foreign policy and national interest
Post on 04-Jun-2018
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
8/13/2019 foreign policy and national interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/foreign-policy-and-national-interest 1/7
h pter Foreign Policy and
National Interest
WHAT IS FOREIGN POLICY
Foreign pol icy and diplomacy have been described as wheels with which the
process of international relations operates. No state can live in isolation. Even
before interdependence of s ta tes reached the present s tage, the s tates hadseveral types of relat ions among themselves . These included t rade relat ions ,
cultural relation s and, of cour se, political relations. Ev ery state, like an indiv idual,
seeks to promote its own interests. These interests are called national interests.
Foreign policy is formulated by every state so as to serve its nation al interests.
The governments of states have to decide on a certain course of action and
refrain from certain other s. Accord ingly, govern men ts beh ave in a particular
manner in relat ion to gov ernments of other s ta tes . As Professor Mah endra
Kum ar says , The s tudy of this behaviour is , broadly speaking, the content of
foreign policy. 1 The behaviour of each state affects the behaviour of others.
Every state, keeping in view its national interests, tries to take maximum
advantage of the actions of other states. Thus, the primary purpose of foreign
policy is to seek adjustments in the behaviour of other states, in favour of
oneself
Foreign policy has been defined by Modelski as the system of a ctivities
evolved b y commun ities for changing the behaviour of other states and for
adjusting their own activities to the international environment.2 He adds
that the most imp ortant task of foreign policy must be to throw light on the
ways n which states attempt to chang e, and succeed n changing, the behaviour
of other states. Hugh Gibson has defined foreign policy as a well rounded,
comprehensive plan, based on knowledge and experience, for conducting
the business ofgovernment with the rest of the world It s aimed at promoting
and protecting the interests o f the nation.'^ According to Nor thedge , /bre /gw
policy is an interaction between forces originating outside the country's
borders and those working within them. Hartman has described the foreign
8/13/2019 foreign policy and national interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/foreign-policy-and-national-interest 2/7
oregn Poicy of nda
policy thus: / / is a systematic statement o f deliberately selected national
interests . Thus , the emphasis in every defini tion is on beh aviour of s tates to
regulate their own ac t ions and, i f poss ible, change or regulate the behaviou r of
other s tates , with the v iew of serving their nat ional interes ts .
Rodee has also underl ined the same point . He says that foreign policy
involves the formulat ion and implementat ion of a group of principles which
shape the behaviour pat tern of a s tate while negotiat ing with other s tates to
protect or further its vital interests. very good definition of foreign policy is
given by Cecil V. C r a b , Jr He says:
Reduced to its most fundamental ingredients, foreign policy consists o f
two elements: National objectives to be achieved and means for achieving
them. The interaction between national goa ls and the resources for attaining
them is the perennial subject of statecraft. In its ingredients the foreign policy
of all nations, great or small, is the same.
Th e idea of Cra b Jr. is that foreign policy ma kers identify the national goalsto be achieved and the means to achieve them. The interact ion between the
object ives and the means is foreign policy. Similar opinion is expressed by
Couloumbis and Wolfe. They wri te that , ....foreign policies are syntheses of
the ends (national interests) an d means (power and capabilities) of nation-
states. In order to unders tand this defini t ion, i t will be prop er to examin e what
is meant by nat ional interes t and power.
At this s tage, full im plicat ions of Modelski ' s defini t ion m ay be analyze d.
As ment ioned above , he s ays tha t fore ign pol i cy impl i e s changing the
behaviour of other states.' This means , according to Modelski , a des irable
change in the behaviour of other s tates is the end of foreign policy. But ,
according to Professor Mahendra Kumar, this is an incomplete and imperfect
meaning of foreign policy. A change in behaviour of other s tates may not
always be desirab le. At times, i t may be desirable to ensure con tinuat ion o f the
same behaviour of others . And, at yet another t ime, i t may become necessary
to make certain adjus tments in one 's own behaviour. Thus, The aim of foreign
policy should be to regulate, and not merely to change, the behaviour of other
s tates . Regulat ion means adjus t ing the behaviour of other s tates to sui t one 's
own interes t as best as poss ible. 6 While during the Cold War period both the
United States and the former Soviet Union at tempted to al ter the behaviour of
other s tates to ensure maximum number of bloc fol lowers , India sought to
regulate the behaviour of maximum num ber of countries to bui ld a s trong non-
al igned movem ent. The US po licy of containment of commu nism was to change
the l ikely course of events in i ts favour. The United States had unsuccessful ly
tried to persuade India to s ign the Nuclear Non-Prol iferat ion Treaty. In 1996,
while efforts were made to regulate the behaviour of India so as to ensure
unanimous endorsement of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), India
oregn Poicy and Nationa Interest 3
on i ts part , tr ied to change the at t i tude 6f nu clear powers to declare a t ime-table
for des truct ion of their nuclear weapons. Both the efforts fai led. Thus, every
at tempt at change of behaviour of others may not succeed. Foreign policy,
therefore, means deciding on certain goals and making efforts to regulate
behaviour o f others to achieve these goals . The goa ls are sought to be achieved
with the help of power. Thus, nat ional interest and power are vi tal ingredients
of foreign policy.
We have seen that foreign policy is concerned both with change and
status quo. There is another dimension also. As Fel iks Gross says , even a
decis ion not to have any relations with a state is also foreign policy. Each
individual s tate has to decide the degree of i ts involvement in i ts relat ions with
another country that w ould protect i ts interes ts . India 's decis ion in 1949 not to
have any re lat ions with the racis t regime of South Africa was a defini te foreign
policy. Similarly, the American decision not to recognize the Soviet Union, after
Bolshevik Rev olut ion t i l l 1934, was clearly the US policy towards U SSR. T heforeign policy may be either positive or negative. It is positive when it aims at
regulat ing the behaviour of other s tates by changing i t , and negat ive when i t
seeks such a regulat ion by not changing that behaviour. Thus, to conclude,
every s tate adopts certain principles to guide i ts relat ions with other s tates .
These principles are based on interaction between nat ional interes ts and means
(power ) to achieve them. As Bandop adhyaya says , The formulat ion of foreign
policy is essent ial ly an exercise in the choice of ends and m eans on the part of
a nation state in an international setting. 7
In the mak ing of foreign policy, the role of policy mak ers is indeed important.
A lot depends on the perceptions and ideology of the foreign minis ter who
guides the officials w ho identify the aims of foreign p olicy and determ ine the
principles to be fol lowed. Today the people and media also are playing ai
important role. M odelski cal ls the flow of act ions from the comm unity towat J s
the policy makers as the input and the decis ions of the pol icy makers as the
outpu t . Accord ing to Mahendra Kumar, foreign po licy includes (i) the pol icy
make rs , ( i i ) interes ts and object ives , ( i i i ) principles of foreign policy, and (iv)
means o f foreign policy. He, therefore, defines the foreign policy as a thought-
out course of action for ach ieving objectives in foreign relations as dictated
by the ideology of national interest. *
NATIONAL INTEREST
If foreign p olicy is the resul t of interaction between ends and means, nat ional
interes t , the end, must be clearly unde rs tood. National interes t is the key note
of interna tional rel ation s. It is said that self interest is not only a legitimate,
but a fundamental cau se for nat ional pol icy. Accord ing to Hans Morg enthau,
the great real is t scholar, who has been described as the twentieth century
8/13/2019 foreign policy and national interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/foreign-policy-and-national-interest 3/7
oregn Poicy of ndadescend ant of K auti lya, al l pol it ics is s t ruggle for power, and, as long as the
world is pol i t ical ly organized into nat ions , the nat ional interes t is indeed the
las t word in world po li t ics . No governm ent can act contrary to the nat ional
interes t of the country. No country, whatever i ts ideals, can afford to base i ts
fore ign pol i cy on cons ide ra t ions o the r t han the na t iona l i n t e res t . Lord
Palmers ton had very right ly opined, over a hundred years ago, that : We have
no eternal al l ies and we have no eternal enemies . Our interes ts are eternal and
those interes ts i t is our duty to fol low. It is true. Friendship or enmity between
nations keeps on changing as environmental changes occur and as every s tate
seeks to prom ote i ts self-interes ts . If the interes ts of two cou ntries clash, they
ei ther make ad justments after negotiat ions or go in for a pol icy of confrontat ion.
George Washington, the fi rs t US Pres ident , had declared the universal t ruth
that no country can be trusted further than it is bound by its interests; and no
prudent s tatesm an or pol i t ician wil l venture to depart from i t .
I t is often seen that a part icular governmen t may hav e wron g or misplace dbelief about the nat ional interest of the country. Policies based on such bel iefs
are bound to fail, but so long as a leader is in powe r he t ries to pursue the po licy
based on his perception of nat ional interes ts . Thus , Napoleon had said that he
was act ing in the interes t of France when he ini t iated his campaign agains t
Russia, and later when he launched his desperate bat t le at Waterloo. Adolf
Hit ler jus t i fied h is expansionis t pol icies , including annex ation of Austria and
breakup of Czechoslov akia (1938) in Germ any's nat ional interes t. Bri t ish Prime
Minis ter Nevil le Chamberlain was determined to appease the dictators of
Germany (Hit ler) and Italy (Mussolini) because he assumed that that was in
Bri tain's nat ional interes t . Friendly social ist govern ments were ins talled in
East European countries in 1945 as that , according to Stal in, would best serve
the Soviet nat ional interes t . In recent t imes Pakis tan government appeared
convinced that i t was in that country's nat ional interes t to des tabi l ize Indian
state of Jammu & Kashmir. These exceptions apart , normally a well thought-
out foreign policy is based on the genuine perception of the country's goals
and object iv es and , therefore, i ts nat ional interes ts .
Jawaharlal Nehru had declared in 1947 in the Const i tuent Assembly ofIndia (Legis lat ive): Wha tever pol icy we may lay dow n, the art of condu cting
the foreign affairs of a country lies in finding out what is mos t advantageous to
the country . .. whether a country is imperial is t ic or social is t or commun is t , i ts
foreign minis ter thinks primari ly of the interes ts of that country. However,
certain ideal is t s tatesmen deny the o verriding role of national interes t in foreign
policy making. The U President, Woodrow Wilson who led the Allies to victory
in the First World War, said It is peri lous to determine the foreign policy of a
nat ion in terms of nat ional interes t. . . We dare not turn from the prin ciple that
moral i ty and not expediency is the thing that must guide us . We have no
selfish end s to serve . This is an exceptional view which is not general ly
oregn Poicy and Nationa Interest 5
shared by s tatesmen. However, Mahatma Gandhi , though he was never in the
government, was one of those who ins is ted on the value of moral i ty. For
example, after independence when be went on fas t unto death to press the
Indian Government to pay Rs. 55 crore to Pakis tan (his reasoning was that we
owed i t to that country ), Gandhi was em phasizing mo ral i ty even at the cost of
national interest. But, what exactly is national interest?
National interes t has been described as the general and continu ing ends
for which a nat ion acts . Bandop adhyay a says: every s tate aims at preservin g
i t s pol i t i ca l i nd epen den ce and t e r r i t or i a l i n t egr i ty by s a fegu arding i t s
internat ional boundaries . The means may vary . . . but the nat ional interes t in
the preser vation of territorial integrity is clear.9 This idea has been explained in
clearer terms by Spykm an. He says: Because terri tory is an inherent part of a
s tate, self-preservat ion means defending i ts control over terri tory; and, because
independ ence is the essence of s tate, self-preservation also mean s fight ing for
independent s tatus . . . the bas ic object ive of the foreign policy of al l s tates is
the preservat ion of terri torial integri ty and poli t ical independence. 10
The idea of nat ional interes t can be, at t imes , qui te vague. It assumes
variety of meanings in different contexts . However, as Padelford and Lincoln
observe : Conc epts of nat ional interes ts are centered on core values of the
society, which include the welfare of the nation, the security of its political
bel iefs , nat ional way of l i fe , terri torial integri ty and i ts self-preservat ion.
Acco rding to Robert Osgo od, nat ional interes t is s tate of affairs valued solely
for i ts benefi t to the nat ions . And, Morg enthau m aintains that the main
requirem ent of a nat ion - s tate is to protect i ts physical , pol i t ical and cul tural
identi ty agains t threat from other s tates . Foreign policy makers can never
ignore the s tate ' s nat ional interes t . I ts essent ial components are general ly
bel ieved to be securi ty, economic development and a peaceful world order.
Defence of the s tate is natural ly the primary concern of a foreign policy.
Secondly, promotion of economic interes t , including favourable condit ions of
trade, is another vi tal object ive of foreign policy. Last ly, most modern s tates
a re a l s o conce rned wi th ma intenance of i n t e rna t iona l peace , re s pec t for
international law, pacific settlement of international disputes and strengtheningof the sys tem of internat ional organizat ion.
POWER
Detai led analys is of the concept of power is nei ther feas ible nor intended in
this introductory chapter on Foreign Policy. Since we have referred to foreign
policy as synthesis between ends and means, and pow er has been identified
as the means , i t wil l be proper to briefly indicate the meaning and importance of
p o w e r in foreign policy. Power is a phenomenon of al l relat ionships . Power has
been defined by various scholars , but the idea behind al l the defini t ions is
8/13/2019 foreign policy and national interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/foreign-policy-and-national-interest 4/7
6 oregn Poicy of nda
same. It has been described as the abi l ity or capaci ty to control others and get
them to do what on e wants them to do and also to see that they do not do w hat
one doe s not want them to do. The concept of power is a central concept in
internat ional relat ions . The concept of power was discussed by Kauti lya, the
maste r of statecraft in ancien t India. He interpreted it as the possessio n of
s treng th derive d from three elements namely, know ledge, mil i tary might and
valour. In the twentieth century, Hans Morgenthau echoed the same feel ings .
He describe d al l pol i t ics as s truggle for power. Therefore, internat ional pol i t ics
is s t ruggle for power among states . Accord ing to Morge nthau. power is man 's
control over minds and act ions of other men . In internat ional relat ions power
is the abi l i ty of a s tate to make i ts wil l prevai l and to enforce respect and
command obedience from other s tates . This defini t ion of power by Professor
Mahendra Kumar implies that power is an abi l i ty to get things done as Actor
A wants Actor to do. If'A' succeeds, it has power. This ability, when exercised
enables a s tate to control the behaviour of other s tates . Since foreign policy isaimed at regulat ion of behaviour of other s tates , power alo ne enables s tates to
formulate and successful ly implement their foreign policies .
Robert Dahl explain ed powe r by s tat ing: 'A' has power over ' B ' to the
extent that i t can get 'B ' to do someth ing that kB' would not otherwise do.
Thus, every s tate, big or small , has power to secure compliance from some
other s tate. Power, as mentione d abo ve, is a vital means of a s tate. Since every
state des ires more and more power, i t often becomes an end in itself Vernon
Van Dyke conc ludes thus: Power is both the capstone amo ng the object ives
which the s tates pursue and the corners tone among the methods which they
employ . Most s tates use power as means of at taining nat ional object ives
which are const i tuents of their foreign policies . Couloumbis and Wolfe define
power as an umbrel la concept that denotes anything that es tabl ishes and
mainta ins the cont ro l of Ac tor A ove r Ac tor B . Power , according to
Couloumbis and Wolfe, has three ingredients . They are: authori ty, influence
and force . Toge the r t hey cons t i t u t e power . Author i ty means volunta ry
comp liance by Actor B of the wishes of Actor A, out of respect , affect ion, etc.
Influence has been defined as use of ins truments of persuasion by Actor A to
get i ts wishes accepted by Actor B, who m ight be ini t ially reluctant to carry out
wishes of Actor A. Final ly, force means coercion of Actor B by Actor A in
pursui t of i ts pol i tical object ives . Force m ay mean use of force, short of war, or
threat thereof Thus, Actor A may exercise power depend ing on the avai labi l i ty
of authori ty (voluntary compliance), influence (compliance by persuasion)
and force (use of coercive means).
In the present context , power is the means employ ed by s tates to chan ge,
adjust or regulate the behaviour of other s tates . Power, thus is the means of
foreign policy, whe reas nat ional interes t is the end or the goal .
oregn Poicy and Nationa Interest 7
DETER MINANTS OF FOR EIGN POLIC Y
Foreign policy making is a dynamic process . Normally, change of government
does not change the fundamentals of the foreign policy of a s tate, though a
revolut ionary change in pol i t ical set-up may resul t in dras t ic changes . Why
does i t normally remain unchanged? It is because foreign policy of a s tate is
determined by a number of factors , many of them are s tat ic . There are some
factors that do chan ge, but their impact in shaping a country 's foreign policy is
usual ly secondary. The foreign policy of a country is com pou nded out of
many fa ctors and forces . All of them interact and determ ine the foreign po licy.
Accord ing to Paddleford and Lincoln: Fundam ental ly, foreign policy has i ts
roots in the unique his torical backg round s, pol i tical ins t i tut ions , t radi t ions ,
e c o n o m i c n e e d s , p o w e r f a c t o r s , a s p i r a t i o n s , p e c u l i a r g e o g r a p h i c a l
circumstances , and basic set of values held by a nat ion. 12 James Rosenau
includes geography, s ize, economic development, cul ture and his tory, great
power s tructure, al l iances , technology, social s t ructure, public opinion and
governmental structure as inputs of foreign policy. Brecher refers to geography,
external environment, person al i t ies , econom ic and mil i tary posi t ion and pub lic
opinion as the determinan ts of foreign policy. Accordin g to J B andopadhyaya ,
the bas i c de t e rminant s of fore ign pol i cy inc lude geography, economic
development, political traditions, domestic milieu, international milieu, military
s trength and nat ional character.
Professor Appadorai discussed two broad determinants which influence
the making of foreign policy. These are cal led by him as domest ic en vironm ent
and internat ional environment. Appadorai mentions these two environments
in the context of Northedge's opinion that foreign policy is an interact ion
between forces originat ing outs ide the country's borders and those working
within them. The factors shaping India 's foreign policy wil l be discussed in
detai l in Chapter 2. Here a very brief mention will be made of the factors that
general ly determine foreign policies .
Firs tly, geograph ical s i tuat ion is a bas ic determinant . Th e s ize of the s tate
large enough to supp ort a populat ion, a cl imate that is nei ther excess ively cold
nor very hot , a topography offering boundaries with natural barriers such as
mountains , r ivers and seas and a compact terri tory enable a country to makeand implement independent foreign policy. Geography and terrain were very
important assets , before modern mil i tary machinery cam e into exis tence. Like
the s ize and topography, natural resources and s ize of populat ion contribute to
the power of the s tate, which in turn shapes i ts foreign policy. Of the
geographical factors special at tent ion must be drawn to locat ion. Bri tain and
Japan, though small in s ize, became great nat ions because of their abi l i ty to use
the oceans as highways of commerce. The absence of natural front iers as in
case of Poland often threatens their securi ty. As Appadorai wrote, That Bri tain
8/13/2019 foreign policy and national interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/foreign-policy-and-national-interest 5/7
oregn Poicy of nda
is separated from Europe by twenty miles of water gave her an advantage
denied to several countries such as France and Germany, which had to spend
much of their resources in fight ing each other on border problems . He added
that air power has indeed reduced the s ignificance of this factor. The s i tuat ion
of a country can en able i t, or deprive i t , to have an indepen dent foreign po licy.
The U S with vas t territory separated from other continents by the Atlant ic and
the Pacific gav e her unprecedented importance. The United States could eas i ly
follow a policy of isolation for a long time, and finally emerge as a super power.
It is her location and size that enabled America to remain free from any attack
and bat t les on her terri tory during the Second World War. India 's posi t ion in
South Asia enables her to be a major pow er and adopt assert ive foreign policy.
The vast s ize of Russia and large populat ions of China and India are important
determinants of their foreign policies . However, the mere s ize of a nat ion's
populat ion is not an index of i ts s trength. There a re cases , l ike that of Is rael , of
havng very small s ize of terri tory as well as small populat ion, yet having
adopted very aggress ive and effect ive foreign policy.Secondly, his tory and tradi t ions have s ignificant influence on foreign
policy making. His torical t ies of the United States with Bri tain, the mother
country, had an impact on the US policy for a very long time. British imperialism
in India, and our s truggle for freedom against colonial ism and im perial ism, has
had direct impact on India's foreign policy. India's full support to freedom
struggles in Afro-Asian countries and fight agains t racial discriminat ion was
the outcome of our his tory. Similarly, t radi t ional values are of immense
importan ce. Accord ing to App adorai , Tradi t ional values may be described as
those principles embodied in bel iefs and pract ices which have been transm it ted
through success ive generat ions and have been regarded as worthy of es teem
and adopt ion . 13 Foreign Minis ter is a part of social mil ieu and he cannot
disregard the bas ic values held in the society. Thus, democrat ic values in the
US and secularism in India are so deep rooted that they cannot be ignored by
any foreign policy maker in these countries .
Thi rd ly , t he pos s es s ion of raw mate r i a l s and na tura l re s ources and
compu ls ions of econom ic development also determine the course of a country's
foreign policy. Th e poli t ical s t rength o f a country is often m easured in terms ofeconomic s trength. Hence, this factor cannot be ignored while shaping the
foreign p olicy. A weak indu strial base has adve rse effect on the effectiven ess
of the country 's foreign policy. After indepen dence, India had to devote i ts
at tent ion to the process of development. For that purpose she needed not only
foreign aid but also foreign technology. By adopting the policy of non-
al ignment India ensured aid from al l quarters . The countries manufacturing
large quanti t ies of armaments look at their foreign policy options qui te
differently from those who are essentially oil producing and exporting countries.
But the possess ion o f natural resources , l ike oi l in West Asian countries , i tself
oregn Poicy and Nationa Interest 9
is not enough, unless coupled with other factors such as an able and far-
s ighted government, technological organisat ion and mil i tary s trength. Oil as a
source of energy has becom e important for industry and war One drop of oi l
said Cleme nceau, the French Premier, is worth one drop of blood of our
soldiers . I ts possess ion has direct impact on foreign policies of West Asian
countries and i ts lack has another type of impact on the policies of others .
Fourthly, high nat ional morale makes for a successful con duct of foreign
policy. Obviously, a homogene ous society makes for s trong nat ional uni ty and
high morale. Sharp divis ions in the society — between rich and poor, between
different classes , communit ies and cas tes — have adverse impact on foreign
policy. Social cohesion, therefore, is another factor in the shaping of successful
foreign policy.
Fifthly, pol i t ical organisat ion, pol i t ical t radi t ion, s t ructure of g overnm ent
and enl ightened leadership also contribute to the shaping of an effect ive foreign
policy. The tradi t ions of peace, t ruth and non-violence enabled India to ins is t
on peaceful set t lement of internat ional disputes and encourage disarmament.India 's assert ive and continued s tand agains t s igning the discriminatory nuclear
non-prol iferat ion treaty, NPT, as well as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(s igned by several countries in 1996) is guided by our commitment to nuclear-
weapons-free world without any discriminat ion. The qual i ty of leadership is an
important factor. A far-s ighted Nehru who bel ieved in democracy, an ideal is t
Wilson who wanted to end al l future wars , a determined Winston Churchil l
committed to win the Second World War, and a low-profi le yet s t rong Lai
Bahadur Shastri go a long way in formulating foreign policy that effectively
protects the national interests. On the other hand, leaders like Hitler or Mussolini
or Yah\ Khan or Saddam Hussein promise a glorious future for their countries,
but their policies often lead to disaster. democrat ic regime is in the long run
far mo , : effect ive than a despotic sys tem which shows only short term gains ,
but ch i js in the end. Besides , domest ic pol icies always influence the foreign
policy. The perception of rul ing el i te , the imperat ives of s tate-building and
ideologies of political parties are important variables that influence foreign policy.
Sixthly, mil i tary s trength of a country has direct impact on i ts foreign
policy. Possess ion of large and powerful armed forces equipped with modernsophis t icated wea pons of warfare makes for an effect ive and a ggress ive foreign
policy. A country with weak military machine will normally be at a disadvantage
even at peaceful negotiat ions . But , i t has been seen that an enl ightened
leadership and high m orale of people and the army, as in the case of Israel make
up for small size of army an d make for a successful foreign po licy. Ordinarily , a
mil i tari ly superior country would t ry to pursue a bold policy to maximise i ts
gains , and a weak country would t ry to minimise i ts disadvantages .
Seventhly, public opinion has lately become an important factor in the
shaping of foreign p olicy. The foreign p olicy is no more ma de in the secrecy of
8/13/2019 foreign policy and national interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/foreign-policy-and-national-interest 6/7
1 oregn Poicy of nda
Foreign Offices . I t is made in open, and public opinion can often force ch ange
in foreign policy and in i ts implementat ion. Bri t ish public ' s annoyance led to
the res ignat ion of Foreign Minis ter Sir Samuel Hoare in 1935 because of his
secret deal with his French coun terpart to bai l out the aggressor Italy. Again, i t
was public opinion agains t Bri t ish adventure in Suez cris is that forced Eden
Govern ment to qui t in 1957. It was because of fear of annoyan ce of a minori ty
comm unity that forced Indian foreign policy makers not to es tabl ish diplom atic
relat ions with Israel for four decades . US involvement in Vietnam War and
lately in Iraq had been s trongly opposed by American people. All foreign
policy makers are now very sensi t ive to public opinion.
Last ly, internat ional mil ieu is one of the most important determinants of
foreign policy. In any case, foreign policy s the sum total of decis ions taken by
a country to regulate the beh aviour of other s tates . Therefore , the internat ional
system at any given point of time has direct impact on foreign policies. Appa dorai
sums up the posi t ion thus: The comp lexity of foreign policy arises from the
interact ion of he des ire of s tates within the internat ional commun ity to ach ievetheir own nat ional interes ts , and their consequent at t i tudes to internat ional
issues . 14 The d ifficul ty in condu cting the foreign policy arises because s tates
do not have sure means of control l ing the behaviour of other s tates . To quote
Appado rai again, I t can persuade, promise or deny economic and mil i tary aid;
i t can threaten another s tate with the use of force; nevertheless , i t cannot be
certain the s tate wil l act in the way i t des ires . These views of Appa dorai have
their value. But , as far as shaping of foreign policy is concerned the role of
internat ional s i tuat ion canno t be denied. During the Balance of Power System
in the nineteenth century, conclusion of al l iances , pol icy of buffer s tates and
race of armam ents al l were guided by the place of a s tate in the sys tem. E ach
weaker s tate always sought the help of an unat tached power, general ly known
as the balancer. During the inter-war period (1919-39), the quest for French
security, fo llowed by rise of fascism n Italy and Nazism in Germ any and militarism
in Japan had their im pact on foreign policies. The US changed i ts pol icy towards
the Soviet Union and recognised her because in 1933 Hit ler ' s emergence in
Germany posed a threat to the world order created after the War. Japanese
aggress ion in Manch uria (China) in 1931 provided a common threat to USA as
well as USSR in the Far East . The two pow ers gave up their host i l i ty.
The Cold War system (1945 -90) did not leave any country's foreign policy
unaffected. The fear of US atom bom b made the Soviet Union leader of Eastern
Europe, and al l the countries in the region adopted social ism and came under
Russian wings . The ent ire pol icy of containment of communism adopted by
the US, set t ing up of NATO, SEATO, etc. everything was the resul t of the
development of USSR as chal lenger to capi tal is t sys tem advocated by the
United States. The frequent use of Veto in the UN Security Council was a direct
resul t of the Cold W ar poli t ics . As far as India is concern ed, the ad option and
oregn Poicy and Nationa Interest 11
propaga t ion of t he pol i cy of non-a l ignment was a c l ea r re s pons e to the
internat ional mil ieu represented by a bipolar world and the Cold War.
The detente between the USA and China (1971), expu ls ion of Taiwan from
the UN o n the ini t iat ive of Ame rica, and s trategic relat ionship that de veloped
between USA and China s ince 1971 (Bangladesh war ) had direct impact on the
foreign policy of India. Several other countries also had to do reappraisal of
their foreign policies in view of close l inks between China and the U S. One of
the immediate outcome of US-China-Pakis tan s trategic relat ionship was Indo-
Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperat ion (1971) which further s trengthened
the relat ionship between India and the then Soviet Union.
Part i t ion of Bri t ish India caused by imperial is t Bri tain's pol icy of divide
and rule, encouraged by Muslim League's concept of two nat ions , created
such host i l i ty between India and Pakis tan that we had to unwil l ingly spend
large sums of money on defence as our neighbour was always out to damage
our interes ts .
Internat ional organisat ions and the express ion o f world pub lic opinion, in
and outs ide the UN, also have powerful impact on foreign policies of various
count r i e s . Whe the r t was UK-France-Israel at tack on Egypt (1956), Ame rican
in t e rvent ion in V ie tnam conf l i c t , Sovie t ac t ion in Hungary (1956) and
Czechoslovakia (1968), Bangladesh cris is (1971) , Cuban m iss i le cris is (1962),
Soviet occupation of Afghanis tan for nearly nine years al l such act ions evoke d
strong public react ion al l over the world. Such react ions and express ion of
opinion in various internat ional fora also help in the formulat ion of foreign
policy.
Later, the war between Iran and Iraq (two Muslim neighbours) in 1980s
influenced the policies of several countries . Then in 1990 Iraq committed
unprovoked aggress ion agains t i ts neighbour, oi l -rich Kuwait and annexed i t .
Interes t ingly, Kuw ait had given big help to Iraq during i ts war against Iran. The
annexation of Kuwait brought the UN on the scene, and with i ts authorisat ion
US-led forces laun ched at tack on Iraq forcing i t to surrender and also v acate
Kuwait . The world opinion general ly s ided with Kuwait and approved UN
action. But , when in 2003, the United States again at tacked Iraq on the groundthat i t had weapons of mass des truct ion (WMDs), the UN did not support
American act ion, and there was resentment agains t the US both by friends and
foes. Bri tain was the only major power to support the US act ion. Foreign
policies of most of the countries had to be reassessed in view of US act ion
which defeated Iraq and brought change of regime with Pres ident Saddam
Hussein hiding and then being arres ted and hanged.
Foreign policy is the bas is of al l internat ional relat ions . Some scholars
even identify foreign policy with internat ional relat ions . We do not subscribe
to this view. Foreign policy is not synonym of internat ional relat ions , yet such
8/13/2019 foreign policy and national interest
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/foreign-policy-and-national-interest 7/7
Foregn Policy of ndia
relat ions are cond ucted o nly through foreign policies of different c oun tries,
which are shaped as a resul t of interaction amo ng nu merous determinants .
NOTES
1. Mahendra Kumar Theoretical Aspects of nternational Politics, Agra p. 310.
2. George Modelski A Theory of Foregn Policy, London p. 3.
3. Huge Gibson The Road o Foregn Policy, N ew York p. 9.
4. Cecil V. Scrabb Jr..American Foregn Policy n he uclear Age, New York p. 1
5. Couloumbis Wolfe. ntroduction o nternational Reations: Power and ustice,New Delhi, p . 125.
6. Mahendra Kumar, op. cit., p. 311.
7. J. Bandopadhyaya he aking of ndias Foregn Policy, Allied p. 1.
8. Mahendra Kumar, op. it., p . 315.
9. Bandopadhyaya, op. it., p. 3.
10. Nicholas J. Spykman America s Strategy n orld Politics, New York. p. 17.
11. Couloumbis Wolfe, op. it.. p. 86.12. Padleford Lincoln nternational Politics, New York p. 307.
13. A. Appadorai Domestic Roots of ndia s Foregn Policy. Delhi p. 11.
14. Appadorai, op. cit., p. 7.
top related