International Relations and Foreign Policy - Essay Example

?Running Head: International Relations and Foreign Policy International Relations and Foreign Policy [Institute’s InternationalRelations and Foreign Policy ‘International relations’ refers to the behavior and exchanges conducted by countries collectively throughout the international arena. It governs the concept of how countries behave with one another in general and the reasons they have for such behavior. International relations theories aim to explain this phenomenon by devising frameworks that illustrate how countries behave with one another, how they should behave, what effects it has upon the economic system, and how different countries can seek to survive in the international arena (Dougherty and Pfaltzgeraff, 2001, pp. 89-91). However, it is arguable that international relations theories are not self-explanatory of the behavior of all countries and cannot be applied to all circumstances. While the theories are general in nature, they do seek to explain the behavior of nations in general during some of the most important events in history such as the World Wars and other economic treaties (Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff, 2001, pp.95-96). Foreign policy regards the policy or the set of norms that a country adopts regarding its personal behavior with other nations. These norms may govern aspects such as trade, alliances, aid, peace treaties, military support, coalitions, and other matters. Foreign policy is arguably a determinant of a country’s personal circumstances and their own relative power in the international arena. Critics (Janis, 1972, pp. 45-46) may argue that foreign policy is not set according to the activities conducted in the international arena, but is set according to the individual domestic factors of a country itself and the preferences and prejudices of its leader. Therefore, if this is the case, this suggests that international theories, which generalize the behavior of countries throughout the world, are not relevant when it comes to devising theories of foreign policy. Being a neo-realist, Kenneth Waltz claims that international theories do not consider enough variables specific to countries; hence, they cannot be used to predict foreign policy and are not applicable in this regard. However, if international relations theory cannot be applied to predict or analyze the behavior of countries and are not explanatory of their foreign policy, then what is their use? This paper aims to explore the difference between theories of international relations and theories of foreign policy, while explaining the main two international theories prevalent in the international arena. The main emphasis of this paper will be upon the neo-realist school of thought and Kenneth Waltz’ considerations of why the neo-realist theory is inadequate to predict the behavior of individual states and therefore is not applicable as a theory of foreign policy. The aim of this paper will be to refute Kenneth Waltz argument that international relations theories cannot be used as theories of foreign policy through the aid of academic articles. International Relations theories are highly popular when it comes to finding explanations regarding the behavior of countries collectively and in general terms. The theories consider the behavior of all countries to be alike while accounting for variables such as their military strength, economic prosperity, power in the international arena, and their motives (Janis, 1972, pp. 88-89). These theories are supposedly used as indicators of the behavior of countries in different circumstances and as predictive measures. The most popular theories of international relations include realism and liberalism. The two schools of thought, realism, and liberalism are quite divergent from one another and are complete opposite theories. Hence, here has been a longstanding debate between the supporters of both schools of thought. The liberalists believe that morals, international organizations, and legislation or law governs the world. For liberalists, the power struggle does not exist and they believe that states can behave as a community rather than separate bodies (Waltz, 2001, pp. 141-143). However, realists believe that self centered and selfish motives exist for all the activities that are conducted by states. They believe in anarchy and chaos and believe that no organization has the power to control the behavior of states. Hence, all states are free to behave as they wish and must operate based on the amount of power they possess in the international arena and to what extent they can coerce other states to obey them (Wallack, 1994, pp. 56-58). A new school of thought that slightly alters the realist school of thought is the neo-realist school of thought. Neo-realists are not as harsh as the traditional realists ho believe that the motives are states are completely selfish and the world is a complete arena of chaos. Neo-realists believe that states act according to logical means and do not necessarily promote anarchic behavior when it comes to fulfilling their motives. However, neo-realists do not believe that states behave in altruistic ways, but still promote the fact that states take actions for their own benefit (Waltz, 1996, pp. 76-78). Kenneth Waltz is a neo-realist who believes in the fact that states generally take actions according to their own benefit and do not seek the benefit of the world at large. While Waltz has formulated neo-realism theories himself, he renders these theories invalid in predicting theories of foreign policy. Theories of foreign policy seek to explain the behavior and reasons for the behavior of an individual country. Foreign policy is based upon the behavior of the individual country rather than the whole international arena at large as international theories seek to explain. Hence, theories of foreign policy are more complex and have a larger amount of variables considered when applying them to predict the behavior of individual countries. Factors that may be considered in theories of foreign policy may include factors such as the individual countries power in the economic system, its own personal alliances, the country’s history, and the preferences of its leader. While some countries may have leaders who promote war, other countries’ leaders may prefer to engage in negotiations. Hence, these factors are representative of the conditions of an individual country and differ from country to country (Waltz, 1997, pp. 151-153). Thus, theories of international relations consider a few variables that are representative of countries’ in general while theories of foreign policy are specific to the behavior of countries’ specifically and are based upon more factors than the theories of international relations possibly consider. While the theories of international relations are supposed to be indicative and explanatory for the behavior of nations in various events in history, such theories such as neo-realism have failed to explain the behavior and reasons for several huge world events such as the outcome of World War 2 and the downfall of the Soviet Union (Wallack, 1994, pp. 18-23). It is upon this basis and a few other factors that neo-realists such as Kenneth Waltz consider the theories of international relations non-applicable to theories of foreign policy and to be predictive of the individual behavior of countries ( Waltz, 2001, pp. 98-99). Neo realists such as Kenneth Waltz believe that neo-realists theories are inadequate for the prediction of the behavior of individual countries and application to theories of foreign policy because of a few reasons. These reasons include the belief that neo-realist theories lack the internal logic that is required to formulate determinants for such behavioral predictions. The second argument is that theories of international relations lack the analysis of single unit elements that are specific to each country. Each country has certain circumstances that are individually representative of their own situation. These circumstances have to be accounted for when predicting or analyzing the behavior of individual countries. Thirdly, the framework or model that encompasses international theories is evolutionary and cannot be used for predictive purposes. The final objection lies within the fact the independent and dependent variables used for analysis in the international theories are too simple or too few to be explanatory of future behavior (Waltz, 2001, pp. 97-98). Therefore, Kenneth Waltz believes that neo-realism is too simple and inadequate a theory to be predictive of an individual countries’ behavior. While it can be applicable to the collective behavior of states in certain situations, it does not count as a theory of foreign policy that is based upon specific grounds (Elman, 2009, 10-12). However, this assumption can be refuted on the grounds that if neo-realist theory is incompatible with theory of foreign policy and it is not adequate in predicting behavior, then it is of no use. Waltz himself has used neo-realism as a basis of analysis when making predictions about the behavior of several individual countries. While Waltz argues that a general statement concerning the behavior of countries does not specify as a theory of foreign policy, he has applied the general neo-realist school of thought to predict the behavior of countries in several of his articles. Moreover, theories of foreign policy need not specifically have predictive potential but can be a source of guidance as to what the behavior of certain countries in particular circumstances generally is. Theories of international relations are adequate in guiding theories of foreign policy. They are a form of prescription or give suggestions instead of giving direct predictive behavior. Hence, they are compatible with theories of foreign policy and can be used alongside them (Elman, 2009, pp. 14-17). If Waltz believes that neo-realism is inadequate in being applied to theories of foreign policy, he must criticize himself in using such predictive measures several times using the framework of neo-realism. He must also criticize his counterparts (other neorealists) who have done the same. Moreover, if such theories cannot be adequately used to predict the actions in world events then it is debatable of the use of these theories. If Waltz finds his own theory inadequate in this regard, then perhaps he should not formulate such theories in the first place. Perhaps international theories need to be reformed to suit the benefits that are to be derived from them. While international theories are not self-explanatory of the behavior neither of individual nations nor of the international arena on a collective basis at times, they do form a basis of analysis to predict the behavior of countries in various situations. Hence, they are compatible with theories of foreign policy and are not as divergent as Waltz may claim (Elman, 2009, pg. 55). However, this does not mean that neo-realism is the most acceptable theory of application to foreign policy nor does it mean that the framework has the particular ability to predict such behavior correctly. It only refers to the fact that there is no reason that theories of international relations cannot be used in such a context or for the purposes of guidance in foreign policy. Hence, it means that theories of international relations are suitable with theories of foreign policy. This does not account for accuracy and does not mean that based upon the framework of theories such as neo-realism, the behavior of individual countries can be predicted accurately. However, it should be noted that general behavior of wars and the outcome of many other events have been predicted inaccurately through international theories. Accuracy is not necessary nor should it be counted as a determinant of suitability for coordination with theories of foreign policy (Waltz, 2009, pp. 18-19). Conclusively, while theories of international relations are not the most accurate measure of predictive analysis of individual countries’ behavior and has a number of limitations, this does not regard it as unsuitable to be used in accordance as a theory of foreign policy. References Dougherty, J. and Pfaltzgraff, R. 2001. Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey. Vol.5. Longman Publishers. Elman, C. 2009. “Cause, Effect, and Consistency: A Response to Kenneth Waltz.” Security Studies. Vol. 6, No. 1. Elman, C. 2009. “Why Not Neorealist Theories of Foreign Policy.” Security Studies. Vol. 6, No. 1. Janis, I. 1972. Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign Policy Decisions and Fiascos. Houghton Millin Publishers. Wallack, M. 1994. “Inside/Outside International Relations as Political Theory.” Canadian Journal of Political Science. Vol. 27, No. 1. Waltz, K. 1996. “International Politics is Not Foreign Policy.” Security Studies. Vol. 6, No. 1. Waltz, K. 1997. “Evaluating Theories.” American Political Science Review. Vol.91, No. 4. Waltz, K. 2001. Man, the State, and War. Columbia University Press. Waltz, K. 2009. “International Politics is Not Foreign Policy.” Security Studies. Vol. 6, No. 1. Read More