Foreign Policy and the Protection the National Interest - Essay Example

Should Foreign Policy be about Promoting Values in the World or simply about Protecting the National Interest? It has been said that the foreign policy of a nation state is not built upon abstractions, but that it is rather built on practical conceptions of national interests which arise from some immediate exigency or from the influence of historically outstanding events that have shaped the nation (Beard, 1934 in Shembilku, 2004,, “The Idea of National Interest”). However, in a world that has been influenced by many wars, conflicts and catastrophic events from which hard lessons have been learnt, it has to be asked if foreign policies of nations ought to contain elements that attempt to promote useful ethical and moral values that are thought to be important for the progress of humanity (Donnelly, 2004, Pp. 1 – 16)? After having lost millions of lives and having endured two World Wars, a broad consensus has now finally emerged in regard to what may be considered to be ethical behavior by a state and international institutions do exist to protect and promote international law(Dongyan, 2006, Sections I to IV) and (Harries, 2005, Pp. 1 – 10). These institutions also encourage mediation and dialogue between nations. Nation states have always tried to influence other nations through intimidation, coercion or rewards, but in an era of globalization which has had a profound influence on the manner in which the world works, communicates, trades and acts in concert on important issues, perhaps promotion of ethical and moral values are as important as safeguarding the national interest (Reisman, 1999, Pp. 1 – 15). However, this is also an era of global economic competitions, with many nations only paying a lip service to values associated with human rights, democracy and morality in interstate relations, preferring to constantly receive, but never give. Thus, a greater emphasis needs to be placed on the protection of national interests rather then on the promotion of values. This brief essay presents a discussion of this issue. Contents Introduction 3 Should Foreign Policy Promote Values or Protect the National Interest? 7 Conclusion 11 Bibliography / References 12 Introduction Interest has been a guide for the diplomatic conduct of states since the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when the concept of modern sovereign states was being formulated (Shembilku, 2004, Pp. “The Concept of National Interest”). Interest was then considered in terms of those aspirations which were prompted by rational calculations and pursued with prudence. Thus, it was important for those who were at the helm of power to know when to use power and when to desist from the use of power. Prudence was a term that was used in relation to the carrying out of actions to achieve political objectives in a manner that was to produce the minimum wrong. It was thought that it would be impossible to construct foreign policy that was based on ethical principles alone, but that it was also likely to be destructive to let loose the egotistical instincts of groups of people that comprised states or those who were at the helm of affairs of states. States were expected to compete with other states within the limits imposed by orderly political systems and to move along predictable paths. Balance of power was made possible by the ability of states to form alliances that could restrict the ambitions of overzealous states by being able to act in concert against such states. War was considered to be a legal and acceptable solution, because the rules for judging acceptable claims of states or their actions were fairly loose and no credible authority existed to judge the actions of states or to try and mediate on interstate disputes (Djuranovis, 2002, Chapter 1). The concept of what was morally right and what was morally wrong for a state or its rulers was still fuzzy and open to interpretation. Thus, states and those who ruled these states were always watching for opportunities in order to further their interests and were constantly trying to determine what they could possibly get away with in the pursuit of their interests by balancing the powers and interests of other state actors. The events associated with the First World War had discredited the historical approach to the study of international relations and serious attempts were made to study international relations at the start of the 20th century (Adigbuo, 2005, Pp. 26 – 60). The realist theory of international relations presents the notions that nation states are motivated in their formulation of foreign policy by a desire for military and economic power and security rather then ideals or ethics. This theory assumes that international security is achieved as a result of a balance of power and that international morality is a product of power. Neo - realism attempts to focus on the international system and the balance of forces that are capable of being deployed by various states. All states are expected to be able to deploy force, because some states can use force and smaller states must develop a level of understanding with larger states in order to survive. Neo – classical realism takes the development of the realist theory a step further by attempting to consider the impact of domestic factors, including ideology, political institutions and economy as well as the nature of the political regimes on the foreign policy behavior of a state (Wikipedia, 2006, “Realism”). Idealism in international relations usually refers to the school of thought that is best personified by Woodrow Wilson who considered it appropriate for a state to develop its internal political philosophy, which may also have been shaped by national philosophers and ethicists, into its foreign policy. Thus, ideas and ideals, which are a product of the mind and which are propagated by a nation, are important in the evolution of the state’s foreign policy (Wikipedia, 2006, “Idealism”). Idealism was further developed by Immanuel Kant and Hegel, who presented the notion that the world created by mind, spirit and human understanding stood apart from the world of things - in – themselves. Thus, idealism requires that foreign policy should be guided by ethical and normative standards, including those associated with human rights and world peace. The idealist “Democratic Peace Theory”, for instance, presents the notion that states with similar liberal democratic traditions do not have conflicts with each other and this presents a requirement for the proliferation of democracy for the enhancement of world peace. However, different states can have different ideals or ethical standards and thus different perspectives about foreign policy. Neo – liberalism developed the idea that international organizations and non – state actors, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank promoted international cooperation. The philosophy of pragmatism in internal relations teaches us that although it is possible to reconstruct history and to interpret events in history in a number of ways, it is more important to try and give meanings to events in a manner that will be more useful for solving practical problems then to give other interpretations. Thus, criticism is not necessarily a bad thing so long as it leads to new and improved ways of looking at questions of practical importance (Isacoff, 2002, “Conclusion”). Constructivists in international relations attempt to focus on roles, identities, and an ability to influence groups or nations and national interests of nations as well as constant structuring or organizing in order to try and ascertain the foreign policy of a nation. Constructivists can find pragmatism as being a rich area of exploration for trying to understand foreign policy formulation. Constructivist philosophy finds both material and discursive powers as being important in developing an understanding of events and individual or group actors in international relations become powerful if they can influence others to accept their ideas about foreign policy. For the constructivists, ethics must be searched for in terms of politics and any ethical norm outside of politics is doomed to frustration. Thus, ethical norms can be a substitute for force or for national interest. In the Cold War era, the philosophy of Marxism – Leninism influenced many nations and these nations had ties with each other because of shared values. Marxism – Leninism considered capitalism as being a global phenomenon and did not consider capitalist countries as entities that were not interlinked. Furthermore, Marxism – Leninism considered capitalist nations as being responsible for the export of poverty and deprivation to poorer nations through a process of colonization and imperialism and this was responsible for alienation between capitalist and Marxist countries (Adigbuo, 2005, Pp. 26 – 60). Role theory attributes dynamic roles to nations and attempts to explain the foreign policy behavior of a state by roles with which the state has identified itself and which are likely to appeal to a state. Thus, role theory can be highly successful in explaining personal, societal and international realities. Historically, the notion of what could be construed as being the legitimate national interest of a state was to receive a battering by the conquests that were unleashed on Europe by Napoleon Bonaparte and later by the war and destruction that was unleashed by states that were involved in the First and Second World Wars (Shembilku, 2004, Pp. 1 – 20). In addition to these events, the treatment of citizens at the hands of a state and the treatment of minorities within a state were also to receive considerable attention as a result of events such as the French Revolution, which were to highlight the notions of human rights for all, and the treatment of Jews in Germany. The massive destruction and the loss of millions of human lives on all sides were to prompt those who were victorious in the European conflicts to formulate the League of Nations which was later to become the United Nations in an effort to exert greater control over the affairs of other states and to avoid destabilization and catastrophic events in the future (Roleff, 2005, Pp. 9 – 31). Military alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO and the Central Treaty Organization or CENTO were put together in order to contain dangers arising out of a military conflict with the former USSR and its Warsaw Pact allies over ideological differences that could be reduced to the status of an individual and the freedom that individuals enjoyed within a state sponsored system as well as the nature of the economic system within a state (Wikipedia, 2006, “Central Treaty Organization”). The process of globalization which was unleashed as a result of advances in technology and the intermingling of humanity as a result of global wars were to unleash forces that were to change the nature of interactions between states in order to bring about a more interdependent world that had substantial economic and political interests outside of state boundaries (Neufeld, 1999, Pp. 2 – 14). Thus, requirements for economic success and the acceptance of the notion of free trade which was overseen by the World Trade Organization also had an influence on foreign policy. Issues associated with morality and ethics had influenced the behavior of states and groups as could be evidenced by the American Civil War and attempts to develop Arab and Islamic understanding on issues of interest (Wikipedia, 2006, “American Civil War”) and (Hussain, 2005, Pp. 57 – 81). However, new ethical dilemmas associated with the ethics of diplomacy, ethics of human rights, ethics of violence and the breach of the sovereignty of states, ethics associated with refugees, ethics of nuclear deterrence and defense, the requirement for the proliferation of democracy and to a lesser extent, ethics of environment and ethics associated with gender continued to be presented to state actors (Coicaud, 2001, “Contents”), (Irwin, 1998, Pp. 2 – 20), (Smith, 2001, Chapter 1) and (Fanzun, 2003, Pp. 24 – 36). Although it is entirely possible that perspectives associated with the ethics of the previously mentioned dilemmas may have had different interpretations in different states, the United States of America, being the sole global power, continued to exert its influence on the foreign policy stance of its allies. Who also wanted to influence others in their sphere of influence (Kumar, 2002, “Politics in Pakistan Post-September 11, 2001”), (Halperin, 2005, “Introduction”), (Gelb, 2003, “The Rise of Ethics in Foreign Policy”), (Hulsman, 2005, Pp. 1 – 8) and (Dufourcq, 2004, Pp. 109), (Ruddin, 2006, Pp. 1 – 15), (Kung, 2001, Pp. 8 – 16) and (Nita, 2005, Pp. 80 – 86). Ethics has been on the rise in international relations theory in the recent past (Peter, 2005, “The Ethical Subject of Security”). It is, therefore, worth considering if the foreign policy of states in the present era ought to be about promoting values in the world or should the foreign policies of states solely attempt to protect the national interest. This brief essay attempts to consider the previously mentioned topic in order to arrive at some useful conclusions. Should Foreign Policy Promote Values or Protect the National Interest? There was a time in world history when the foreign policy of a state was conducted by the aristocracy which was not even elected and the masses had no inputs into the manner in which foreign policy was shaped (Voina-Motoc, 1999, Pp. 5 – 15). In the present day and age, individual citizens are much better informed by the media and even un-elected members of a government are far more likely to be accountable for the policies that they do formulate (Barker, 2005, Pp. 1 – 5). Citizens in Great Democracies have often asked if the promotion of ethics and morality ought to be a part of foreign policy. The then governor, George W. Bush was known to have remarked in response to the foreign policy ethics debate (Nita, 2005, Pp. 2): “Some have tried to pose a choice between American ideals and American interests – between who we are and how we act. But the choice is false. America, by decision and destiny, promotes political freedom – and gains the most when democracy advances.” Governor George W. Bush, “A Distinctly American Internationalism”. Simi Valley, California. November 19, 1999. Thus, despite the differences in ethical or moral standards that do exist in different cultures and nations, it is entirely possible that the promotion of ethics in any dealings with other states may indeed be in the national interest. The connection between morality and foreign policy has been described as being a subject that “remains much wanting in thought” (Harries, 2005, Pp. 5 – 10). Thus, it is not surprising that this new dimension in diplomatic thinking has been appropriately promoted in the very recent past. United Nations Secretary -General, Kofi Annan, had declared 2001 as the year of “Dialogue of Civilizations” (Kung, 2001, Pp. 10 – 12). Dialogue between cultures and civilizations can indeed act to bring about new understandings that are beneficial to all. Policies of regional reconciliation, understanding and cooperation that substitute policies of confrontation, aggression and power are likely to be beneficial to states all around the world, as they try to allocate their resources for the uplift of their citizens, instead of wasting them on war and confrontation. The treatment that foreign policy has received at the hands of those who have been responsible for formulating and implementing it has been tantamount to the denial of the very core of the Judeo – Christian morality and it was perhaps thought appropriate that attempts ought to be made to change this situation cautiously, because of the mistrust and uncertainty that had existed amongst state actors who were mostly groomed in the realist or power – balance school of foreign policy formulation (Harries, 2005, Pp. 7). Judeo – Christian morality is certainly likely to appeal to those nation states with a predominantly Christian or Jewish background and such values will also appeal to those states with Islamic values, because of a similarity in thinking, but the practical application of such core values to foreign policy formulation and implementation may be considered to be risky because of the mistrust that exists between state actors and the difficulty of enforcing morality without the use of force. However, globalization and the emergence of international institutions, such as the United Nations, The International Court of Justice, World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, that are responsible and capable of enforcing some sort of an international consensus on rogue state actors, ought to reassure those who are skeptical, that some sort of a progress in the application of ethics to foreign policy is now possible. Immanuel Kant and other philosophers have subscribed to the view that it ought to be possible to pass judgments on the behavior of nation states who are subjected to the same moral standards as individuals (Harries, 2005, Pp. 6 - 15). These views that have also been endorsed by distinguished statesman, including Woodrow Wilson and George Bush. In an era which has seen humanity becoming more appreciative of the thinking and values of others, as a result of advancements in media and communications, progress depends on interactions and the formation of bonds between people, spread of commerce, diffusion of education and the elimination of ignorance as well as the labor of foreign offices and the cabinets. Those who were at the helm of power in democratic states and who had been placed in such position by the people had expressed a desire that the previously mentioned processes should be accelerated through the use of “world opinion” and political power to impose a new “moral order” on to humanity. Skeptics have argued that United States and other European powers, including Great Britain, have been responsible for morally questionable conduct in war, including the nuclear bombings in Japan, but it has to be realized that the moral stakes in these wars and others, including the American Civil War, were very high and if Nazi Germany or advocates of slavery had won, then the world would have succumbed to the acceptance of demonic values that will have profoundly influenced humanity, from which it will have been exceedingly difficult to emerge. Even though ethics and morality appear to be ingrained in human nature and these issues keep coming up in all areas of human existence, it has been said that foreign ministries and foreign ministers are there to protect the national interest and not to become delegates for the human race at the national expense (Harries, 2005, Pp. 14). Even though countries still view foreign policy in bilateral terms, foreign ministries have to respond to real time international developments on a multilateral front. Most of the time, foreign ministries are indeed working hard to protect the national interest by collecting and sifting through information, making sense of international developments, responding to trade and economic issues, responding to the requirements of citizens and acting as coordinators with foreign organizations and governments etc. However, it is still important that underlying currents of morality and ethics be maintained in all interactions so that more constructive and encouraging outcomes continue to be made possible (Rana, 2005, Pp. 18 – 22). Ethical and moral values are universal and all countries of the world subscribe to ethical standards and it is important that foreign policy actions are colored with moral considerations, so that they are not only in the interest of the state, but also in the interest of justice and global humanity (Dongyan, 2006, Sections II – IV). A reminder to all involved in foreign policy work by top foreign policymakers about ethics in foreign policy results in enhanced international attention to ethics and morality in foreign relations. This can only serve to improve interstate relations, which are often dealt with by a large number of members of the staff of foreign ministries, who are also required to protect the national interest. Unfortunately, maintaining ethics and morality in international relations does incur costs in terms of the immediate national interest (Smith, 2001, Pp. 1 – 10). Whenever a nation decides not to sell arms that have been produced by the local industry for use in tense regions for the irresponsible slaughter of mankind or when a country decides to extend developmental or educational assistance to other states, costs are incurred by the national treasury and the citizens. Intervention in conflicts and involvement in maintaining peace can be costly in terms of the lives of citizens. Thus, foreign ministry policy makers who have to respond to evolving situations have to make decisions on the merits of particular events or demands. Even calling on other states to work for a transition to democracy, maintenance of human rights or to uphold ethics can result in backlash and hostility arising out of ignorance, which can be costly in terms of the national interest. It is certainly true that the more advanced and developed democracies of the world have had to act as mentors in order to push ethical values on to the international arena and citizens of these state have been left wondering if such efforts are worthwhile when similar support from other states, some of which may be less advantaged, is not forthcoming. However, it has to be remembered that ethical considerations are still considered by many to be the very essence for human existence on earth. Judeo – Christian and Islamic traditions present the notion that man was placed on earth to do the work of God and not to turn away and require that God should do the work of man. Hence, any efforts to enhance ethics in international relations can only bring about progress and long term returns. The progress that humanity has been able to achieve today is the result of a long term investment in ethics and morality over generations. Thus a call for ethics from top foreign policy makers can indeed bring about renewed vigor in foreign policy thinking and practice. Ethnic and religious differences can be a source of enrichment and ethical orientation does not subordinate politics to ethics (Kung, 2005, Pp. 2 – 13). However, each nation has to decide what can be given away without a burden on the national interest and these decisions are likely to be judged by others also. Conclusion From the previous discussion, it can be concluded that the promotion of values in foreign policies of nations is not necessarily contrary to the national interest of a state and ethical dimensions to foreign policy are important. However, each nation will have to determine what can be put at risk for ethics and such decisions will be judged by others. Thus, the ethical dimensions of foreign policy of all nations will continue to determine the future of humanity and the kind of world in which we all live. Bibliography / References 1. Aarts, P. & Nonneman, G. 2005. Saudi Arabia in the balance: political economy, society, foreign affairs New York, N.Y.: New York University Press. 2. Adigbuo, E. R. 2005. Nigeria’s National Role Conceptions: The Case of Namibia. University of Johannesburg. Retrieved: December 1, 2006. From: http://etd.uj.ac.za/theses/available/etd-09272006-090108/restricted/Chapter1-8.pdf 3. Al-Kabalan, M. J. 2003, Press and US post-cold war foreign policy to the Middle East: an analysis of cultural and strategic determinants Manchester: University of Manchester. 4. Al-Mulla, F. A. & University of Sussex 1982, Systemic and domestic factors as determinants of the Gulf emirates foreign policies Brighton: University of Sussex. 5. Aras, D. & University of Manchester. Department of Middle Eastern Studies 2002, Determinants of the Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East and Turkeys relations with Iran, Iraq and Syria Manchester : University of Manchester. 6. Bandyopadhyaya, J. 1984. The making of Indias foreign policy: determinants, institutions, processes and personalities, Rev. Ed. New Delhi: Allied Publishers. 7. Barker, M. 2005. Manufacturing policies: the media’s role in the policy making process . Griffith University. Retrieved: December 1, 2006. From: http://live-wirez.gu.edu.au/jea.papers/Barker.doc 8. Bijleveld, Jeroen. 1997. Dilemmas of Human Rights in Foreign Policy: Dutch and Australian Policies on Self-determination for West New Guinea and East Timor. University of Sydney. Retrieved: December 1, 2006. From: http://www.papuaweb.org/dlib/s123/bijleveld/phd.pdf 9. Bindra, S. S. 1988, Determinants of Pakistans foreign policy New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications. 10. bou-Kahf, A. M. & University of Strathclyde 1985, Foreign direct investment in developing countries: An analysis of the determinants, impact, policies and organisation with specific reference to the case of Egypt Glasgow: University of Strathclyde. 11. Chadda, M. 1987. Domestic determinants of Indias foreign policy in the 1980s: the role of Sikh and Tamil nationalism. 12. Coicaud, Jean-Marc, Warner, Daniel.2001. Ethics and International Affairs: extent and limits. United Nations University. Retrieved: December 5, 2006. From: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mAHtQIuHzZ8C&dq=Approaches+to+International+Ethics&pg=RA1-PA14&ots=M9wzSfyZSq&sig=P2BynWOOlm4garwUDj0odSxPJFc&prev=http://www.google.co.uk/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3DApproaches%2Bto%2BInternational%2BEthics%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch%26meta%3D&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=2 13. Crocker, David A. 2005. The Relevance of Development Ethics for USAID. USAID. Retrieved: December 5, 2006. From: http://pdf.dec.org/pdf_docs/PNADD048.pdf 14. DJURANOVIC, MARKO. 2002. THE ROLE OF AUTHORITY IN LEGITIMATING ARMED HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION. Duke University. Retrieved: December 1, 2006. From: http://www.poli.duke.edu/ugrad/papers/Marko%20Djuranovic.pdf 15. Dongyan, Li. 2006. Justice and International System: The Combination of Power, Interest and Morality – A Chinese Perspective. Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Retrieved: December 5, 2006. From: http://www.iwep.org.cn/chinese/jigou&renyuan/guojizhengzhi/paper/ldy-outline%20of%20la.pdf 16. Donnelly, Jack. 2004. State Sovereignty and Human Rights. University of Denver. Retrieved: December 1, 2006. From: http://www.du.edu/gsis/hrhw/working/2004/21-donnelly-2004.pdf 17. Dunn, J. F. & Conflict Studies Research Centre 1995. The determinants and future of Ukrainian foreign and security policy Camberley: Conflict Studies Research Centre, RMA Sandhurst. 18. Fanzun, Jon A. 2003. Swiss Human Rights Policy: Between Humanitarian Tradition and Political Reluctance. Center for International Studies, Zurich. Retrieved: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:5fQFSUosYNgJ:www.ssn.ethz.ch/forschung/pub/_doc/39humanrights.pdf+Dissertation:+Ethics+in+Foreign+Policy+Formulation.&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=123 19. Gelb, Leslie H. and Rosenthal, Justine A. 2003. The Rise of Ethics in Foreign Policy: Reaching a Values Consensus. Foreign Affairs, May/June 2003. Retrieved: December 5, 2006. From: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030501facomment11215/leslie-h-gelb-justine-a-rosenthal/the-rise-of-ethics-in-foreign-policy-reaching-a-values-consensus.html 20. Halperin, Morton et al. 2005. The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace. Carnegie Council. Retrieved: December 5, 2006. From: http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5129.html 21. Harries, Owen. 2005. Morality and Foreign Policy. The Centre for Independent Studies. Retrieved: December 5, 2006. From: http://www.cis.org.au/publications/occasionalpapers/op94.pdf 22. Hulme, S. J. 2001. THE MODERN MEDIA: THE IMPACT ON FOREIGN POLICY. US Army Command and Staff College. Retrieved: December 1, 2006. From: http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:fql-yBsVEsoJ:www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/media-hulme.pdf+Thesis:+Considerations+in+Foreign+Policy+Formulation&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=33 23. Hulsman, John C., Lieven, Anatol. 2005. The Ethics of Realism. National Interest, The. Summer, 2005. Retrieved: December 5, 2006. From: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_80/ai_n15786858 24. Hussain, Khawar. 2005. Pakistan’s Afghanistan Policy. United States Naval Postgraduate School. Retrieved: December 1, 2006. From: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:6wQceobNSV4J:www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/theses/Hussain05.pdf+Thesis:+Determining+a+State%27s+Foreign+Policy&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=20 25. Irwin, Rosalind. 1998. Ethics and Security in Canadian Foreign Policy: New Dilemmas and Questions. York University. Retrieved: December 5, 2006. From: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:9xUWhFj87LAJ:www.yorku.ca/yciss/publications/OP53-Irwin.pdf+Dissertation:+Ethics+in+Foreign+Policy+Formulation.&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=69 26. Isacoff, J. B. 2002. Pragmatism, Historical Inquiry, and International Relations. Haverford College. Retrieved: December 5, 2006. From: http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:Io43vCDjKI4J:www.ssc.upenn.edu/polisci/grad/workshop/S2002/isacoff.doc+Meaning+of+Pragmatism+in+International+Relations&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=2 27. John Hopkins University. School of Advanced International Studies & Conference, 1. 1. 1966, African diplomacy: studies in the determinants of foreign policy Published for the School of Advanced International Studies, the John Hopkins University, by Pall Mall P. 28. Kegley, C. W. & Wittkopf, E. R. 2001, World politics: trend and transformation, 8th Ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, c2001. 29. Kuhlman, J. A. 1978, The Foreign policies of Eastern Europe: domestic and international determinants Leyden: Sijthoff. 30. Kumar, S. 2002. Politics in Pakistan Post-September 11, 2001. Strategic Analysis: Apr-Jun 2002 (Vol. XXVI No. 2). Retrieved: December 5, 2006. From: http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/sa/sa_apr02kus01.html 31. Kung, Hans. 2001. Global Politics and Global Ethics: Status Quo and Perspectives. Seton Hall Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations. Retrieved: December 5, 2006. From: http://diplomacy.shu.edu/journal/new/pdf/VolIIINo1/kung.pdf 32. Kwak, J. 1996. The determinants of Chilean foreign policy: 1970-90 University of Liverpool. 33. Mackay, D., V & Baltimore 1966, African diplomacy; studies in the determinants of foreign policy. Edited by Vernon McKay, [Another issue]. African diplomacy. Ed, London: published for the School of Advanced International Studies, the Johns Hopkins University, by Pall Mall Press. 34. Malik, H. 1990, Domestic determinants of Soviet foreign policy towards South Asia and the Middle East Basingstoke: Macmillan. 35. Marchi, L. & University of Reading 2003. The domestic determinants of Italys attitude to European political cooperation with particular reference to the Mediterranean, 1970-1990: a national foreign policy approach to policy-making Reading: University of Reading. 36. Masaldan, P. N. 1977, Jawaharlal Nehrus foreign policy: determinants, principles and conduct Nagpur: Nagpur University. 37. McKay, V. & Johns Hopkins University. School of Advanced International Studies 1966, African diplomacy: studies in the determinants of foreign policy London: Pall Mall Press. 38. Miyashita, A. & Sato, Y. 2001, Japanese foreign policy in Asia and the Pacific: domestic interests, American pressure, and regional integration, 1st Ed. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York, NY: Palgrave. 39. Neufeld, M. 2000. Globalization and the Re – Definition of Democratic Governance: From Compensatory to Protective Democracy. Trent University. Retrieved: December 1, 2006. From: http://www.trentu.ca/org/tipec/neufeld7.pdf 40. Neufeld, Mark. 1999. GLOBALIZATION: FIVE THESES. Trent University. Retrieved: December 1, 2006. From: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:MwjSaEFqFPAJ:www.chass.utoronto.ca/tamapp/Neufeld.PDF+Thesis:+Determining+a+State%27s+Foreign+Policy 41. Neufeld, Mark. 2000. Theorizing Globalisation: Towards a Politics of Resistance. Trent University. Retrieved: December 1, 2006. From: http://www.trentu.ca/org/tipec/neufeld14.pdf 42. Nita, Florib. 2005. Identity and Power: American Foreign Policy under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush – Continuity and Change. European International Institute. Retrieved: December 5, 2006. From: http://www.iehei.org/bibliotheque/memoires/NITA.pdf 43. Peter, Burgess. 2005. The Ethical Subject of Security. Challenge Liberty and Security. Retrieved: December 5, 2006. From: http://www.libertysecurity.org/article248.html 44. Phuangkasem, C. 1986, Determinants of Thailands foreign policy behavior Bangkok: Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University. 45. Ponsard, L and Dufourcq, Jean. Ed. 2004. The South Caucuses: Promoting Value through Cooperation. NATO Defense College. Retrieved: December 5, 2006. From: http://www.ndc.nato.int/download/publications/seminar_20.pdf 46. Rana, Kishan S. 2005. Foreign Ministries: Change and Reform. DiploFoundation. Retrieved: December 1, 2006. From: http://www.diplomacy.edu/Conferences/MFA/ForMin.pdf 47. Reisman, M.W. and Stevick, D.L. 1996. The Applicability of International Law Standards to United Nations Economic Sanctions Programmes. Yale. Retrieved: November 25, 2006. From: http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol9/No1/art4.pdf 48. Riste, O. 1984, Isolationism and great power protection: the historical determinants of Norwegian foreign policy Oslo, Norway: National Defence College Norway, Research Centre for Defence History. 49. Robotti, M. P. 2004. The Future of American Foreign Policy towards North Korea. University of British Colombia. Retrieved: December 1, 2006. From: http://dissertations.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=ashonors 50. Roleff, Daniel. 2005. Can Democracy be taught? And Learned? International Democratization Efforts in Kosovo since 1999. University of Trento. Retrieved: December 1, 2006. From: http://www.ssi.unitn.it/en/events/download/Daniel_Roleff.pdf 51. Rotberg, R. I. & World Peace Foundation 1998, Burma: prospects for a democratic future Cambridge, Mass.; Washington D.C.: The World Peace Foundation and Harvard Institue for International Development: Brookings Institute Press. 52. Ruddin, L. P. 2006. It’s not ‘revolutionary,’ stupid! Bush Foreign Policy (2001–2004) and the International Security Corollary. 49th Parallel, No.17. Spring, 2006. Retrieved: December 5, 2006. From: http://www.49thparallel.bham.ac.uk/back/issue17/Ruddin.pdf 53. Shembilku, R. E. 2004. The National Interest Tradition and the Foreign Policy of Albania. The Fletcher School of Diplomacy. Retrieved: December 1, 2006. From: http://fletcher.tufts.edu/research/2004/Shembilku-Rozeta.pdf 54. Smith, Karen E and Light. M. 2001. Ethics and Foreign Policy. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved: December 5, 2006. From: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=hAXE331MIJwC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&sig=qtzQWJ5x-uJte8F3Yu_v3vVa5EU&dq=Ethical+traditions+in+foreign+policy&prev=http://scholar.google.com/scholar%3Fq%3DEthical%2Btraditions%2Bin%2Bforeign%2Bpolicy%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D 55. Soofi, N. R. A. G. 2006. An Outline of Early Islamic History. Al Islam. Retrieved: December 2, 2006. From: http://www.alislam.org/library/history/index.htm 56. Swaine, M. D., Mulvenon, J. C., & Center for Asia-Pacific Policy (Rand Corporation) 2001, Taiwans foreign and defense policies: features and determinants Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand. 57. Sylvan, Donald A. 1979. Planning Foreign Policy Systematically: Mathematical Foreign Policy Planning. Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Mar., 1979), pp. 139-173. Retrieved: December 5, 2006. From: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0027(197903)23%3A1%3C139%3APFPSMF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W 58. Thakur, Ramesh. 2003. Developing Countries and the Intervention – Sovereignty Debate. University of British Columbia. Retrieved: December 1, 2006. From: http://www.cir.ubc.ca/unconf/thakur.pdf 59. United Nations Industrial Development Organization Regional and Country & Studies Branch 1990. Foreign direct investment flows to developing countries: recent trends, major determinants and policy implications United Nations Industrial Development Organization. 60. Vachudová, M. A. & University of Oxford. Faculty of Social Studies 1997, Systemic and domestic determinants of the foreign policies of East Central European states, 1989-1994. 61. VANDEKERCKHOVE, M. V. 2004. DOMESTIC PUBLIC DIPLOMACY, PUBLIC RELATIONS STRATEGY AND FOREIGN POLICY DURING THE PERSIAN GULF WAR − IMPLICATIONS FOR DEMOCRACY. University of Florida. Retrieved: December 1, 2006. From: http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0004845/vandekerckhove_m.pdf 62. Voina-Motoc. 1999. Moral Rule and Rule of Law in International Politics: Common Sense, Political Realism, Skepticism. IWM Junior Visiting Fellows Conferences, Vol. VIII/2. Retrieved: December 1, 2006. From: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:iGRwso5X1X8J:www.univie.ac.at/iwm/publ-jvc/jc-08-02.pdf+Thesis:+Determining+a+State%27s+Foreign+Policy 63. Wikipedia. 2006. American Civil War. Wikipedia. Retrieved: December 2, 2006. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War 64. Wikipedia. 2006. Battle of Gettysburg. Wikipedia. Retrieved: December 2, 2006. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gettysburg 65. Wikipedia. 2006. Central Treaty Organisation. Wikipedia. Retrieved: December 2, 2006. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Pact 66. Wikipedia. 2006. Idealism. Wikipedia. Retrieved: December 5, 2006. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism 67. Wikipedia. 2006. Pragmatism. Wikipedia. Retrieved: December 5, 2006. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism 68. Wikipedia. 2006. Realism. Wikipedia. Retrieved: December 5, 2006. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_in_international_relations 69. Wilson, K. M. 1985. The policy of the entente: essays on the determinants of British foreign policy, 1904-1914 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Read More