Psychological Insights into Foreign Policy - Essay Example

PSYCHOLOGICAL INSIGHT AND FOREIGN POLICY Foreign policy is defined as the set of political goals determined and designed by sovereign s to build up peaceful relations with other countries existing on the globe. These relations are based on mutual co-operation and understanding for the fulfilment of the needs and requirements of common interests. In other words, foreign policy is the political strategy manipulated for the benefit of one’s country to maintain intra states diplomatic connection keeping in mind the national interests regarding economy, defence and sovereignty. “The character of a foreign policy”, according to Morgenthau, “can be ascertained only through the examination of the political acts performed and of the foreseeable consequences of these acts.” (1978:5). By this, not only the performance of the political leaders could be traced out, but also, from the predictable consequences the objectives of their acts can be surmised. Foreign policy, as a discipline, is as old as human society itself is, though as a study, it is the invention of eighteenth century. “Foreign policy practice does not come into language”, states Benedict Anderson (1991), “until Jeremy Bentham coins the term ‘international relations’ in the 18th century”. The world has emerged as an enormous global village in the contemporary era. No country on the planet can survive while living in a state of isolation or without interacting with other countries. In order to meet their everyday needs, all the countries seek out foreign assistance and support. Even the biggest economies of the world devise foreign policy to entail international markets, for not only acquiring raw material and sale their finished products according to their growing needs, but also they look for strategic bondage and diplomatic cohesion more emphatically. In addition, countries seek political, economic and technological backing for the uplift of their nation. Rationalism is the key to construct national and international strategy. Psychology, being one of the most significant disciplines and a vast phenomenon of analysing the mind and perception of an individual and his personality, has won appreciable popularity as the source of scientific examination of human behaviour. It not only determines individual’s attitude and behaviour, but also carries weight while estimating the policies of nations at large. A step taken by a sovereign while co-operating or conflicting with some other state(s) maintain some psychological aspects in its wake. This leads towards the formation of guideline how to interact with international community at some specific occasion. “Social groups and nations”, Femenia (2000) states, “demand that their unique existence be acknowledged. They adopt varieties of symbols, which represent their uniqueness and draw attention to their existence.” Denial of recognition produces a kind of narcissistic hurt that appears to stimulate wrathful reactions. Political terrorism movements have roots in this dynamic. A discussion regarding various schools of thought in making of Foreign Policy has been on the carpet in intellectual circles. Political psychologists suggest three main schools i.e. idealist, pragmatist and realist schools. “The idealists stress the importance of ideas”, Boyne (2006) observes, “morality and principles in foreign policy, while the realists stress economics, balance of power and interests.” Another school of thought called Pragmatist, is also lays stress in argues on the foundations of truthfulness and focus on the consequences of a step while determining foreign policy. The neoconservatives of Bush government claim to observe all the three according to the situation. Though, they look completely failed to imitate even one single school properly. It is not only the politico-economic interests, which paves the way towards the formulation of foreign policy. Rather, there is chain of circumstances as well as changing scenario that can alter the whole picture of political scheme. These factors include psychological threats, political worries, economic anxiety, geographical concerns, role of media, public opinion and others. Like other fundamental issues, foreign policy is also based on the psychological and emotional gratification of the nations. “A country’s foreign policy is”, Habibullah writes, (Himalayas Times, Dec 1, 2006), “the expression of its national interests vis-à-vis other countries. Foreign policy cannot be understood unless the task of state building is allowed to illumine the objectives and motives of foreign policy.” Public opinion obtains unabated implication while decision making on both internal and external affairs especially in the countries where democrat institutions are working properly. No scheme can be introduced that can apparently look jeopardising the public interests. However, people’s opinion can be gauged with the spring of media, as President John F. Kennedy of USA did during the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962). President Kennedy disclosed the fact on October 22, 1962, that the Soviet Union was engaged in preparation of secret missile bases in Cuba, near the boundary of US state Florida. The information disclosed by the President created fears in American public. Media also published the news that accelerated the concerns of the public and they supported the government on the issue of combating with the threat of international level. “Filled with Soviet apprehensions, the United States during the Cold War followed an offensive approach in dealing with military actions against the Communist. The period 1961-1969 is a representative of this approach in which the US foreign policies reflected US fear of Soviets armament.” (Quoted in Term paper Genie). The President’s offensive approach was advertised by the media and backed by millions of people who had unconditional trust in government. They had been scared psychologically that the Cuban Missile Offence was a direct threat to their solidarity and nationalism. The governments make up the atmosphere in such a way that their policies could be taken as acceptable for the masses. And the most suitable platform of propaganda is surely media. It is media that plays decisive role in this regard. Newspapers and television channels have access in each and every house, commercial institute and public place. People get information out of these sources. Thus, media sets trends and introduces new dimensions that contain significant effects on minds. The discipline of psychology has always been interested in studying individuals’ mind and its role in decision making while performing obligations as well as the perception of certain situations and rationalization of their circumstances as well. It interprets how fear factor effects the minds of the masses and they compromise to let the government perform an act they really dislike and abhor. Same is the case with the US government’s decision to invade Iraq in March, 2004. CASE STUDY Of course, there are different stages in development and the belief is that adults have completed the psychological growth cycle and thus have achieved complete cognitive development. This does not mean that some people are not suffering from abnormal problems or might suffer with misrepresentative ideas or concepts. What it does mean is that adults have transcended from the initial stages of cognitive reasoning into the more formal operative stages where they see past the concrete and examine the abstract of life and situations in society as well. Developmental psychology reveals to us so many aspects about why certain circumstances arise and why specific judgments are made to quell adversities or to uphold something positive. The best way of seeing the full meaning of how psychology has contributed to society is by looking at it in the foreign policy of a government. By taking a case such as President Bush and the decisions he has made in the Iraq conflict, one can fully comprehend how psychology influences all of our decisions and rationalizations regardless of how powerful or influential an individual might be. A person’s decision regarding his career, family or friends affects either himself only or a small circle of people around him. On the hand, a ruler’s decision is not only long lasting, but also it determines the fate of the whole nation. Political psychology is interested in evaluating the judgments taken by the government(s) and their consequences. Therefore, they should be more precise, analytical and thought-provoking while announcing judgments. But sometimes it so happens that a government wrongly estimates an issue or a phenomenon, and emotions overpower the intellect leading man towards the path of destruction and turmoil. The same is the case with Bush’s decision while waging war in Iraq. The circumstances that were arising in Iraq four years ago led many political figures to have varying view points on what position should have been taken to deal with the obvious violence and dictatorship that ruled over Iraq for the last three and half decades. President George W. Bush, of the United States, had one opinion, which coincided with the British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s feelings of what needed to transpire to gain control of the escalating problems then as well. However, political leaders of Russia, Germany, China and France, as well as in other parts of the world did not see the dilemma in the same way and did not agree with the solution that was offered. It is fact beyond doubt that the masses today have come to limelight that the solution put to the table i.e. Military action was neither rational nor human as soon as the cruelties and atrocities committed by the allied forces in Iraq got chances of publication in different media. Earlier, however, there were many discussions and alternatives that were presented as substitute solutions as well. The Bush administration consisted of such persons, including Ramzfields, Colleen Powell and Condolizza Rice, who had maintained the Hawkish trend of achieving the goal through aggression. They did not consider Dovish style as a reasonable method of the peaceful solution of disputes of international concern. Further, the Bush cabinet was strictly against the Arabs and did not want to see the up rise surge of the community. Psychologically, they considered the community a direct menace perhaps to their religio-cultural ideology. They had been brought up in an environment, as their family background reveals the very fact, in which they learnt prejudice and biased ness against other cuts and cultures. Moreover, George Bush himself belonged to a family who had an infamous record of wars against rival countries and communities. His father, George Bush Senior, waged an unnecessary and unwanted war against Iraq on August 2, 1990, that ended in destruction and turmoil. The whole Gulf region started disliking USA and her policies. All this created an unpleasant atmosphere in the world and the USA looked in a state of isolation in global community. So, Bush Junior had got training of war from his house. He had this angle in mind that war was the solution to bring the opponents to the point. Thus, he attacked on Iraq at the moment when the whole globe passed resolutions against the invasion. But he had created an environment in his country that simple majority of people stood by him in the matter of war. He urged media too to launch his campaign and was successful in his effort. Fox News played the most notorious part in this regard. The newspaper gave special coverage to the so called danger of WMD existed in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The Fox News, in its articles, threatened the American people of the preparation of chemical weapons which would be used against the USA and her allies including Israel, the UK and others. But no proof of the weapons could be found out still after more the two and half years of the Baghdad fall. “Policies towards Iraq”, Rosen (2006) writes, “have been derived from the assumptions that an irreconcilable dictator controlled Iraq; that he intended to develop weapons of mass destruction, use them to overthrow Middle East governments and incorporate their nations into Iraqs sphere of influence.” War has never been actually the solution for maintaining peace and harmony in the world at large. Butler declares war just like a racket that is not what it seems to the majority of people and is known only by a small inside group. “War is conducted”, he states, “for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.” (1933). President Bush perceived military strategies as the only way to overthrow the regimes as he did in Afghanistan. The world scenario took a significant change after the terrorists’ attacks on World Trade Centre (now Zero Ground). It not only affected the national and international politics, but also gave the diplomatic affairs a new shape. Almost all the governments had to revise their policies. The same was the case with the victim country USA. As soon as he was informed with the attacks, Bush declared a crusade war against the rival communities of the world. This gave birth to the conflicts between cultures and civilizations. Immediately, he decided to invade Afghanistan to crush the terrorism, though could not get complete hold on the events. Rather, the surge for independence looks to be shooting sonorously. Nevertheless, psychologically he found military action most suitable to come to the opponents to his own terms. Therefore, he committed the blunder of his career to invade Iraq, as did Tony Blair. Many leaders of the world had thought that preventing trade or minimizing it with Iraq might have eased some of the problems that were growing but this type of approach led to a lot of controversial issues. They suggested negotiation as the better way to solve even the most controversial issues and moots in point. All of this defines how cognitive patterns in thinking emerge between political leaders. All people use cognitive reasoning and rationalize on what their decisions will create in their families and in communities as well but for political leaders they have a much larger window to look through. They have to gauge how their decisions will affect a whole country and this takes a lot of mental determination. Saddam Hussein, a tyrant, dictator and murderer of millions of lives, surely deserved the severest of punishments. He was come to the point by some political tactics and table talks. However, psychologically, it was not possible for an obstinate cabinet with Hawkish trends, to handle the situation amicably. Out of his wilful desires and acting upon the advices of his foolish companions, he attacked on Iraq in March 2004 and thus turned a tyrant into hero. Bush pleaded W.M.D (weapons of mass destruction) as the reason to capture the Middle Eastern country, yet no one could search out these weapons even this day. The ruins of Saddam Husseins shattered tyranny, Lieber (2003) views, may provide additional evidence of chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, but one poisonous by-product has already begun to seep from under the rubble. It is a conspiracy theory purporting to explain how a sinister and hitherto little-known cabal has captured the foreign policy of the world’s greatest power, the United States. Many of the thinkers, all over the world, view the attack on Iraq as the part of Bush’s political campaign during presidential elections. All this movement and struggle against Iraq was perhaps to erase the after effects of the failure to control political situation in Afghanistan. “Some of the most perplexing exit polls from the 2004 U. S. presidential election”, Zurbriggen states, “indicated overwhelming support for President Bush among voters who said they valued honesty. Actually it was the wrong face of the situation.” Writing in the New York Times, Scott Purdum reported "Voters who cited honesty as the most important quality in a candidate broke 2 to 1 in Mr. Bushs favour, despite Mr. Kerrys relentless accusations that Mr. Bush had misled the public into war." (Purdum, 2004). Either the steps taken by the US government were the expression of its serious negligence or it had been misguided by the staff or out of its sense of revenge in the aftermath of the sorrowful nine-eleven (9/11). Here also comes the question of emotions and perception, or Psychology in other words. Bush cabinet was disillusioned by the wrong perception that they would be able to control the administration and command of Iraq within shortest span of time. They had unabated trust in his soldiers, who on facing utter resistance from the Iraqis, started committing shameful crimes like gang rapes, assaults, murders and even forced male rape. All these brutal incidents serve as the infamous mar on the very face of both USA and humanity. Had Bush Cabinet not acted upon his shallow insight, the world would have not faced such dreadful war crimes exercised on masses and prisoners of war in the wretched country of Iraq. Psychology indicates the development of cognitive behaviour as a continuous process that emerges through various scenarios in life. Perhaps it is why different leaders of different countries have such varying thoughts and opinions on what political moves they should make for their countries. Therefore, so many lessons can be sought out of the consequences of the Iraq war. Still, the question of emotional behaviour applies. The decisions made by common man affect mere himself or his family and friends. But, the political leader’s decision affects the whole country, whole nation and even indirectly the world at large. Suppose Saddam had contained the WMD, he must have encircled in a way that he could never gather courage to use them. Secondly, the minds of the millions of people all over the world must have been read out so that the uneven situation could have been avoided to the great extent. Saddam is a notorious figure in the history of today. He displayed countless butchery during his reign in Iraq. He inflicted severe punishment to the Shiites and Kurds. He waged fruitless wars with his neighbour countries. Glantz has also portrayed the pathetic picture. “Everyone agrees, Glantz (2006) opines, “innumerable villages were bombed and some were gassed. The surviving residents were rounded up, taken to detention centers, and eventually executed at remote sites, sometimes by being stripped and shot in the back so they would fall naked into trenches.” But the emotional and haphazard decisions and steps taken towards the wrong side cost George Bush a lot. He has presented a villain in the form of hero by doing injustice with Saddam and killing thousands of innocent people. The people of almost every state including the UK and USA itself, demonstrated largely against the war. “Americans and Europeans basically still like each other”, Asmus (2006) observes, “although such warmth has recently waned in the wake of the Iraq war.” The scholars and analysts are not ready to believe that Iraq could make destructive missiles and arms to disturb the peace of the globe. Even Unscom reports the destruction of Iraqi missiles and armaments to evade war. “By 1997”, According to Unscom, “817 out of Iraqs known 819 ballistic missiles had been certifiably destroyed”. On the worst-case assumption that Iraq has salvaged some of the parts for these missiles and has reconstructed them since 1998, even Charles Duelfer - former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, deputy head of Unscom and strong proponent of an invasion of Iraq - has provided an estimate of only 12 to 14 missiles held by Iraq. “Human nature”, Knopf (1978:7) observes, “in which the laws of politics have their roots, has not changed since the classical philosophies of China, India, and Greece endeavoured to discover these laws. Hence, novelty is not necessarily a virtue in political theory, nor is old age a defect.” Psychology signifies human instinct source of motivation to make experiences himself rather taking lessons out of the mistakes of the others. It is evident by the chronicle of events during the years from 2001 to 2003 that President Bush had already decided to invade on Iraq at any cost. He was not ready to scare the country even they presented many terms and conditions. Almost al the rulers and governments tried to convince the president to apply sanctions and other barriers to not to punish the innocent masses. He, however, so much scare the word terror that he finds its footprints everywhere in the world. In the recent past, he has declared Iran and North Korea as the axis of evil. He and his cabinet intend to decide every issue either political or social or economic through Military action. The US secretary of Foreign affairs insisted the Israeli government to crush the Lebanese with an iron hand. She did not talk of peaceful solution of the crisis even once. CONCLUSION It has aptly been said that it is man’s instinct and insight that urges him perform one thing or the other in some specific way. “Deductive reasoning”, according to Wikipedia, “refers to the process of concluding that something must be true since it is a special case of a general principle that is already known to be true”. The psychology of a political leader is thought to be the spokesman of the people’s emotions. Here in the case of Iraq war, the political insight of the leaders has been revealed that the people of America are seriously afraid of terrorist attacks. The situation was actually not the same. The theorists view the US government’s decision of Iraq invasion as the part of the Republican’s presidential campaign. They misused the media to scare the masses of the “coming” terrorist’s attacks from which Bush is the person to rescue their country from the monster. The media was instructed to place the news related to Al-Qaeda and its leaders, Lebanese political party Hezbollah and Palestinian liberation organization Al-Fatah prominently so that the minds of the masses could be moulded according to government’s own interests and desires. The significant percentage of the American public could be brain washed psychologically in such a way that the simple majority of the population re-elected the Republican candidates as they were in delusion that the Republican Party was their saviour to protect them from the terrorist threat. Man’s nature and mind can be assessed by the performances and the decisions behind these performances. “We assume that statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as power”, Knopf observes, “and the evidence of history bears that assumption out. That assumption allows us to retrace and anticipate, as it were, the steps a statesman--past, present, or future--has taken or will take on the political scene.” Same is the case with US President George W. Bush, who looks far more adventurous than both his father and German leader Hitler. The entire globe arranged demonstration and millions of people stood against him not to involve in war, but his lust met not quench at all. He was quite unaware of the results of war in Iraq, though the USA had a poor but also shameful history of military failure in Vietnam and Afghanistan. His acts reveal his narrow sightedness and lack of intellect to look into the matters deeply. Now, the USA looks standing at the state of isolation at the issue of Iraq war. The political psychologist considers it a blunder on the part of the president. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Asmus, Ronald, Everts, Philip P. & Isernia, Pierangelo. Power, War, and Public Opinion. Policy Review 21 Dupont Circle, NW Washington, DC 2006. 2. Benedict Anderson. Imagined Communities. London: Verso1991. 3. Boyne, Ion. Hypocrisy & foreign policy. Jamaika Gleaner. July 2, 2006 4. Butler, Smedley. Interventionism. A speech delivered in 1933. Quoted in www.tamilnation.org/intframe/index.htm 5. Femenia, Nora. Foreign Policy Decision-Making. Social Conflicts and Collective Identities, Coy, Patrick G.  and Woehrle, Lynne M.; (Eds.) 2000. 6. Glantz Aaron. Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial. Quoted in Global Policy.org Aug, 25 2006. 7. Habibullah, S.M. Foreign policy - New context calls for new strategies. Quoted in Himalayas Time, December 1, 2006. 8. Lieber, Robert J. Foreign Policy and American Primacy in the Twenty-First Century Prentice Hall, 2002. 9. Morgenthau, Hans J. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition, Revised, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978 10. Nir Rosen, Killing Fields, Iraq - False Assumptions and Punishing Choices Washington Post , May 28, 2006 11. Purdum, T. S. All about the President: New York Times. (2004, November 3). 12. Robert J. Lieber. The Neoconservative-Conspiracy Theory. 2003 13. Scheff, Theodor and Reztinger, S. Emotions and Violence. Shame and Rage in Destructive Conflicts (Lexington, Kansas: Lexington Books, 1992). 14. The Cuban Missile Crisis, October 18-29, 1962 http://www.hpol.org/jfk/cuban 15. www.trmpaper genie.com 16. Zurbriggen, Eileen L. Lies in a Time of Threat: Betrayal Blindness and the 2001 U.S. Presidential Election. Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz. 2006. Read More