Foreign Policy Is the Product of a Rational Decision-Making Process - Essay Example

Foreign Policy a Rational Choice 2010 Introduction Decision-making in foreign policy follows a rational choice and the leader of the government often has to develop consensus among the members to take important decisions. It is up to the leader to facilitate discussions and consensus-making while at the same time setting an example in being receptive to all ideas yet making a prudent choice. The choice is made through consideration of the holistic attitude based on cultural parameters and the positivist attitude based on disciplinary attitude of political science (Snyder, 1988). Even though there may be theoretical foreign policy possibilities that are applicable in all countries, cultural differences may determine policy choices in particular countries. This paper will discuss various foreign policy measures that were arrived at as rational choices after considerable discussions among leaders. Foreign policies as principal-agent relationships Most foreign policy decisions since the end of the World War II have been taken as a rational choice for the purpose of domestic or ideological interests. Particularly with respect to policies related to the Soviet world, American foreign policies involved studying Soviet arms control strategies that affect American domestic and international events, the statements that emerged out of Soviet government and reconstruct plausible actions and reactions by the USSR. The essential approach was to look at Soviet policies and determine American policies accordingly (Snyder, 1988). In this sense, foreign policy choices may be considered as principal-agent choices in which the distinction between structuralism or individualism and collectivism has dominated. While the approach towards individualism would involve powers to pursue individual goals, the collective approach takes a more holistic approach that views policies in order to affect social relationships (Carlsnaes, 1992). The application of rational choice theory is most aptly demonstrated in American foreign policy regarding the USSR during the Cold War when the objective was not simply to contain USSR’s expansionist policies but to curtain the spread of communism. The communist form of government in Russia was an anti-thesis of democratic capitalism that the industrial western world had always upheld. US policymakers believed that establishment of democratic regimes around the world was crucial for its own security concerns. According to Giddis (p 177, 1990), the differences in foreign policies of the USSR and the United States after World War II stemmed from the respective attitude of the two countries regarding national security. Typically, the Russian approach towards geographical expansion was rooted in its historical experience of being invaded a number of times in the past. Hence, it sought to expand its influence in countries around its border. On the other hand, the United States, having faced no such military invasion in the past, believed that establishment of governments that followed principles similar to its own would result in an institutional framework that would make its own future secure. This resulted in the expansionist attitude of the USSR, which the US sought to contain. The US and Britain sought to establish democratic regimes in all countries and the United Nations as an organization that would settle conflicts between them amicably. Stalin’s dictatorial regime became all too handy a concept that flouted the norms of democracy. The USSR’s revolutionary agenda, on the other hand, challenged the basic principles of democratic capitalism that these western powers upheld. In a bid to achieve its own security, it sought to include the entire east European bloc within its fold by violating the norms that the west stood for. Hence, the USSR attracted new sources of hostility in addition to those that it had already reaped from its ideological premises. Kennen (1947), who developed the US foreign policy for containment of USSR, advocated that it would not be possible for the United States alone to halt the progress that the USSR had assumed in the global power equation, following the defeat of the other major powers, Germany and Japan. While counting on the support that the US had in the west, Kennen (1947) sought to advance the theory of containment by spreading influence in non-Communist Europe, Middle East and Japan. It was more in the rhetoric that the containment theory was propagated while it was the United States’ own interests in maintaining the status quo of democratic capitalism. However, Kennen (1947) realized that a ‘universal’ approach of involving all countries to endorse common goals would be impossible. Rather, he advocate a ‘particularized’ policy by which it might be necessary for some countries to enter into coalitions to maintain the world order, that in Kennen’s (1947) view reflected the US view (p 26, Giddes, 1982). Use of Intelligence and Covert Action During the Cold War, there were clashes and encounters of different scales between the Communist nations led by the USSR and democratic nations led by the United States. It was fought by every possible way - propaganda, financial war, political wrangles, covert action and irregular armed clashes all over the world - in unbiased states as well as newly liberated nations of Africa and Asia. The Cold War was thought to have begun when on March 12, 1947, President Harry S Truman declared to the U.S Congress that the foreign policy of the United States would be to help any country that was endangered by communism. However, there has not been major war since the Second World War because of the “systems theory” by which each power assumes that little can happen in the world without affecting its own interest. Hence, each country deals with its foreign policy by taking its own interests in consideration as well as the global effects that can happen on its policies (Gaddis, 1982). In 1962, there was a major crisis that erupted between the two superpowers when American intelligence service observed Soviets supplying offensive missiles on Cuban launch pad. President John F Kennedy undertook a series of discussions with the Executive Committee on the plan of action that the United States should adopt. Although President Kennedy was not constrained to take his decision on the basis of consensus by the Executive Committee, he discussed the pros and cons of every possible action with this group of men after which Kennedy adopted the political model to reach a decision that was pragmatic and realistic after considering different points of view. The Executive Council composed of a number of men representing a wide-ranging ideologies and views – from the hawkish Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, General Maxwell Taylor, who wanted to air strike Cuba and Adlai Stevenson, who proposed withdrawal of nuclear missiles from Italy and Turkey in exchange of demanding the same from Cuba. The middle road was represented by the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara and Robert Kennedy who proposed sea blockades to Cuba instead. Over the 13 days since October 14, 1962, when photos of missiles were received, there was high tension within the U.S Administration over the course of events that the government should adopt. There were some within the Executive Committee who not only proposed air strikes on Cuba but also the nuclear missiles on the basis that the Soviets could use such missiles as well. A large number of members of the Committee, on the other hand, were lawyers who had in-depth idea of international law and approached to solve the crisis in a legal way. Also, seasoned politicians like John and Robert Kennedy were reluctant to launch an air strike as that would kill hundreds of innocent Cubans, resulting in a loss of public image for the United States around the world. After a lot of discussion within the Executive Committee, President Kennedy announced on October 22 that the United States was imposing quarantine on all ships carrying missiles to Cuba. Ultimately, Soviet ships carrying missiles to Cuba returned, averting the possibilities of a nuclear war (Pavy, 1983). International Law, ethics and cooperation Foreign policies in the post-world war II era have been designed by a “bureaucratic political model” as opposed to the rational actor model in which the nation state operates to maximize value or an organization process model in which large bureaucratic organizations take decisions. Instead, domestic policies are related with international relations and international law at present (Freedman, 1975). In foreign policy, ethics and cooperation are deliberately included as rational choice parameters by poststucturalist scholars who break down the territorialisation of ethics and community while addressing issues of sovereignty and advocacy (Shapcott, 2001). However, the poststructuralist world view is not likely to develop a pathway to an alternative, like Marxism attempted, even while considering the sovereign state as a community meant to exert power. The main aim of postructuralists is to develop an ethical platform that values freedom above everything else so that no species is excluded from the moral consideration and dialogue. It is also the responsibility of all members of the community to overcome the barriers of cosmopolitan or communitarian divide. Only this would allow a meaningful dialogue with the “other”. Postmodern foreign policy scholars explore the relationship between truth and power in foreign policies of sovereign states. Instead of uncovering the truth that is hidden behind the power equations, they acknowledge that “truth and power are mutually implicated” (Shapcott, 2001). Theorists like Campbell and George (1990, p 281) “looks for no distinction between truth and power, for it expects none” (quoted in Shapcott, 2001). Instead, they look for ways that truth functions as a discourse in the production of power. Rather than any universal truth that is ahistorical or natural, poststructuralists consider truth as a product of cultural and social attitude. Based on the critical theory that knowledge and power is what human beings make through their social relations, the modern man is considered a “sovereign man” through the historical process of knowledge and power creation. Hence, Devetek (1996) asserts that “it is more important to determine the forces that give shape to an event or a thing than to attempt its hidden, fixed essence” (quoted in Shapcott, 2001). George and Campbell (1990) says, “the (poststructuralist) project is a search for a thinking space within the modern categories of unity, identity and homogeneity; the search for a broader and more complex understanding of modern society which accounts for that which is left out – the other, the marginalized, the left out” (quoted in Shapcott, 2001). As a result, a representation that claims to be total or universal is often incomplete. The aim of poststructural readings, therefore, is to reject the totality of representation and explore the hidden dichotomies, hierarchies and exclusions. In the realm of foreign policy, this is contextualised with respect to sovereignty, which is usually represented by a homogeneous state or community and resists the dichotomies of the other. Use of propaganda At times of war, the government usually fights on two fronts – one with the enemy and the other with public opinion at home and abroad, more typically the former. Hence, foreign policy also involves influencing public opinion at home and outside through propaganda. Through propaganda, the administration attempts to focus on certain issues and highlight achievements in order to develop public opinion in its favor. The typical techniques that are used as propaganda, or media spin as it is often called in a derogatory sense, are deliberately choosing certain facts and quotes and denying others, often resorting to providing false statements or phrasing statements in euphemisms in order to hide statements or to propagate own agenda. Propaganda was most aggressively used by all governments during the World Wars, when the entire media was controlled. Since the advent of the television, and more recently the Internet, propaganda has not only become difficult but also more sophisticated. While the blatant methods of World War propaganda have now been discarded, other ways of influencing the media are used to build public opinion. War itself is harped in an abstract notion, as in the Cold War or the War on Terror, thus creating the sense that the nation is already at war even when technically it is not. Hence, in the recent times, it is not the public relations messages or government-sponsored or those by embedded journalists’ articles and posters like those during the World Wars that are the main propaganda tools but the actual televised wars, opinion polls and publications by the so-called independent researchers, writers, film-makers or journalists that are the main propaganda elements. During the World War I, the Creele Committee in the United States churned out propaganda on German barbarity on a regular basis while also severely censoring the media. Joining the war, overthrowing the American isolationist policy since Independence, garnering public support for the war was thought to be crucial. At the time of America going to war, the nation consisted of a significant immigration population, who had links with Germany. Hence, the government had to build up the hype for war by breaking the old-world loyalties (propagandacritic). The propaganda material was developed by blending studies on psychology and advertising. The media was instructed to abide by “voluntary guidelines” and a frenzy of German atrocities was garnered. Propaganda posters, created by the leading advertising professionals and artists, were generously displayed as newspapers and magazines donated advertising space for these. Although not in such methodical manner, the British government too engaged in propaganda against the alleged German atrocities. Newspaper headlines like “Belgian child’s hands cut off by Germans” and “Germans crucify Canadian officer” were visible almost every day. Similar false headlines that aimed at growing anti-Allied Forces sentiments were used in Germany. Examples of German propaganda are “French doctor infect Germans wells with plague worms” and “German prisoners blinded by Allied captors” (History Learning Site). Absurd stories like monks in Atwerp forced to ring the church bells as the Germans occupied the city, German soldiers marching Belgian cities with children on the bayonets abounded. Casualty figures were fictionalized by the British government, emphasizing on the successes even when there were none. The Allied propaganda during World War I was so effective that even newspapermen who were not officially in league with the government were taken up by the press releases and feature articles that the government fed them with. During the World War II, the most significant propagandist during this war was Nazi Germany. Hitler was greatly impressed by the Allied Forces propaganda efforts during World War I and emulated the exercise. Hitler’s chief propagandist was Joseph Goebbels, who was earlier an academician, and now put in charge of Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. The anti-semetic rhetorics and hate-speeches that the Nazi leadership repeatedly delivered stemmed out of hatred for the Jews and fear of being taken over by them (Herf, 2006). As the country began the war, even Germans in other countries like Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Soviet Union and the Baltic were reminded through the official propaganda that their blood links should be stronger than their loyalty to their adopted countries. At the same time, messages to British and French people were aimed to make them believe that it was their governments, rather than Germany, that were starting the war. The overall focus of the German propaganda was, however, to highlight the superiority of German culture and history. After the start of the war, the propaganda depicted German soldiers as brave and efficient while British, American and Soviet soldiers were shown to be weaklings. After the Battle of Stalingrad, the propaganda focused on Germany as the savior of European culture. Through the Cold War, when there was no actual war but more of a propaganda war between the United States and Soviet Russia, US propaganda was aimed at growing anti-communism hysteria. In particular, the propaganda was aimed at countries in the Middle East and Asia that acted as a geographical buffer between the two warring nations. The target of propaganda this time was mostly the illiterate people of the poor countries, although the local elites and intellectuals were also aimed at. Financial assistance, pamphlets and posters, news manipulation, magazines, radio broadcasts, books, libraries, music, movies, cartoons, educational activities, and person-to-person exchanges were all used in order to manipulate and control information. Conclusion Thus, all foreign policy decisions are usually taken with considerable discussions and thinking process that leads to a rational choice. Through the Cold War, in particular, most foreign policies that apparently seemed to be ad hoc decisions, really followed rational decision making. The US’ containment of USSR since the World War was designed to control the menace of communism spreading across the world while the Truman Doctrine and the Berlin Blockade were also aimed towards the same aim. The decision-making process through the Cuban missile crisis was a typical example of group discussion necessary to arrive at a rational choice. Foreign policies are not only involved in taking decisions over events but also to build opinion through propaganda. Works Cited Campbell, D and J George, “Patterns of Dissent and the Celebration of Difference: Critical Social Theory and International Relations”, International Studies Quarterly, 34, 1990 Carlsnaes, Walter, The Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis, International Studies Quarterly, Vol 36 No 3, September 1992 Devatek, R, “Critical Theory”, in S Burchill and A Linklater (ed.) Theories of International Relations, London, Macmillan, 1996 Fehlman, Lt. Col Marc D. The Military/ Media Clash and the Principles of War: The - Media Spin, Thesis presented to the Faculty of The School of Advanced, Airpower Studies, Air University, Maxwell Airforce Base, Alabama, May 1992. Freedman, Lawrence, Logic, Politics, and Foreign Policy Processes: A Critique of the Bureaucratic Politics Model, paper presented at the annual conference of the British International Studies Association at Birmingham in December 1975 Gaddis, John Lewis, Strategies of Containment, New York: Oxford University Press, 1982 Gaddis, John Lewis, Russia, the Soviet Union and the United States: An Interpretative History, Second Edition, New York: McGraw Hill Publishing Company, 1990 Herf, Jeffrey. The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda during World War II and the - Holocaust. New York: Belknap Press, 2006 History Learning Site, Propaganda during World War One. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/propaganda_and_world_war_one.htm>. Kennen, George, The Source of Soviet Conduct, Foreign Affairs, 1947 Pavy, Jeanne, The Role of the Executive Committee in the Cuban Missile Crisis, 1983, http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1983-4/pavy.htm Propaganda Critic, Of Fraud and Force Fast Woven: Domestic Propaganda During the First World War, Shapcott, R Justice, Community and Dialogue in International Relations, Cambridge University Press, 2001 Snyder, Jack, Science and Sovietology: Bridging the Gap in Soviet Foreign Policy Studies, World Politics, Vo 40 No 2, January 1988 Read More