general has
been one of the important determinants of their foreign policies. 

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 fo the US-India deal on the
peaceful nuclear technology. This has virtually legitimized Indian nuclear programme much to
the chagrin of Pakistan which has since been strenuously lobbying for getting g the same status.
However, owing to Pakistani track record on the AQ Khan saga, the response from the US and
the West has been lukewarm in this regard. However, People’s Republic of China has been
amenable to Pakistani requests on this count. Similarly Pakistan is always concerned about
securing markets for its raw material, cotton, rice, leather products, sportsware and cotton
products. The level of economic development has a direct relationship with the life standard of
the citizens of the given country.

5. Industrial Development
The industrial development of a state also plays an important role in determining its foreign
policy. This is evident from the fact that industrially developed countries like USA, Russia,
Japan, Germany, France and England are able to exercise great influence in the international
affairs. Realizing the importance of this factor in adding to the strength and prestige of a country
even the underdeveloped and agricultural countries are keen to get industrialized as quickly as
possible. A country possessing rich natural resources has to depend on the advanced countries
for capital and technical assistance, so that these resources are exploited to the maximum level.
A naturally gifted state devoid of effective infrastructure is almost as poor and backward as any
resourceless state can be. So development of a sound infrastructure is a sine qua non in order to
enable the naturally gifted state to fully capitalize on its natural resources, and utilize them in
their industrial complex. 

Industrial development, though dependent upon the natural resources and raw materials at home,
is sometimes not limited to the scarcity or absence of them. Just to refer to one of the industrial
giants i.e. Japan, it doesn’t have the indigenous resources to satiate the ever-increasing needs and
requirements of its industry; it has to import most of them. However this limitation on its part has
not incapacitated it; rather it has prompted its policy maker to come up with new techniques and
planning strategies and become an industrial leader.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Good Governance and Leadership

The government and the leadership play an important role in determining the role of their
country, which it is going to play in the international field. In fact, it is government and
leadership, which convert the potential power of a state into actual power. The quality of
government depends upon a number of factors, such as support extended to it by the population,
the organization of the government, the quality of persons serving the government, willingness
of the government to take the aspirations of the general people into account etc. The quality of a
government to a large extent depends upon the type of leadership available to it. Leaders like
Hitler, Mussolini, Ball Thackeray, and Nrindra Modi could easily disturb the forward and steady
movement of the nation; they jeopardize international peace and security as well. Whereas
leaders like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Quaid-i-Azam
Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Jawaharlal Nehru, Kenneth Kuanda, Marshal Tito would serve the
nation most efficiently and steer the nation’s ship safely from the troubled waters to the safe
shores.

9. Quality of Diplomacy

And last but not the least, quality of diplomacy of a country exercises profound influence upon
the foreign policy of country. History of inter-state relations is full of examples where the
countries succeeded in attaining their objectives through wise diplomacy, even though they lack
other elements of power e.g. Prussian success against France in 1870 under Price Ottowan
Bismarck. Likewise certain very powerful states failed to attain their goals owing to ineffective
and weak diplomacy. A good diplomat must have a clear concept and perception of the national
goals and the will of their attainment. Plus he should be skillful enough to use the tools of
statecraft for the realization of the national objectives. Bhutto while launching campaign against
President Ayub claimed that the President actually lost what Pakistan had won in the battlefield
while referring to the Tashkent Agreement between Pakistan and India brokered by the former
Soviet Union. Here Indian diplomacy was equal to the task. But a few years later in the wake of
the dismemberment of Pakistan, it was none other than Bhutto himself who excelled in
diplomatic skills at Simla.
10. Political Organization
Political organizations and institutions of the country also determine the foreign policy of
country. Usually, democracies are not very prone to war, at least within themselves . There is
some evidence to suggest that democracies do not usually go to war against each other. As the
world in general becomes more democratic, it is hoped that war will be replaced with peaceful
methods of conflict resolution. However, dictatorships faced with the problem of legitimacy at
home and abroad usually create issues out of non-issues in order to justify the continuation of
their illegal rule. Hitler and Mussolini embarked upon the path of international conquests
because they were to deliver to the masses very quickly otherwise their citizens would have been
disillusioned. Saddam Hussain failing to arrest problems inside the country had to lay claims on
Kuwait in 1990.

11.Role of Media & Think-tanks

In modern times the role of media in determining the Foreign Policy of a state cannot be
overestimated. Media has to faithfully highlight the issues of public concern; doing so it serves
both as a corrective machine as well as a guide for the policy makers. Usually former diplomats,
strategists, and military generals take part in productive discussion on media. The Government
and Foreign Office have to take the input from media and think-tanks very seriously. In fact, in
the US, the think-tanks and media play a very significant role in the orientation of its foreign
policy.

Conclusion
It is clear from the above discussion that foreign policy of a country is determined by a number
of factors. As most of these factors are of changing nature, so with their evolution or
transformation, foreign policies of countries also keep on changing. In addition to these factors,
certain developments at the international level such as development of thermo-nuclear
technology, onset of cold war and military alliances, elimination of colonialism have exercised
profound influence on the foreign policies of different countries. The creation of United Nations
has also left a mark on the foreign policies of different countries. The end of cold war influenced
the states in every region of the world to modify their foreign policies in according with the
changing dynamics of the world. Post 9/11 has a similar effect on the states. Pakistan had to
make very important strategic readjustments in the wake of these terrorist attacks on the world
trade centre and Pentagon. In short it can be said that apart from the national determinants of
foreign policy, international environment also plays an important role in the formulation and
orientation of the foreign policy of a state.

What is meant by foreign policy

Literally, the word Foreign Policy is comprised of two individual words, foreign and
policy. The word ‗Foreign‘ came from the Latin word ―foris” and “foras‖ meaning
"outside"16and the word ‗Policy‘ originated from the Old French word ―policie‖
meaning ‗civil administration‘17. Therefore, the literal meaning of the phrase ‗Foreign
Policy‘ is the administration of the outside activities or strategy to manage the issues that
exist beyond territorial boundaries of a state. According to the Oxford Dictionary,
Foreign Policy is ―a government‘s strategy in dealing with other nations.‖ 18Putting it
more comprehensive, Encyclopaedia of Britannica defines Foreign Policy, as the
―General objectives that guide the activities and relationships of one state in its
interactions with other states.‖ It further explains that ―The development of Foreign
Policy is influenced by domestic considerations, the policies or behaviour of other states,
or plans to advance specific geopolitical designs‖.

What is Foreign Policy Decision Making?

Foreign Policy decision making is the process by which government analyzes the existing
problems, evaluate the policy alternatives and take appropriate actions to overcome the
outstanding issues as well as for the maximization of the national gain. Putting it simple,
FPDM explains why the government takes such an action, how the decision is going to
work out and what could be the possible alternatives and its consequences. Hence, it
largely attempts to investigate the structure, approach and process of decision making
rather than the policy outcomes. In decision making the ultimate aim of the actors is to
minimize the loss, multiply the benefits and resolve the problems. FPDM is an
investigation to find out the alternative way to cope with international system, to avoid
the conflict, to promote the national influence and to live peacefully. It is a complex
process to find out the best alternatives, by various means and approaches.

Defining Foreign Policy Decision Making

Before we go on to examine the problems in detail, it is essential to define Foreign Policy
decision making for the better understanding of the discipline. The word ―decision
―comes from the Latin root “de”, meaning ―from‖, and ―caedere‖ meaning ―to cut‖.
Hence, Decision in its root ―caedere‖, meaning ―to cut from‖ and making decision
means to come to a conclusion or cutting yourself off from any other possibilities. In
simple term, decision making refers to the process to identify the problems, explore
possible alternatives and to select the appropriate strategy to resolve those issues.
According to Baumann and Deber ―decision making can be defined as the situation in
which a choice is made among a number of possible alternatives often involving a trade
off among the values given to different outcomes.‖ 42

The father of Political Science Aristotle in his classic work ‗Nicomachean Ethics‘
defines the decision making process as aDeliberate Appetition, ―which is a logical and
psychological sequence that starts with desire, continues with violation and concludes
with the act of choice.

Though there are multiple agencies involved in the decision making process, it is the
leadership who takes the ultimate decision by examining the cost of available
alternatives. As the leadership is the backbone of the policy decision, their course of
action and behaviour should be close to reality. The crises management experience,
capacity to study the phenomena, indefatigable attitude during difficult times, and more
importantly the cognitive potentiality of the principal players of the decision making
body largely shape the Foreign Policy outcomes of a country and rearrange the global
political settings at large.

MODELS OF FOREIGN POLICY DECISION MAKING

Decision making is a complex and ever changing process. The nature of decision
outcome mostly depends upon varieties of internal and external factors, such as the
leadership, the structure of decision making unit, the decision making environment etc.
Interestingly, one cannot predict the similar decision out of the same decision making
bodies as the surrounding environment changes time to time. In order to understand the
complexity, Allision has divided the decision making style into three different models,
based on the structure and function of decision making unit. These are The Rational
Actor Model (RAM), Organizational Process Model (OPM) and Bureaucratic Politics
Model (BPM).

The Rational Actor Model (RAM)

Rational Actor refers to the leader who takes decision the way it should have been taken
without any bias or influence. Rationality has been considered as the best way to solve
the outstanding issues. It is the behavioural attitude having its very purpose. In defining
rationality, Allison Graham writes ―Rationality refers to consistent value-maximizing
choice within special fiend constraints‖. 52Hence, rational actor model of decision
making is the process to choose the right options to achieve ‗national goal‘ by analyzing
all possible alternatives and its consequences. Rational decision making is the ability to
relate means to ends.53The leadership under this model is open to receive new inputs.
After a thorough analysis of the input information, the decision maker chooses the option
that gives the highest payoff. In the words of Janice Gross Stein ―Rational decision-
making refers to the process that people should use to choose. In a rational decision-
making process, people should be logical and orderly.

Element of Decision Making in RAM

As the maximization of national goal is the ultimate aim of the decision makers, the
process of decision making involves various stages and elements. Graham Allison in his
classical work “Essence of Decision” has discussed various stages of decision making of
the rational actor model. These are as follows.

1. Defining the problem 2. Analyzing the problem

3. Prioritizing the Goal 4. Developing alternatives

5. Evaluating each alternatives 6. Selecting the best options

7. Execution of decision

The Organization Process Model (OPM)

Decision making in the modern globalized world is not as simple as it was in the past.
The emerging issues are so complex that the political leadership on its own can hardly do
justice while making polices to address these issues. In this regard, there is a need of an
efficient and multidimensional organization to take appropriate decisions. To overcome
this problem, Graham Allison offered two more different models of decision making,
such as the Organizational Process Model and the Bureaucratic Politics Model, where
multiple actors and agencies work together in making policies.

According to Allison‘s Organizational Process Model, the policy decisions are not the
result of rationality but the outcome of a large organizational discourse, which is
continuously involved in formulating policies within a ‗standard operating procedure‘.
The government, according to Greg Cashman, is a ―conglomerate of large autonomous
semifeudal, loosely allied organizations‖.60Hence, the decision making in government
involves large number of inter-branch organizations that are linked with each other and
function under a well laid procedure of operandi.

Decision Making Under the OPM

Allison‘s second model of the organizational process model has been drawn from the
organizational theories. Under this model, the whole structure of decision making has
been divided into several sub-agencies that are eventually arranged as the top down
approach and the leader dismantles the whole problem and assigns the sub part among
the small specialized agencies. The concerned authority of that particular section has to
resolve the given task within the stipulated time frame. Considering the limitations of
time and resource during the time of crisis, leaders often settle on the first alternative to
address the issue, rather than exploring the best. Due to the sequential goal preference,
the problem of control and coordination of various stake holders and the fixed ground
rules (standard operating procedure) of the decision making units, the outcome often
seems ―satisfying‖62 rather than rational. The Organizational Process approach is
highly beneficial during the time of war or war like crisis where the leader has to take
decisions quickly with limited information. The organizational process model is based
on the shared responsibility and shared organizational goals and procedure. The Leaders
usually gravitate towards the solutions that limit short-term uncertainty.

Features of OPM

Greg Cashman has given in brief the features of Organizational Process Model, as
follows:

 Under this model, the decision outcome mostly remains Satisfying, rather than
optimal.  The Organizational Process Model always believes in incrementalism.
Hence, it is a positive and gradual process.  This model of decision making is very
rigid and lacks flexibility in decision making.  Decision making under this model is
carried out by qualified and experienced professionals and specialized organizations,
rather than a small group of top level leadership.  Organizational process model
undertakes sequential search of alternatives and often settles on the first options, rather
than choosing the best.

Bureaucratic Politics Model

The Bureaucratic Politics Model, which is also known as the Governmental Politics
Model (GPM) or the Governmental Barging Model (GBP) is the third decision making
model of Allison. According to this model, the decision outcome is a product of
bureaucratic interactions and elite politics, rather than the result of rational thinking or
organizational discourse. As highlighted in the ―The Essence of Decision‖, the BPM
believes that policy decision in general is the product of political bargaining of
bureaucrats and government officials. The actors in this model are the bureaucrats and
other elite leadership of the government, who selfishly engage in bargaining with the
government to maximize their

organizational interest using various bureaucratic channels. Under the BPM, the
decisions are taken by ―pulling and hauling‖ rather than rational choice.

Bureaucracy in Decision Making

The term bureaucracy is derived from the French word ―Bureau‖ meaning ―desk‖.
Therefore, the literal meaning of bureaucracy may be put as ―rule by desks or offices‖
or ―desk government‖ as termed by Finer. 66 Looking at the size and complexity, the
administration in a modern state has to be assisted by large paraphernalia of officers and
subordinates. One cannot think of a modern state without adequate bureaucrats, who lead
various departments of the Government and assist the Government to achieve the
national goals. They also support the political leadership in making polices for the
optimization of departmental objectives.

Stages of Decision Making Process

The decision making is not the product of instantaneous work but developed through
various stages assisted by various stake holders. Be it the rational choice or
organizational or governmental process the leaders make decisions phase by phase with
the available resources. Each layer filters the odds and errors and contributes new
developments into the process. Decision making is not a onetime task. It is a continuous
process to address the outstanding problems. It is like a chess board game where every
move needs a brilliant counter move and the responded move is countered with a further
countermove. Therefore the process of decision in Foreign Policy is considered as a
continuous practice. It is like a policy cycle as it extracts the options for the existing
problem and takes decision to resolve it and again examines it and rectifies the errors and
takes another decision to improve it. International environment is an ever changing
phenomenon. Nations need to be engaged themselves constantly to formulate and
improve their Foreign Policy to cope with the world system and optimize their national
interest. Foreign Policy decision making involves several stages. These are:

Stage 1: Analyzing the Internal and External Environment

A close analysis of the domestic and international environment is essential for Foreign
Policy making. It provides vital information to the decision maker and helps to construct
policy options which are close to reality. A good decision maker is he who has adequate
knowledge about the present situation of the internal as well as external world. As the
Foreign Policy of a nation guides its behaviour in the international forum, the study of
international environment provides an opportunity to readjust its position in the ever
changing global order with effective policy measures. Similarly, a close look on the
domestic settings helps the decision makers to realize the internal constrains as well as
domestic needs.

Stage 2: Recognition, Classification and Defining the Problem or Opportunity

With due study of environment, the first step towards practical decision making for the
standing issue is the recognition of the problem. The leaders have to identify the problem
in case of crisis or opportunity with the help of the assistants. The earlier the problem is
identified, the earlier it can be solved and minimize the enduring consequences.
Similarly, the early breakthrough of existing opportunity will help to contribute
maximum gain for the nation.
Stage 3: Setting of the Goal and Criteria

The modern state has multiple Foreign Policy goals. The leaders have to set the goal and
its criteria to solve the issues based on its requirement and adaptability. Along with
political environment, available resources and constraints of a nation have to be taken
into account while setting the goals. The goals and its approaches need to complement
with each other for good decision. The short term goals to resolve the standing issues
should not be contrary to the ultimate national goal. The leader can set the goal and
criteria on his own or with due consultants or advisors according to the structure of
decision making. The decision making should be limited to the boundary or reliable
resources and should not be depended on unrealistic asserts.

Stage 4: Development of Alternative Course of Actions

After setting the goal and criteria, the state has to find out the alternative policy options
to resolve the situation. The leader may take the help of advisors and subordinates to
generate as much alternatives as it can. The task may be distributed among the experts
and specialists who belong to different departments so that it can produce effective
alternatives in minimum time. Time and resource are the main constraints of generating
alternatives. If a nation is in crisis the leaders get less time to generate more policy
options, hence they trial the first option until the effective one.

Stage 5: Evaluation of the Alternatives

The next step after the identification of policy alternatives is to evaluate the alternatives.
Each of the policy options has to be evaluated thoroughly in terms of its merits and
demerits, costs and benefits along with its contribution to achieve national goals.
Sometimes some options may be beneficial for short term but may be harmful for future
and vice-versa. The related future consequences have to be taken into account while
considering any selection. A balanced track has to be maintained for optimum benefit.
However, the state should be in a position to implement the alternative actions and the
impractical options should be avoided.

Stage 6: Selection of the Best Option

The leaders have to select the best available policy option after they complete scrutiny of
the alternatives. This is the crucial stage of decision making process. If the policy
selection is biased or wrong the very purpose of goal optimization will suffer. The leader
should remain out of the corrupt means, including presumption and emotional and try to
follow maximum degree of rationality during decision making. However choosing the
best is not easy, as different individuals have different approaches to look at. But the best
policy alternatives should have some basic characteristics. Being complement to the very
objectives of purpose and support to optimization of national goals should be the prime
 nature of the best alternatives. The total decision making system often engages itself to
find out the best Foreign Policy options, especially during crisis. They often classify the
available alternatives and prepare their rank according to their values and choose the best
(often the top ranked) option for implementation.

specialists who belong to different departments so that it can produce effective

alternatives in minimum time. Time and resource are the main constraints of generating
alternatives. If a nation is in crisis the leaders get less time to generate more policy
options, hence they trial the first option until the effective one.

Stage 5: Evaluation of the Alternatives

The next step after the identification of policy alternatives is to evaluate the alternatives.
Each of the policy options has to be evaluated thoroughly in terms of its merits and
demerits, costs and benefits along with its contribution to achieve national goals.
Sometimes some options may be beneficial for short term but may be harmful for future
and vice-versa. The related future consequences have to be taken into account while
considering any selection. A balanced track has to be maintained for optimum benefit.
However, the state should be in a position to implement the alternative actions and the
impractical options should be avoided.

Stage 6: Selection of the Best Option

The leaders have to select the best available policy option after they complete scrutiny of
the alternatives. This is the crucial stage of decision making process. If the policy
selection is biased or wrong the very purpose of goal optimization will suffer. The leader
should remain out of the corrupt means, including presumption and emotional and try to
follow maximum degree of rationality during decision making. However choosing the
best is not easy, as different individuals have different approaches to look at. But the best
policy alternatives should have some basic characteristics. Being complement to the very
objectives of purpose and support to optimization of national goals should be the prime
nature of the best alternatives. The total decision making system often engages itself to
find out the best Foreign Policy options, especially during crisis. They often classify the
available alternatives and prepare their rank according to their values and choose the best
(often the top ranked) option for implementation

Foreign policy is the manner in which a country behaves toward other members of the
international community. It involves a state setting an agenda and using its resources to achieve
established goals. Nations strive to achieve foreign policy goals with a combination of the
instruments discussed below.

 
 Foreign Policy Decision Making and Implementation
China Table of Contents

Understanding the intricate workings of a government can be difficult, especially in a country

such as China, where information related to leadership and decision making is often kept secret.
Although it still was not possible to understand fully the structure of Chinese foreign- policy-
related governmental and nongovernmental organizations or how they made or implemented
decisions, more was known about them by the late 1980s than at any time previously.

After 1949 China's foreign relations became increasingly more complex as China established
formal diplomatic relations with more nations, joined the United Nations (UN) and other
international and regional political and economic organizations, developed ties between the
Chinese Communist Party and foreign parties, and expanded trade and other economic relations
with the rest of the world. These changes had affected foreign relations in significant ways by the
late 1980s. The economic component of China's international relations increased dramatically
from the late 1970s to the late 1980s; more ministries and organizations were involved in foreign
relations than ever before; and the Chinese foreign policy community was more experienced and
better informed about the outside world than it had been previously.

Despite the growing complexity of Chinese foreign relations, one fundamental aspect of foreign
policy that has remained relatively constant since 1949 is that the decision-making power for the
most important decisions has been concentrated in the hands of a few key individuals at the top of
the leadership hierarchy. In the past, ultimate foreign policy authority rested with such figures as
Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai, while in the 1980s major decisions were understood to have
depended on Deng Xiaoping. By the late 1980s, Deng had initiated steps to institutionalize
decision making and make it less dependent on personal authority, but this transition was not yet
complete.

In examining the workings of a nation's foreign policy, at least three dimensions can be discerned:
the structure of the organizations involved, the nature of the decision-making process, and the
ways in which policy is implemented. These three dimensions are interrelated, and the processes
of formulating and carrying out policy are often more complex than the structure of organizations
would indicate.

Government and Party Organizations

By the late 1980s, more organizations were involved in China's foreign relations than at any time
previously. High-level party and government organizations such as the Central Committee,
Political Bureau, party Secretariat, party and state Central Military Commissions, National
People's Congress, and State Council and such leaders as the premier, president, and party general
secretary all were involved in foreign relations to varying degrees by virtue of their concern with
major policy issues, both foreign and domestic. The party Secretariat and the State Council
together carried the major responsibility for foreign policy decisions.

In the 1980s, as China's contacts with the outside world grew, party and government leaders at all
levels increasingly were involved in foreign affairs. The president of the People's Republic
fulfilled a ceremonial role as head of state and also was responsible for officially ratifying or
abrogating treaties and agreements with foreign nations. In addition to meeting with foreign
visitors, Chinese leaders, including the president, the premier, and officials at lower levels,
traveled abroad regularly.

In the late 1980s, the Political Bureau, previously thought of as the major decision-making body,
was no longer the primary party organization involved in foreign policy decision making. Instead,
the State Council referred major decisions to the Secretariat for resolution and the Political Bureau
for ratification. Under the party Secretariat, the International Liaison Department had primary
responsibility for relations between the Chinese Communist Party and a growing number of
foreign political parties. Other party organizations whose work was related to foreign relations
were the United Front Work Department, responsible for relations with overseas Chinese, the
Propaganda Department, and the Foreign Affairs Small Group.

Of the Chinese government institutions, the highest organ of state power, the National People's
Congress, appeared to have only limited influence on foreign policy. In the 1980s the National
People's Congress was becoming more active on the international scene by increasing its contacts
with counterpart organizations in foreign countries. Through its Standing Committee and its
Foreign Affairs Committee, the National People's Congress had a voice in foreign relations
matters and occasionally prepared reports on foreign policy-related issues for other party and
government bodies.

As the primary governmental organization under the National People's Congress, the State
Council had a major role in foreign policy, particularly with regard to decisions on routine or
specific matters, as opposed to greater questions of policy that might require party involvement.
As in the past, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was the most important institution involved in
conducting day-to-day foreign relations, but by the 1980s many other ministries and organizations
under the State Council had functions related to foreign affairs as well. These included the
Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations and Trade, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of National
Defense, Bank of China, People's Bank of China, and China Council for the Promotion of
International Trade. In addition, over half of the ministries, overseeing such disparate areas as
aeronautics, forestry, and public health, had a bureau or department concerned explicitly with
foreign affairs. These offices presumably handled contacts between the ministry and its foreign
counterparts.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Since 1949 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been one of China's most important ministries.
Each area of foreign relations, divided either geographically or functionally, is overseen by a vice
minister or assistant minister. For example, one vice minister's area of specialty was the Soviet
Union and Eastern Europe, while another was responsible for the Americas and Australia. At the
next level, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was divided into departments, some geographical and
some functional in responsibility. The regionally oriented departments included those concerned
with Africa, the Americas and Oceania, Asia, the Middle East, the Soviet Union and Eastern
Europe, Western Europe, Taiwan, and Hong Kong and Macao. The functional departments were
responsible for administration, cadres, consular affairs, finance, information, international laws
and treaties, international organizations and affairs, personnel, protocol, training and education,
and translation. Below the department level were divisions, such as the United States Affairs
Division under the Department of American and Oceanian Affairs.

A recurring problem for the foreign ministry and the diplomatic corps has been a shortage of
qualified personnel. In the first years after the founding of the People's Republic, there were few
prospective diplomats with international experience. Premier Zhou Enlai relied on a group of
young people who had served under him in various negotiations to form the core of the newly
established foreign ministry, and Zhou himself held the foreign ministry portfolio until 1958. In
the second half of the 1960s, China's developing foreign affairs sector suffered a major setback
during the Cultural Revolution, when higher education was disrupted, foreign-trained scholars and
diplomats were attacked, all but one Chinese ambassador (to Egypt) were recalled to Beijing, and
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself practically ceased functioning.

Since the early 1970s, the foreign affairs establishment has been rebuilt, and by the late 1980s,
foreign affairs personnel were recruited from such specialized training programs as the ministry's
Foreign Affairs College, College of International Relations, Beijing Foreign Languages Institute,
and international studies departments at major universities. Foreign language study still was
considered an important requirement, but it was increasingly supplemented by substantive training
in foreign relations. Foreign affairs personnel benefited from expanded opportunities for
education, travel, and exchange of information with the rest of the world. In addition, specialists
from other ministries served in China's many embassies and consulates; for example, the Ministry
of National Defense provided military attaches, the Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations and
Trade provided commercial officers, and the Ministry of Culture and the State Education
Commission provided personnel in charge of cultural affairs.

Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations and Trade

Since the late 1970s, economic and financial issues have become an increasingly important part of
China's foreign relations. In order to streamline foreign economic relations, the Ministry of
Foreign Economic Relations and Trade was established in 1982 through the merger of two
commissions and two ministries. By the late 1980s, this ministry was the second most prominent
ministry involved in the routine conduct of foreign relations. The ministry had an extremely broad
mandate that included foreign trade, foreign investment, foreign aid, and international economic
cooperation. Through regular meetings with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of
Foreign Economic Relations and Trade participated in efforts to coordinate China's foreign
economic policy with other aspects of its foreign policy. It was unclear how thoroughly this was
accomplished.

Ministry of National Defense

In any nation, the interrelation of the political and military aspects of strategy and national security
necessitates some degree of military involvement in foreign policy. The military's views on
defense capability, deterrence, and perceptions of threat are essential components of a country's
global strategy. As of the late 1980s, however, little information was available on foreign policy
coordination between the military and foreign policy establishments. The most important military
organizations with links to the foreign policy community were the Ministry of National Defense
and the party and state Central Military Commissions. The Ministry of National Defense provides
military attaches for Chinese embassies, and, as of 1987, its Foreign Affairs Bureau dealt with
foreign attaches and military visitors. Working-level coordination with the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs was maintained when, for example, high-level military leaders traveled abroad. In
addition, the Ministry of National Defense's strategic research arm, the Beijing Institute for
International Strategic Studies, carried out research on military and security issues with foreign
policy implications.

In the late 1980s, the most important link between the military and foreign policy establishments
appeared to be at the highest level, particularly through the party and state Central Military
Commissions and through Deng Xiaoping, who was concurrently chairman of both commissions.
The views of the commissions' members on major foreign policy issues were almost certainly
considered in informal discussions or in meetings of other highlevel organizations they also
belonged to, such as the Political Bureau, the Secretariat, or the State Council. It was significant,
though, that compared with earlier periods fewer military leaders served on China's top policy-
making bodies during the 1980s.

"People-to-People" Diplomacy

Since 1949 a significant forum for Chinese foreign relations has been cultural or "people-to-
people" diplomacy. The relative isolation of the People's Republic during its first two decades
increased the importance of cultural exchanges and informal ties with people of other countries
through mass organizations and friendship societies. In some cases, activities at this level have
signaled important diplomatic breakthroughs, as was the case with the American-Chinese ping-
pong exchange in 1971. In addition to educational and cultural institutions, many other
organizations, including the media, women's and youth organizations, and academic and
professional societies, have been involved in foreign relations. Two institutes responsible for this
aspect of Chinese diplomacy were associated with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and staffed
largely by former diplomats: the Chinese People's Association for Friendship with Foreign
Countries and the Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs.

The Decision-Making Process

The most crucial foreign policy decisions in the mid-1980s were made by the highest-level
leadership, with Deng Xiaoping as the final arbiter. A shift was underway, however, to strengthen
the principles of collective and institutional decision making and, at the same time, to reduce party
involvement in favor of increased state responsibility. In line with this trend, the State Council
made foreign policy decisions regarding routine matters and referred only major decisions either
to the party Secretariat or to informal deliberations involving Deng Xiaoping for resolution. When
called upon to make decisions, the Secretariat relied largely on the advice of the State Council and
members of China's foreign affairs community. The importance of the Political Bureau appeared
to have lessened. Although individual members of the Political Bureau exerted influence on the
shaping of foreign policy, the Political Bureau's role as an institution seemed to have become one
of ratifying decisions, rather than formulating them. The division between party and government
functions in foreign affairs as of the mid-1980s could therefore be summarized as party supremacy
in overall policy making and supervision, with the government's State Council and ministries
under it responsible for the daily conduct of foreign relations.

These high-level decision-making bodies comprised the apex of an elaborate network of party and
government organizations and research institutes concerned with foreign policy. To support the
formulation and implementation of policy, especially in a bureaucracy as complex and
hierarchical as China's, there existed a network of small advisory and coordination groups. These
groups functioned to channel research, provide expert advice, and act as a liaison between
organizations. Perhaps the most important of these groups was the party Secretariat's Foreign
Affairs Small Group. This group comprised key party and government officials, including the
president, the premier, state councillors, the ministers of foreign affairs and foreign economic
relations and trade, and various foreign affairs specialists, depending on the agenda of the
meeting. The group possibly met weekly, or as required by circumstances. Liaison and advisory
functions were provided by other groups, including the State Council's Foreign Affairs
Coordination Point, the staff of the premier's and State Council's offices, and bilateral policy
groups, such as one composed of ministers and vice ministers of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and the Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations and Trade, which met at least every few months.

In the late 1980s, the decision-making process for foreign policy matters followed a fairly
hierarchical pattern. If a particular ministry was unable to make a decision because the purview of
other ministries was involved, it would attempt to resolve the issue through informal discussion or
through an interagency group. If that was not successful or if higher-level consideration was
needed, the problem might be referred to the Foreign Affairs Coordination Point or to select
members of the State Council for review. Certain major decisions would then be discussed by the
Foreign Affairs Small Group before consideration by the party Secretariat itself. If the issue was
extremely controversial or important, the final decision would be directed to the highest-level
leadership, particularly Deng Xiaoping.

American Foreign Policy Concerns

As the greatest military and economic power in the world, the United States has taken an active
role in international politics. The United States values security and stability, both at home and
abroad, above all else, and focuses on a number of areas to achieve those ends:

Terrorism
Nuclear proliferation
Free trade
Humanitarianism
Environmental issues
Terrorism

Terrorism has been used by groups of all ideological and political views, from the leftist Red
Brigades in Europe to the right-wing terrorist Timothy McVeigh, who bombed a federal building
in Oklahoma City in 1994. A number of foreign and domestic terrorists have launched attacks
against American interests since the early 1980s. In 1982, a suicide bomber killed 241 American
military personnel in Lebanon. A group of Islamic fundamentalists attempted to destroy the World
Trade Center in 1993, and al Qaeda attacked American embassies in Africa in 1998. Al Qaeda’s
devastating, coordinated attacks on September 11, 2001, prompted officials in Washington to
make combating terrorism the central focus of American foreign policy.

SEPTEMBER 11TH

Using passenger planes as weapons, nineteen terrorists damaged the Pentagon in Washington,
D.C., and destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City, killing
nearly 3,000 people in the process. The terrorist network al Qaeda carefully planned the attack to
protest American foreign policy in the Middle East.

THE WAR ON TERROR

Following the attack, President George W. Bush rallied the nation to fight back against the
terrorists responsible. The United States successfully led a coalition force in an invasion of
Afghanistan, where the governing Taliban regime had sheltered and aided the core leadership of al
Qaeda, including Saudi exile Osama bin Ladin. Bush also created the Department of Homeland
Security to coordinate efforts at home to prevent future terrorist attacks.

Bush’s War on Terror broadened the scope of the American response from fighting al Qaeda and
other groups intent on attacking the United States to fighting all terrorists around the world. Since
2002, the United States has funded many wars on terror being fought by other governments in
Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America. The United States has even sent military consultants to
other countries. As a result of these wars, a few terrorists groups, including the Irish Republican
Army, have voluntarily renounced violence.

Terrorism and Other States

Many states around the world have lived with the threat of terrorism for far longer than the United
States. Irish Republican Army terrorists frequently attacked English civilians in London in the
1980s, for example, to protest British control of Northern Ireland. Israel suffers from frequent
terrorist attacks too: at one time from the Palestinian Liberation Organization and currently from
Hamas, an Islamist terrorist organization based in Lebanon.

THE BUSH DOCTRINE

In 2002, President Bush argued that the United States has the right to eliminate its enemies before
they attack American interests, a policy now known as the Bush Doctrine. Although previous
presidents had always believed that the United States could defend itself by striking its enemies
first, Bush was the first president to put that policy into effect when he authorized the invasion of
Iraq in 2003 to prevent dictator Saddam Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction against
the United States and its allies. Numerous critics, however, have challenged the Bush Doctrine,
claiming that this largely unilateral policy has damaged American integrity abroad. Other critics
have contended that the Bush Doctrine has undermined America’s ability to criticize other
aggressive states.

Nuclear Proliferation

The United States has worked hard to prevent other countries from acquiring and developing
nuclear weapons. The United States worries that rogue states might use nuclear technology
irresponsibly to attack their enemies without thinking of the global repercussions. In 1968,
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty tried to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. At the time,
only five states had nuclear weapons: the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France,
and China, all of which had a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Nearly
every country in the world signed the treaty, thereby agreeing not to seek or spread nuclear
weapons.
Despite the agreement, however, a few states have still acquired or developed nuclear weapons,
including India, Pakistan, and, most recently, North Korea. Most foreign policy analysts believe
that Israel also has nuclear weapons, even though Israel refuses to reveal whether this is true. Iran
is currently seeking to acquire nuclear technology, ostensibly to be used only for electrical power,
even though few world leaders believe this claim.

Nuclear Arsenals Around the World

Although only a few states currently have nuclear weapons, many have sought to acquire them
over the past few decades. Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Egypt,
Libya, Iraq, Germany, Poland, Serbia, Romania, Sweden, and perhaps Saudi Arabia have all
launched nuclear weapon research programs at some point in the last forty years. South Africa
also once had nuclear weapons but dismantled them in the early 1990s.

Free Trade

Since the end of World War II, the United States has led the way in creating a number of
international institutions that govern international trade. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is
the largest and most powerful of these institutions. It seeks to promote free trade among member
nations by reducing or eliminating domestic subsidies and protective tariffs. WTO members must
agree to abide by the organization’s trade regulations, and almost all the world’s countries are
represented in the membership.

The governing body of the WTO has the authority to punish any member state that violates these
rules. Many American laborers believe that such organizations hurt American industry and lead to
outsourcing, transferring jobs formerly available to American workers to workers in other
countries. Proponents of free trade—including the American government—however, argue that
the benefits of free trade far outweigh the costs because free trade lowers the price of consumer
goods and allows Americans to purchase more with their money.

Humanitarianism

The United States has always been one of the major proponents of international human rights and
has criticized many developing countries around the world for abusing those rights. President
Jimmy Carter even made humanitarianism a major tenant of his foreign policy in the late 1970s.
Since the end of World War II, the United States has also been the largest donor of international
aid. 

At the same time, the United States still lacks a codified humanitarianism foreign policy,
responding to some global humanitarian crises (Somalia in 1992) but not others (Rwanda in 1996,
Darfur in 2004). In fact, both conservative and liberal presidents and senators have refused to sign
most international human rights treaties out of fear that Americans may be stripped of their rights
as U.S. citizens when tried in international courts for crimes against humanity. This refusal has
prompted much international criticism, especially in the wake of gross human rights violations,
most notably at the American-controlled Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in 2003 and at the American
military detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Americans and foreign policymakers alike are divided on whether the United States should make
humanitarianism a more formal component of its foreign policy. Proponents argue that the United
States should promote human rights as the so-called leader of the free world and as the country
with the most resources to help others. Others, however, argue that promoting human rights and
sending troops on humanitarian missions achieves nothing tangible for the United States and could
lead to wasteful uses of resources and the needless loss of American lives.

Environmental Issues

Environmentalism has taken center stage in foreign policy as well. Many people around the world
have realized that some environmental issues require transnational solutions, so they urge their
political leaders to reach agreements over a variety of environmental matters. The most ambitious
such agreement is the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 treaty signed to curb global warming by reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. A number of states, however, including China and the United States,
refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, claiming that it had been formulated on faulty science. It
remains to be seen whether the treaty can be effective without American participation.
Kyoto in America
Despite the fact that the president and the Senate have refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, a
number of state and local jurisdictions have adopted many of the treaty’s requirements. Similarly,
a number of corporations have voluntarily complied with some of the protocol’s standards.