Differences Foreign Policy Small and the Great States - Essay Example

What common features of ‘small s’ Foreign Policy distinguish it the most from ‘Great powers’ Foreign Policy? Introduction The foreign policy of nation states is the external manifestation of their identity, culture and value. In simple terms foreign policy describes the relations of a country with other countries. Merriam Webster Online defines foreign policy as a policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states. Though as a field of study it began only in the 20th century (Platzgraff) over the years, academic interest in the foreign policies of nations has increased. In the past century events World Wars, Cold War, development of economic blocs, globalization and liberalisation in international trade have profoundly affected the foreign policy of the nations. Development of Foreign Policy—Structural Outlines Foreign policy has deeper connotations with stated and un-stated objectives that a country to tries to fulfil through political, economic, military, and diplomatic means. Dean Rusk quoted by Seabury, interprets foreign policy as a “galaxy of complicated factors.” Hoffman quoted by Seabury too sees the current picture of international relations as “the crisis of complexity”. He feels that in the past century the sheer dimension of international equilibrium has multiplied. States have added significantly to these dimensions with different manifestations of foreign policy under varying set of conditions. Foreign policy is a dependant variable conditioned by internal power configurations of the state (Wagner). As such foreign policies of small Asian, African, and Latin American states have foreign policies have changed with changes in the domestic power structures. Smaller states are more vulnerable to domestic and international changes as they show greater tendency to change foreign policy. Scholars have studied the changes in foreign policies of nations and dichotomised the international behaviour of great and small nations. Reiter, for example, infers how a small and a great power learn from their experiences of war to chalk to out their foreign policies. East for example cites Roseau’s observation that the size of a nation plays a great role in creation of its foreign policy. Small states never have permanent and extended interests in international arena as big powers. Other than studying foreign policy on the basis of ‘greatness’ and ‘smallness’ foreign policies have been studied in contrast to authoritarian regimes, traditional or modern societies or in stages of economic development (Pfaltzgraff,1974). What is a small state? Before we go into the details of behavioural aspects of nations in international relations, it is important to create a definition of “small state” and a “great power”. Scholars of international studies have been able to distinguish small states from small powers for specific purposes. Small and great can be related to a large number of aspects. “Small” and “large” are relative concepts, subject to great differences in interpretation. (Baehar 459). East (1973) sets the criteria of defining smallness of states as with 1) small land area 2) small total population 3) small GNP 4) a low level military capacity. Vital associates small states with lesser power influence during the times of conflict. Vital sees them as vulnerable and having little scope of crisis management though they are not pawns or satellites in the hands of super powers. Consequently he calls the nuclear powers wielding with more influence as the great powers. However, for the purpose of our study, we will consider any country with limited means and resources falling in any region of the world as small. For our current discussion we will consider the large number Asian, African, Latin American and European states that have limited economic and military capability as “small” states as compared to large developed and militarily empowered states as “great”. Of course, there will remain exceptions in any classification that we make on ‘greatness’ and ‘smallness’ of a country. Empirical evidence also suggests size matters a lot in the behaviour of nation states, in international matters. (Rummel 1969 quoted by East). Geographically, small states present in large numbers are present across the globe in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe. Common Features of Foreign Policies of Great Powers Great powers generally; follow elaborate and unambiguous foreign policies that remain unchanged even with change of their governments. Great powers are less in number and they have more resources to allocate to their foreign policy. Consequently, great powers show consistency in their behaviour international relations over the years. As such their foreign policies stand in stark contrast to those of small nations. Hoffman, for example quoted by Seabury states the permanence of US, a great power, foreign policy thus: “The wrappings changes; the substance remains much the same.” Great powers rely more on traditional bilateral diplomatic channels than compared to small powers (East, 1973). Since the internal power configurations that shape up the foreign policy are more stable in them, great powers decidedly exhibit greater resolve and responsibility in implementing their foreign policy. Developed countries are better placed to pursue their international policies. (Braveboy-Wagner, 2005). They pursue a policy of high-risk and high involvement to address larger number of issues than small states. Hence the foreign policies of developed countries are better in quality and more likely to achieve their objectives. Foreign Policies of Small Nations Small states, contrary to the major powers, display a more divergence in their behaviour in foreign policy, which varies from high volatility to low response. However, there are distinguishing features that differentiate their behaviour from great powers. Sheer lack of resources restricts the play of small states in all international matters as a result they are slow in perceiving troublesome situation instantaneously (East, 1973). This lack of resources makes them restrict the number of embassies and missions abroad (Hudson, 2006). This makes them more conflict prone. Small powers shape up their foreign policies on more irresponsible grounds like resorting to jingoism or example like trumpeting up national images (Plaatzkaarf). They resort to promotion of personalities cults both nationally and internationally as in North Korea, and Iraq. Thompson sets up the idiom of a bird for the leader of a small country. He finds the birds like Sukarno and Nkrumah ‘freer’ than people like President Johnson, who are bound in limits and hence such leaders of great powers go to any length to keep the US foreign policy unchanged. Masters for example says that US policy is more faith based and the smaller European powers are secular in outlook and hence are more open. Thus we can conclude that that the foreign policies of great nations are more rigid and that of smaller countries more flexible and subject to change. Other scholars attribute the formation of international policies, good or bad, to peculiar socio-economic and geo-political circumstance of a small country. The conventional wisdom says that the policies of small states are conditioned by their external environments (Zahardias,1994) for example, prevalence of nationalism, in the neighbouring states as in case of Balkan countries, which increases the insecurity of a country thus pressurising its foreign policy towards more belligerence. East feels that small states have lesser resources to devote to international relations, which make them slow in response to interpretation of international behaviour. Economic bureaucracies play a larger role in stating the foreign policies of smaller states than the larger states. (East, 1973). Thus they use International Governmental Organization (IGOs) to a larger extent then the smaller states. On the other hand presence and absence of the influence of a super power also plays an important role in foreign policies of small nations. The influence of super power like the US also plays an important role in shaping the foreign policies of Latin American countries. International relations experts have also studied the behaviour of small nations and bigger nations in the paradigm of balance of power and omni-balancing. The most traditional theory developed around the foreign policy of small states is that of ‘balance of power.’ Small nations align to protect themselves against the power of other states (Duncon and Siverson quoted by David. 1994, 2001). They do so because small states fear development of hegemonic powers (David, 1971) of other states. However, balance of power theory has further connotation, that of ‘omni-balancing’ (David, 1971). In omni-balancing the states seek to identify the threats as primary and secondary; then seek to counter more immediate and pressing internal and external threats (David, 1971). However ‘omni-balancing’ may not be a common denominator under all condition. Small states like New Zealand, South Korea, Turkey, etc, fairly stable and never indulge in omni-balancing. East notes that the foreign policies of small states is marked by low level participation in world affairs, high level of support for legal norm, avoidance of use of force, and narrow functional and geographic range. Hey uses the ‘kitchen sink’ and input-process-output model of Michael Breecher (Hey, 632) to explain the foreign policy of small states more comprehensively. In another episode of behavioural difference small states have merged their identities to find a common voice in European Union. Small yet economically stronger states may form a foreign policy for collectively leveraging a more important role in world affairs (Zahardias). The formation of foreign policy of European member states now takes place in the larger context of European Consultation (Hill and Wallace 1996) quoted by Sujeron (1992) and European reflex (Tonra 2001). Much like the pattern of EU, we have other regional groupings coming up in the world where small states seek to put up a common front. Smaller states decidedly are working towards setting realistic common agendas in foreign policy. Foreign policies are affected by internal conditions as well as perceptual frameworks of its elites and leader that influence its foreign policy decision-making. The foreign policies of small states according to East are marked by low profile in international affairs, high level of activity in IGOs, avoidance of use of force, avoiding alienation of great powers, narrow geographical and functional reach and frequent use of normative and moral positions. Statistically, the East proves through statistical that small states exhibit low-risk behaviour. The increases of governance, lack of economic surplus makes small states adopt a low-risk and a low profile foreign policy. Consequently there will be lesser involvement of these states in international relations. According to the conventional mode of East, small states opt for a low cost verbal behaviour in international arena compared to high cost non-verbal behaviour of great powers. Criticism of Literature on Foreign Policies of Small States Scholars of international studies in developed countries are more prone to do quantitative analysis of ‘foreign policy’ episodes of developing countries to sketch a coherent foreign policy. On the whole theories and rationalisation of international conduct as seen through the prism of developed countries could be severely flawed for it is driven more quantitative analysis driven than the explanatory, qualitative and comparative approach followed by theorists belonging to developing countries especially those of Latin American. As a typical example of quantitative analysis, East, for example proposes two models for foreign policy behaviour of small states as high risk and low risk. The distinction was set up through observance of 4448 foreign policy events initiated by 32 states in the decade from 1959-1968. Thus international scholars following quantitative analysis approach and using cross-sectional data to develop a common theory for foreign policies of Latin American countries may be mistaking wood for trees (Hey citing Ray 1983). The argument once again takes us to our primary question whether there are common features in foreign policy of small states. Foreign policies of small states could vary from region to region, country to country and from time to time. Sjursen posits in context of European Union, “Was it only a passing phenomenon or there a lasting trend in foreign policy initiatives of EU?” Based on the foreign policy trends of small countries can we say that there are commonalities that distinguish them from the foreign policies of developed nations? If so, how did these theoretical conceptions come about? A Historical Perspective The period falling between the two World Wars was marked more by a utopian approach in foreign policies that sought ultimate world peace. Deutsch (1957) cited by Baehar talks of institutionalisation of warless societies through an amalgamation of political entities achieved through policies that aided international integration. Later studies are marked by a sense of realism. (Pfaltzgraff, 1974). This marked the advent of the dawn of behavioural approach that used quantifiable means to determine the impact of foreign policy. There was a heavy emphasis on quantification as a basis for precision (Knorr and Rosenau quoted by Pfaltzgraff, 1974). “Since the World War II the global system of military bipolarity, had a profound impact on state behaviour. States clustered around two hegemons by forming alliances, NATO and Warsaw Pact by formulating or redefining their interests to suit alliance goals (Zahardias, 1994) Small states depended upon great powers for their security umbrella. Greece for example pursued a friendly policy towards non-aligned Yugoslavia but a belligerence attitude towards Bulgaria, on their claims to areas of Thrace and Macedonia in northern Greece. Small states also have a narrow geographic range of concerns (East quoted by Zahardias, 653) that may override their broader geo-political policy at times. Greece had sought warmer relations with Bulgaria when it felt threatened from its bloc partner Turkey (Zahradias). In the case of Greece, foreign policy was created out of both internal fear of communism and international compulsions (Zahardias, 1994). Despite change of bipolar to multi-polar world, small states continue to focus themselves on forming pairs (Pfaltzgraff, 1974). Commonalities in Foreign Policies of Great and Small Powers There may be more commonalities in two states belonging to great and small classification than to their own groups. Bloomfield cites Rostow to call for more evidence based and critically evaluating studies to point out the common denominators of foreign policy. Perception of foreign policy behaviour of states is the ‘intellectual dilemma’ of those who study its effects. Platzzgaaf (1974) states the dilemma in his quest for grand theory: “Is it possible to develop a theory which by key references purports to account for a wide range of International phenomenon?” “Even in the absence of such a ‘grand theory’, studies into transaction patterns, relationship between patterns of domestic violence and the propensity of a nation to engage in international conflict would lead to development of islands of theory, which could be linked one to form one theory of International relationships (Pfaltzgraff,1974).” Yet there are scholars like Rothstein cited by East who view small states as nothing more than great power writ small. Baehar (1975) expresses doubt that with nation states less committed towards nuclear non-proliferation any low intensity conflict can result in a global nuclear war. Thus the foreign policies of great nations could in effect be the same even if they differ in theory. Scholars have tried to study the foreign affairs policies in context of student unrest and penetration of mass communication mean also over a range of small states and great powers. Baehar (1975) argues that the leaders of western states are not more rational and sensible in their decision making than those of the smaller states. Refutation of Commonalities in Foreign Policies of Great and Small States International conditions especially those of small states and great powers are radically different. As discussed above both these groups have different priorities and antagonistic objectives. A common foreign policy can only be conceived in theory but it is hard to achieve it in practice. Only a myopic and limited study can see commonalities in the behaviour of small states and big states. The international states system is seen to be composed of sovereign states that act on the basis of self-interest, without reference to common norms, identities and values .However no precise formulation has been arrived correlate the foreign policy with the outlook of the leaders, domestic structures or economic development. (Pfaltzgraff, 1974). States are known to have responded differently under different or similar situations. Psychologists have also tried to interpret the international state behaviour as an aggregate of individual behaviour. The international system is seen to be composed of sovereign states that act on the basis of self-interest, without reference to common norms, identities and value (Sujersen, 2003). Conclusion The world today is run with pragmatism of convenience than based on high moral grounds of political theory. Seabury cites Thompson who to state the radical difference between philosophy and action, philosophers and actors, in policy-making. He calls all conceptualising, theorising as the domain of philosophers, which is very different from the actors, the diplomats, and the people who actually make, break or implement foreign policy. “When a policy has been finally agreed upon, its implementation often looks different from what either supporters or opponents of policy had expected. The difference is called slippage”(Norbert,27). He is categorical in stating that we live in world that is more shaped by facts than doctrines. Unfortunately, he feels, a wide gulf separates philosophers and diplomats. Seabury (1964) cites Thompson to state in this we can ill-afford the nuclear age a chasm between men of thought and men of action.” The process of policy making is an aggregate and continuous one, and it is inherently linked to the position of the state within the global system. East (1973) suggests more research to decipher the foreign policy behaviour of small states in reducing international tensions. But such scholars as East are called ivory-tower specialists who do not have enough experience in dealing with issue of foreign policy. Foreign policy is the behaviour of a state on how it conducts itself in the “international arena”. With everything considered “greatness” and “smallness” of state will always be the most decisive factor in spelling the foreign policy of a nation. A state that is more equipped better placed economically carries the burden of ‘greatness’ on its shoulders. The interests of a small state are myopic. However, it is realized even in the US that international affairs dictate that there is no moral code common to all people and all governments of the world (Zink, 2004). As earlier noted the International Governmental Organizations play a more crucial role for small countries for expression of their international contexts. These organizations are not only cost effective means of stating the foreign policy of nation but they are symbiotic as well, which provide a platform for sharing of ideologies. IGOs play the role of an equalizer where nations or great and small get to express themselves on equal footing. The great powers also get to address the international concerns better through the IGOs. Economics too plays an important role in the emerging era of globalisation. A relatively small nation like Japan may prove to be more powerful when compared to Russia, US or China when measured through shear economic strengths. No doubt economic groupings like the EU, ASEAN and NAFTA will have more importance in international relations than NATO, or any other military alignment. Though such regional outfits are against the spirit of globalization, yet they will be the significant ‘islands’ of international free trade and goods before, the globe moves towards a unification through seamless integration. Bibliography: East, Maurice A., (1973) Size and Foreign Policy Behavior: A Test of Two Models, World politics, Vol 25, No. 4 (July 1973), pp-556-556, Retrieved March 15th 2008 Pfaltzgraff, Robert L, Jr (1974) International Relations, Retrospect and Prospect, International affairs (Royal institute of international affairs), Vol 50, No1, Jan 1974 pp-28-48, Retrieved March 15th 2008 Vital, David (1971) Review (Margaret Doxey) The survival of small states-studies in small-power great power conflict (Oxford University Press) Vol 5, No.3, Sept 1972 David, Steven R., (1999) Explaining Third World Alignment, World politics, Vol 43, No 2, (Jan 1991), pp.233-235 Retrieved March 15th 2008 Hey, Jeanne A K., (1997) Three Building Blocks of a Theory of Latin American Foreign Policy, Third World Quarterly, Vol 18, No.4, pp 631-657 Retrieved March 15th 2008-03-27 Sjursen, Helene (2003) Understanding the Common Foreign and Security Policy: Analytical Building Blocks, Understanding eu realations, Routeledge, London. Seabury, Paul ( 1964) Review: The Immobile Foxes, Freedom and Necessity in Foreign Policy, Thompson, Kenneth W. American Diplomacy and Emergent Patterns American Foreign Policy—freedom and restraints, the journal of conflict resolution, Vol 8, No. 2 (Jun1964) pp 171-177 Retrieved March 15th David Steven R, (1991), Explaining third world alignment, World politics, Vol 43, No.2, (Jan 1991) pp233-256, Retrieved March 15th Both Norbert (2000) From Indifference to Entrapment: The Netherlands and the Yugoslav Crisis 1990-1995, Amsterdam University Press BV, Amsterdam, Netherlands Orvik, R (1974) Review of Small States in International Relations, Nobel Symposium, 17 Schou, A, and Brundtland, A, O,(1974) the American political science review, Vol 68, No4, Dec, 1977), pp1875-1877 Retrieved March 15th Ben Tonra (2003) The European Union’s Global Rule, Dublin European Institute, “The Fornet Working Group Website, www. Fornet.info.com, Retrieved March 15th 2008, http://www.fornet.info/documents/TONRA_Presentation%20November%202003.pdf Brave-boy Wagen R, Jacqueline, ed, The Foreign Policies of the Global South, Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO, USA Hudson, Valerie M ( 2006) Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory, Rowman & Littlefied Publishing Group, Lanham (MD) US. Zink, Lana (2004), Independence of Nations and the Role of Libraries: The American Library System as the Stakeholder for Freedom of Information, Electronic Journal of academic and special librarianship, Retrieved March 15th 2008 http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v05n01/zink_l01.htm Zahardias, N, (1994) Nationalism and Small State Foreign Policy: The Greek Response to Macedonian Issue, Political science quarterly, Vol 109, No.4, (Autumn 1994) pp-647-667, Retrieved March 15th Reiter, Dan (1996), Crucibles of Beliefs: Learning Alliances and World Wars, Cornell University Press, Sage House, Ithaca, NY, US Baehr, Peter R (1973) Small States: A Tool For Analysis, Review Article, World politics, Vol 27, No 3 (April, 1975) Retrieved March 15th www.merriam-webster.com, Merriam Webster Website, Retrieved http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=foreign+policy Read More