The Bureaucratic System in the Netherlands: Formulating and Implementing Foreign Policies - Essay Example

 Foreign policies refer to those self-interest policies put in place by a country aimed at serving their own interests as they deal with other nations. These policies usually determine the manner in which a country relates to other nations all over the world. At some times they also affect how a state might relate with non-state entities. This is majorly as a result of the rate at which businesses are going global currently. Because these policies are always national, different countries usually have different foreign policies. This can be because of the unique nature of the interests that different nation might have in involving themselves in international relations. This paper aims at comparing and contrasting the insights afforded by 2 different approaches to understanding the foreign policies of contemporary states giving examples from real life. The two approaches that will be discussed in this essay are: decision making theory and domestic sources of foreign policy. The essay is going to use two states with very different domestic systems to analyse the usefulness of the decision-making theory and domestic sources of foreign policy approaches. The two countries with different domestic systems that will be discussed in this essay are Turkey and Netherlands. Approach 1: decision-making theory Due to the importance of foreign policies to the country, the process of deciding on them is always characterized by decision-making process of high levels. The responsibility of making foreign policies is always entrusted to the state government. When making decisions on foreign policies, there are a number of steps that are supposed to be followed. The first step always involves assessing the country’s and international political situations (Houghton 2007, 33). This is because these policies are always implemented both locally and internationally. The second stage is for setting the objectives that are supposed to be fulfilled by these policies. Sometime these policies might collide, thus forcing the government to make choices on the more appropriate ones. After this stage, the government always has to weigh the policy options that are available. This always involves looking at the country’s ability to implement such policies and the possible of implementing these policies (Hermann 2001, p. 63). The fourth stage is always referred to the formal action of decision-making. This is always characterized by the involvement of the various levels of the government. The branch of government that is in most cases entrusted with the responsibility of making decisions on foreign policies is the executive. In most cases it usually involves the head of state by following the advice of the minister for foreign affairs or and equivalent. The final stage refers to the implementation stage. Various departments in the government that have the responsibility of taking care of the country’s foreign relations (Jacobson & Zimmermann 2008, p. 210) always do this. There are a number of models that describe the decision making process in foreign policy making. These models include the rational actor decision-making model, the bureaucratic decision-making model, history making individual model, organizational model, political process model, and inter branch politics model (Renshon & Larson 2003, p. 34). The rational actor decision-making model assumes that the international environment always influences the state actions. Under this model, decisions are made in a way that the whole process is made by a single unitary system (Mintz & Derouen 2010, p. 111). The decision is made from analytical, rational thinking. The model’s first step is recognizing the problem proceeded by selecting the goal. They then seek alternatives, and take the final decision. The bureaucratic decision-making model is one under which there is no indecision making actor. In such the government is usually comprised of complex bureaucracies. For decisions to be made under this model, there have been always a bargain and compromise by the various agencies of the government. This model is always costly and more time consuming as compared to the rational actor decision-making model. However, it is more capable of serving the diverse interests (Simon 1997, p. 81). In turkey, the type of decision making process that is used in making decisions on foreign policy cannot be said to by rational actor decision-making process. A number of factors can support this. For instance, by looking at the decision-making processes that were used to reach to certain foreign policies in Turkey, someone will easily notice that all of them seem to lack form of uniformity. That explains why most of the times they have to resolve to vote for or against the policies at the Turkish Grand National Assembly (Hoekman 2005, p. 102). However, the decision making process in Turkey can be said to be the organizational model. This is because of the way the decision making process involves the loosely co-related organizations within the government of Turkey to make a decision on foreign policies. In turkey, the Turkish Grand National Assembly always makes the final decisions. This is only applicable in cases where international military actions are involved. The reason as to why this decision making process qualifies as a rational actor decision making model is that decisions made by the Turkish Grand National Assembly always go through after a debate and eventual voting by members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly (Salmi & Durgun 2005, p. 84). In Turkey, the majority of members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly usually comes from the ruling parties. The ruling party is always the party from which the prime minister of Turkey belongs. This implies that the prime minister of Turkey usually have allot of influence on the policy that sails through and those ones that do not. Being an influential leader of their party, it is important to note that in most cases the members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly who belongs to the ruling party will always be more than willing to give in to the wants of the prime minister of Turkey. There is evidence that proves the dominance of the ruling party’s in the process of foreign policy making process in Turkey. Apart from the policies that the members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly unanimously agree or disagrees with, it has been noted that most of the foreign policies that are disputed are always settled by a percentage of member of votes the Turkish Grand National Assembly that belong to the ruling party. In Turkey, the president also had a say over foreign policy decision making process. They are responsible for the final assent of the policies after the Turkish Grand National Assembly (Salmi & Durgun 2005, p. 85) has passed through them. A good example of a known foreign policy decision-making process in Turkey was the March 1 Bill. This was a bill that was supposed to respond to the request by the US secretary of defence for the United States of America to be granted the permission to launch an attack on Iraq from the Turkish territory. Because of this cooperation, the Turkish government was to receive a financial compensation of about 26 billion US dollars. There was a mixed reaction to this request in Turkey. As a result, a bill that was supposed to allow about 62,000 troops from the United States of America was introduced to the Turkish Grand National Assembly (Salmi & Durgun 2005, p. 86). The National Security Council, which has the most power when it comes to the foreign policies passed it to the national assembly making no recommendations. As a result of the absolute majority of members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly not voting for this bill, it was not admitted. However, the number of members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly who voted for the bill was 264, while those who voted against it were 250. The number of members who voted for the bill might have been the majority, but the number did not fulfill the constitutional requirement of absolute majority (Salmi & Durgun 2005, p. 89). In Netherlands, foreign policies are always meant to improve the country’s economic worth globally. Apart from their economic prosperities, their foreign policies are also meant at maintaining human rights and the rule of law. The nature of foreign policy decision making in the Netherlands is the rational actor decision-making model. There are a number of evidences that can be used in support of this fact. The foreign policy decision making in the Netherlands is made in a single unitary manner. The decision making process on matters on foreign policies do not involve the antagonistic contest (Baehr, Castermans-Holleman & GrüNfeld 2002, p. 121). In the Netherlands, the decisions about foreign policies are always entrusted to the ministry of foreign affairs. The ministry does this through constant consultation with the office of the president. The process through which foreign policies are made in the Netherlands shows allot of rationalization. Most of the decisions that are made by the Dutch government are always based on proper consultation and brainstorming within the government. The ministry of foreign affairs in the Netherlands always makes their decisions basing on the potential benefits and consequences of their action. This is believed to be the reason as to why Netherland has good international relations with both the developed and developing countries all over the world (Baehr, Castermans-Holleman & GrüNfeld 2002, p. 123). These policies have been beneficial to them both locally and internationally. The bad side about this model of foreign policy decision making is that it is highly dependent on the accountability of the policymakers. Sometimes the errors that are common with human beings can make this kind of decision-making process ineffective. This is the reason as to why the people that are entrusted with this responsibility should be people who can be held accountable for the decisions they make and the outcomes of these decisions (Bindi 2010, p. 89). But given the high accountability that is enhanced by the country’s political system, the number of cases of lack of accountability in the foreign policy decision making process has been minimal in the past. The decisions on foreign policies are also always influenced by the contribution of advisers and the national parliament. However, the final decisions always lie with the ministry of foreign affairs in collaboration with the office of the president. All the advisers have to do is give their opinions on a proposed foreign policy (Oran AkdevelioğLu & AkşIn 2010, p. 117). They can also help in pointing out the possible outcome of the proposed foreign policies and the possible consequences of its implementation. The government can then use this information to make the final decision on the proposed foreign policy. A good example will be the integration of human rights into the Dutch foreign policies. The government was involved in various studies and consultations on ways in which they could make sure that their foreign policies took into consideration the human rights both locally and internationally. Many of these changes took place during the final quarter of the twentieth century. This is gradually influencing their relation with both developed and developing nations. This explains why the Netherlands is considered to be one of the countries with the best international relations in the whole of Europe (Baehr, Castermans-Holleman & GrüNfeld 2002, p. 130). Looking at the foreign policy decision making someone will evidently notice that they are different. However, in each of the cases the model used is aimed at giving the country political, social, and economic benefits when they deal with another nation. The difference is that Netherlands uses the rational actor decision-making model while Turkey uses the organizational model. Both models have benefits and disadvantages of being used in decision making for foreign policy as discussed herein (Oran Akdevelio, Lu & Aks 2010, p. 156). However, the model used is usually in accordance with the social, political, and economic structure of a country. Approach 2: domestic sources of foreign policy A number of domestic factors can be important in the making of foreign policies. Choices made by different government with regard to foreign policies are always different depending on various internal factors. One of the most dominant internal factors that affect foreign policies is a country’s political system. The difference in foreign policy by different government is always because of social, economic, demographic, ideological, and geographic condition of a country at a given time (Mintz 2004, p. 95). The political philosophy developed by a country can also affect their foreign policies. Realism and liberalism have different ways of translating global politics. For instance, idealism has the common belief that the human unifying factors are of more importance than the dividing factors. Therefore, this philosophy opposes the notion by the realism philosophy that a state can be a source of moral standards for human beings. As opposed to liberalism, realism gives both descriptions about the way that international relations should take place (Hook 2002, p. 144). Realists and liberalists are different in the manner in which they view the significance of domestic politics to foreign policies. Realism is known for the way it downplays the relevance of domestic politics, but instead focuses on power and influence based political system (Stavridis 1996, 79). Realism also tends to believe in a political system where power in accumulated by a few individuals who always do their best to make sure that they protect this powerless. This political philosophy view countries as rational unitary actors. The realism philosophy believes that the political structure of a country can modestly affect foreign policies. This philosophy does not believe that local factors such as ideology, religion, and culture can be of influence to a country’s foreign policy (Smith 2004, p. 745). The philosophy sees government actions in relation to foreign policies as endeavours aimed at protecting its powers and enhancing its survival. Therefore, the realist notion of foreign policies can be said to be self-centred and aimed at taking care of the calculation of the balance of power. In such cases, the interest of the nation is always the main determinant of foreign policies. Liberalism is different in many ways in terms of how it views the effect of local politics on foreign policies. This political philosophy views a nation as a collection of different interests, representing a person, a group of people, and the public at large. In this case, one of the different interests that happens to be more authoritative within the country’s government always determines the interests of the nation. Therefore, it can be said that in this case the local institutions, characteristics, and non-constants can be of influence to the country’s foreign policies. Despite the fact that this perspective highly agrees on the effect of domestic factors on foreign policies, there is always a variation in proponent. This depends on the extent to which domestic factors can be of influence to a country’s foreign policy (Palmer & Morgan 2011, 132). Given the variance of interests in such system, the individual with more political influence will always have their interests served when it comes to foreign policies. Different countries in the world have different political systems. These systems have a different bureaucratic provision that determines the manner in which their foreign policies are developed and implemented. In developed countries, it has been noticed that the process of development and implementation of foreign policies is always conducted through well laid down bureaucratic process. Developing countries, on the other hand have these processes dominated by the country’s lawmakers. In most cases, this is always left to the members of parliament, from these states, though implementation only takes place after the approval of the executive branch of the government (Manners 2000, p. 92). In most cases when a country changes its political system the foreign policies of the country changes too. In some cases, this king of alterations might even lead to a complete restructuring of all foreign policies by a government. It can, therefore, be seen that changes in foreign policies can be because of a change in government regime or a change in the nature of a government's interest in international relations (Onnekink & Rommelse 2011, p. 187). This kind of changes in the government can lead to inevitable changes in a country’s foreign policy. The extent to which a country is institutionalized can affect its foreign policies. When government institutions are given the mandate of making and implementation of foreign policies, the foreign policies are always dependent on this institution. This is because under some government systems the powers are usually divided over a wide range of institutions making the policy making and implementation process an inter-institutional process. On the other hand, there are countries where just one government, institutional has the power of formulating and implementing foreign policies (Smith, Hadfield & Dunne 2012, p. 113). In such systems, the effectiveness of these policies has been always dependent on the professionalism of the government institution entrusted with this power and responsibility. The degree to which international relation actors agree to foreign policies developed by the government can also affect their implementation. In cases where some relevant actor disagrees with some of the foreign policies formulated by the government, it is always very hard for them to be implemented. This is particularly very true for countries where public opinion is usually taken into consideration when making political decisions (Beasley 2013, p. 111). For instance, in the United States of America the voices of activism are known to have influenced the development and implementation of foreign policies in one way or another. Public opinion can put pressure on a country’s government forcing it to make decisions on foreign policies in favour of certain ideologies. Ideological, cultural, religious, and demographic aspects of a nation can also affect foreign policies. A country is not expected to come up with foreign policies that are not in favour with these aspects of their lives (Walt 2005, p. 34). For instance, it is almost impossible for an Islamism nation to formulate foreign policies that link terrorism to the Quran’s jihad. This shows that this aspect of their existence affects their foreign policies. The domestic factors that influence the development and implementation of foreign policies are in line with the definition of foreign policies, which implies that they are policies that regulates how a country interacts with other countries, and make sure that these interactions are of benefit to the country. Looking at Turkey’s political system, someone can easily notice that they are in line with the liberal political philosophy. This is seen in the nature of their political decision-making and the policy making process. It usually involves different interest, with individuals with greater numerical and political influence managing to get their interests served (Larrabee & Lesser 2003, p. 172). Their political system is such that matters of national interest can either be decided by the executive arm of the government or the legislative arm of the government. This is always dependent on the nature of the issue that has to be decided on and the variance in interests. The government institutions that have a direct influence on foreign policies in Turkey include the ministry of foreign relations, the office of the president, the office of the prime minister and the Turkish Grand National Assembly. Like seen in the debate on March 1 Bill, where the influence that these institutions have on foreign policies were seen in the processes that led to the rejection of this bill (Oran, Akdeveliog, Lu & Aks 2010, p. 214). The fact that legislative processes such as voting by member of the Turkish Grand National Assembly is a clear indication of the extent to which the country’s political system has influenced its foreign policies. Another factor that seems to affect foreign polices n Turkey is their geographical locations. Turkey can be said to be surrounded by countries full of political conflicts. This has highly contributed to their conflict prone neighbours being their source of economic growth, because of trade. This is a main factor that led to the rejection of the March 1 Bill, which would have seen the Turkish government give the government of the United States of America from within their territories. As much as they could have gained financially from the process, this would not have been good at maintaining their relations with Iraq (Ismael & Aydin 2003, p. 121). Turkey can also be said to have witnessed changes in their foreign policies because of a change in regime. This is particularly supported by the changes in foreign policies that the country was taken over by the AKP government. This government made foreign policies putting many considerations on factors such as religious affinities. In such cases, it is normally noted that each government regimes always has their own interests in international relations (Martin 2004, p. 156). Because of the difference in interests in international relations, different government regimes usually mould the foreign policies to match their interests in international relations. In the Netherlands, the domestic factors that affect foreign policies are different from those that affect Turkey. Netherlands can be said to have adopted both realism and liberalism political philosophy. This is evident in the way decisions about foreign policies are made in the country. The decisions are made with respect to the country’s power structure as opposed to Turkey, where the political system has a major influence on the country’s foreign policies (Oran, Akdeveliog, Lu & Aks, 2010, p. 223). In the Netherlands more emphasis is put on the implication of these policies have on the country’s dominance in their international relation, as opposed to Turkey, where more emphasis are put on the process used in developing and implementing these policies. The bureaucratic system in the Netherlands allows it a systematic way of formulating and implementing foreign policies. This is seen in the way there are always smooth processes when it comes to formulating and implementing foreign policies. This is even seen in the way they have been able to develop and marinating good international relation with nations that have diverse qualities and international relation principles. When there are well laid down procedures for formulating and implementing foreign policies, a country is likely to benefit by having good relations with the countries they relate to, just as it has happened to the Netherlands (Keulen 2006, p. 137). The consistency of the foreign policies that are developed by Netherlands can be as a result of the political stability that the country has enjoyed over the last few decades. With political stability, a country will be able to be is a situation to formulate rational foreign policies that will help them in maintaining their international relations. A country with political stability is likely to face a few challenges relating to conflicting interests during the formulation of foreign policies. The existence of conflicting interests can act as a hindering factor to rational decisions making during the process of formulation of foreign policies. With multiple interests the formulation process will be full of interest contests rather than rational perspective arguments. For instance, in Turkey during the debate on the March 1 bill, the voting was done on the basis of party membership rather than the suitability of the bill to the country and its international relations. It is evidently clear that domestic systems have a level of influence on a country’s foreign policy. This is evident in the way different countries with different domestic systems happen to have varying foreign policies. Every country is entitled to make its own foreign policy that matches its domestic system in order to make sure that the foreign policies that they formulate and implement working their favour as they interact with other nations globally. Looking at the cases of Turkey and Netherlands discussed above, someone will easily notice that the choice of foreign policies always has varying outcomes. This is a clear indication of the importance of foreign policy and the importance of being careful when formulating and implementing them. It is impossible to underestimate the value of the policies in decision-making. Bibliography Baehr, P. R., Castermans-Holleman, M. C., & GrüNfeld, F 2002, Human rights in the foreign policy of the Netherlands, Intersentia, Antwerpen [u.a.]. Beasley, R. K 2013, Foreign policy in comparative perspective: domestic and international influences on state behavior, CQ Press, Thousand Oaks, Calif. Bindi, F. M 2010 The foreign policy of the European Union assessing Europe's role in the world, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=472712. Hermann, MG 2001, “How decision units shape foreign policy: a theoretical framework”, International Studies Review, 3(2), 47-81. Hoekman, B. M 2005, Turkey: economic reform and accession to the European Union, World Bank [u.a.], Washington, DC. Hook, S. W 2002, Comparative foreign policy: adaptation strategies of the great and emerging pow, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, Nj. Houghton, DP 2007, “Reinvigorating the Study of Foreign Policy Decision Making: Toward a Constructivist Approach”, Foreign Policy Analysis, 3(1), 24-45. Ismael, T. Y., & Aydin, M 2003, Turkey's foreign policy in the 21st century: a changing role in world politics, Ashgate, Aldershot. Jacobson, H. K., & Zimmermann, W 2008, The shaping of foreign policy, Aldine Transaction, London. Keulen, M. V 2006, Going Europe or going Dutch: how the Dutch government shapes European Union policy, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam. Larrabee, F. S., & Lesser, I. O 2003, Turkish Foreign Policy in an Age of Uncertainty, RAND, Santa Monica. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=202778. Manners, I 2000, The foreign policies of European Union member states, Manchester Univ. Press, Manchester [u.a.]. Martin, L. G 2004, The future of Turkish foreign policy, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.]. Mintz, A 2004, “Foreign policy decision making in familiar and unfamiliar settings an experimental study of high-ranking military officers”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48(1), 91-104. Mintz, A., & Derouen, K. R 2010, Understanding foreign policy decision making, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Onnekink, D., & Rommelse, G 2011, Ideology and foreign policy in early modern Europe (1650-1750), Ashgate, Farnham, Surrey. Oran, B., AkdevelioğLu, A., & AkşIn, M 2010, Turkish foreign policy, 1919-2006: facts and analyses with documents, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Palmer, G., & Morgan, T. C 2011, A Theory of Foreign Policy, Princeton University Press, Princeton. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=793228. Renshon, S. A., & Larson, D. W 2003, Good judgment in foreign policy: theory and application, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Md. Salmi, R. H., & Durgun, G. B 2005, Turkish-U.S. relations: perspectives from Ankara, BrownWalker, Boca Raton. Simon, H1997, “The poliheuristic theory of foreign policy decisionmaking”, Decisionmaking on war and peace: The cognitive-rational debate, 1, 81. Smith, M 2004, “Toward a theory of EU foreign policy-making: multi-level governance, domestic politics, and national adaptation to Europe's common foreign and security policy”, Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), 740-758. Smith, S. A., Hadfield, A., & Dunne, T 2012, Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Stavridis, S 1996, Domestic sources of foreign policy: West European reactions to the Falklands Conflict, Berg, Oxford [u.a.]. Walt, SM 2005, “The relationship between theory and policy in international relations”, Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 8, 23-48. Read More