Interrelationship between Force and Foreign Policy - Essay Example

Interrelationship between force and foreign Policy The state today in the modern era performs a number of functions, due to the reason that most of the aspects of the country need to be regulated by the state. The state usually regulates the functioning of the nation state through policy formulation and execution. These policies can easily be divided into two categories: domestic policy formulation and foreign policy formulation. The domestic policy deals with the internal working of the country, while the foreign policy deals with the relationship that the nation maintains with others (Brown C, pp. 68-84). It regulates the international relations, and through it, it sets the goals of the nation in the international arena. The significance of foreign policy cannot be denied. This is mainly due to the fact that no nation state can live in isolation, and interaction and communication is a requirement for countries. The role of the foreign policy in the world has been increased significantly in the modern world as with the emergence of a globalized society (Brown, Chris), the need for cooperation and inter connectivity has become increasingly important.  The most important factor which influences the foreign policy of any nation state is to ensure that the interest of the state is upheld and maximized. This is the main goal of the foreign policy of any nation. The foreign policy of a nation reflects the national ideology of the nation of the country. In the following paper there shall be detailed discussion involved over the role that force plays in the foreign policy decision making, and to what extent is foreign policy affected by the factor of force in the international arena (Hudson V, Online). Before a discussion on the interrelation between foreign policy and the factor of force can be developed, a comprehensive understanding of the phrase force needs to be established. Force can be either internal or external, that is, it can refer to the force that a country faces from external agents, or it can refer to the internal strength of the country (Crocker III, H. W. 2006). The force that is used in the international field by nation states may also be divided into hard and soft force, where hard would be associated with use of military and brute forces where as soft force would relate to sanctions, which can be economic or diplomatic in nature. The foreign policy of any nation states is either directly or indirectly related to these. Force therefore plays an important part in the structuring and formation of the foreign policy that a country adopts. As has already been mentioned in the section above, the foreign policy is primarily a result of the nation’s interests, and every successful foreign policy tries to ensure that the interest of the country is upheld in the international society in the long term (Fisk R 2005). The factor of force is highly significant as it not only determines the relationships between the states but also is a major factor in placing the country in the international power spectrum, which has a direct impact on the foreign policy of a nation state. The role of the military power of the nation state is perhaps one of the most important factors that affect the foreign policy of the nation state. The realist proposition that states’ internal capabilities shape their foreign policy priorities is supported by the fact that states’ preparations for war strongly influences their later use of force (Tures, John A 2007). Thus, although most states seek similar goals, their abilities to realize them vary according to their military capabilities. Because military capabilities limit a state’s range of prudent policy choices, they act as a mediating factor on leader’s national security decisions. For instance, in the 1980s the Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi repeatedly provoked the Unites States through the anti American and anti Israeli rhetoric and by supporting various terrorist activities. Qaddafi was able to act as he did largely because neither bureaucratic organizations nor a mobilized public exited in Libya to constrain his personal whims. However, Qaddafi was doubtlessly more highly constrained by the outside world than were the leaders in the more militarily capable countries towards whom his anger was directed. Limited military muscle compared with the Unites States precluded the kinds of belligerent behaviors he threatened to practice. Conversely, Saddam Hussein made strenuous efforts to build Iraq’s military might (partly with the help of the U.S. arms sales) and by 1990 had built the world’s fourth largest army. Thus, invading Kuwait to seize its oil field became a feasible foreign policy option. In the end, however, even Iraq’s impressive military power proved ineffectively against a vastly superior coalition of military forces, headed by the United States (Tures, John A 2007). The 1991 Persian Gulf War forced Saddam Hussein to capitulate and withdraw from the conquered territory. Twelve years later, the United States invaded Iraq and finally ousted Saddam Hussein from office. The significance is that the belief of any nation state about their own military capabilities and those of their adversaries (and their enemies’ intentions) guide their decisions about war and peace. The role of force therefore in the international scenario is of great importance. The military strength of a nation state is therefore an important determinant of the position that a country holds in the international field. For example, after the end of the cold war in the year of 1945 (Carver, Michael 1986), the two greatest military powers in the world was the basis on which the two great powers were identified. Based on the military power of the nation states of United States and the former Soviet Union were identified as the superpowers in the international arena. The importance of security is also important when one is looking into the factor of force. It has been observed that in the international arena, force and aggression from a certain nation state also acts as a stimulus for nations to enter into alliances, where the basis is also military collaboration. For example, after the end of the Second World War a number of nation states entered into military alliance to ensure protection against foreign aggression (Carlsnaes W). The western block formed the NATO which called for military assistance in case of an attack on any of the member states. The NATO then continued to play a major role in the formulation of the foreign policy of a number of nation states during the cold war years. There has been observed that due to such actions the role of force while formulating the foreign policy cannot be ignored. The role of force in the interaction between nation states cannot be ignored in the international field. For example, when one analyzes the foreign policy of one of the oldest nation state, that is the UK, the use of force and its role in the shaping of its foreign policy is clearly evident (Crocker III, H. W. 2006). The country has formulated it foreign policy in accordance to the requirements of the time to ensure that the challenges of the times are met and accommodated. In the period that followed the Second World War, the nation state of United Kingdom adopted the policy of decolonization from the 1950s. This policy was adopted by the nation in accordance with the UN resolution which was faithful to the idea of decolonization. It followed an active policy of decolonization. In the years of 1962 to 1966 there was seen that the country was actively involved in a war against Indonesia to ensure that its former colony Malaya into the free federation of Malaysia, but Indonesia wanted to capture control over the island of Borneo. In early January 1963 the military forces in northern Borneo (Tuck, C 2004), having arrived in December 1962 in response to the Brunei Revolt, were under the command of COMBRITBOR, Major General Walter who was Director of Borneo Operations (DOBOPS) based on Labuan Island reporting directly to the Commander in Chief Far East Forces Admiral Sir David Luce. Luce was routinely replaced by Admiral Sir Varyl Begg in early 1963. There has been observed that with the establishment of the globalised society as a reality in the 21st century, there are other areas of force that have emerged in the international scenario which have a direct impact on the foreign policy that has been developed by the nation states today. One of the most important examples would be the aggression on the United States by the terrorists in the year of 2001, when they hijacked 4 commercial planes, and then crashed them into World Trade Towers and the Pentagon (Carothers, Thomas 2003). The role of international terrorism today in security and forced aggression is an important factor in altering the foreign policy of the nation states where there has been seen a disassociation of the states from the policy alliances that was pursued during the cold war era, to one where the nation states are securing themselves individually to ensure that they can protect against international terrorism. For example, in the case of the foreign policy of the UK, there has been a marked departure from the policy of alliance which it followed during the cold war era which allowed NATO to direct its foreign policy to an individual one today, where it is actively trying to ensure that the international threat of terrorism can be contained through security measures being developed at the national level. The country also supported the aggression that US carried out against Iraq to ensure that the threat of terrorists can be better contained (Smith, Tony; Richard C. Leone1995). Even in the case of the softer approach of force in the international scenario, the effect that force has on the foreign policy cannot be denied. In the international field it has been seen that a number of nation states are in direct or indirect violation of the international norms of human rights or of violating democratic principles. In case of such activities it is important that the international community as a whole tries to ensure that the countries and the governments who are responsible listen to the needs of the people and address the problems in the region. In case the government fails to response to the demands then the countries usually resort to the use of force such as sanctioning injunction where they carry out diplomatic sanctions and economic sanctions against the guilty government and country in order to ensure that the problems can be addressed. Thus, the discussion that has been undertaken in the paper above clearly reflects that the role of force in the determination and the shaping of the foreign policy cannot be denied. Force today acts as an important imperitous in deciding the foreign policy and also in establishing which countries can be defined as an international super power. In fact all the countries in the world today are judged in their standing as a global power on the basis of their economic and military strength, and if a nation is strong in one without having effective development in the other, then a country cannot be classified as a super power in the international arena. Another important area where force plays an important role is that of the development of the nuclear power. There has been observed that the countries which are nuclear powers today are considered to be advanced nation, and they face the security against any attack, as they can retaliate through the use of nuclear aggression in case of an attack (Fu'ad Husayn `Al-Zarqawi 2005). Yet although force does seem to be a key factor in the shaping the foreign policy of a number of nations, the fact that the force that is used as the basis of the foreign policy usually does not help in the implementation in practicality cannot be denied. The analysis of the history reflects that although the various arenas of force do play an active part in the formulation and shaping of the foreign policy of a nation state, the effect of the force is only to a certain extent and there are other factors that undermine the actual role that force can play in the implementation of foreign policy. For, example, the fact that a nation state is a nuclear power allows it to have an advantage over other nation states which have not yet developed the nuclear technology, yet the nation state is usually not inclined to use the nuclear weapons in case of a war or in case it is being attacked by another nation state. For example, in the case of the recent war that was waged by the US against Iraq, the country did not make use of any nuclear powers, even though it is one of the first nuclear powers in the world. The fact that any country who may take the help of aggression to retaliate is also open to international censorship which is something that prevents the leaders to countries to resolving conflicts through the means of use of force. In fact even if a country has a distinctive advantage over another nation in case of force, countries rarely resolve issues through war. For example, in the case of the relationship between India and Pakistan, and the issue of Kashmir, there has been observed that cross border terrorism is a reality that the country of India is facing almost every day (Hoffman, B 1997). In the Mumbai attacks of 2008, the country lost a lot of human resources as well as property. But the foreign policy that has been adopted by the nation state is one of international diplomacy and through setting up of communication channels. It is a much larger country which maintains the sixth largest army in the world, while Pakistan is a relatively smaller nation state (Findley P 2001). Yet the country whose foreign policy is shaped by external aggression and internal force, cannot resolve the matter through the use of force due to various reasons, be it national ideology or international pressure (Meernik, James 1996). Thus, there is observed that the role of force is significant only to a certain extent while shaping the foreign policy, but the foreign policy of any nation state cannot be centered entirely on the force, and other factors need to be taken into consideration. Based on the discussion that has been evolved throughout the paper, the conclusion that can be drawn is that the role of force in the shaping of foreign policy is highly significant, yet it is ultimately ineffective in resolving core problems that the foreign policy is looking at addressing in the long term. Reference:  Brown, Chris: The State and Foreign Policy, 68-84, in Chris Brown Understanding international relations, accessed at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w693ysxclgIC&lpg=PP1&dq=understanding%20international%20relations&lr=&hl=ar&pg=PA84#v=onepage&q=&f=false  Carlsnaes W: The Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis, Mershon, International studies Review 39, pp 133-135. Carothers, Thomas 2003: Promoting Democracy and Fighting Terror, Foreign Affairs 84. Carver, Michael 1986: Conventional Warfare in the Nuclear Age' in Peter Paret (Eds). The Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Crocker III, H. W. 2006:  Don't Tread on Me. New York: Crown Forum. pp. 384.   Crocker III, H. W. 2006: Empire, The rise and demise of the British world order and the lessons for global power. Basic Books, pp 34-60 Fisk R 2005: The Great War for Civilization; the Conquest of the Middle East (Fourth Estate, 2005), p.853  Findley P 2001: Terrorism and Religion, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Special Report, Pp 7, November 7.  Fu'ad Husayn `Al-Zarqawi 2005: The Second Generation of al-Qaida, Part Fourteen, Al-Quds al-Arabi, July 13, 2005 Hoffman, B 1997: The Confluence of International and Domestic Trends in Terrorism, Terrorism and Political Violence 9 (2): 1–15 Summer 1997.   Hudson V: Foreign policy analysis: classic & contemporary theory, accessed on October 15, 2010 at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-hGVx4zicB4C&lpg=PP1&hl=ar&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=&f=false Meernik, James 1996: United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy, Journal of Peace Research 33 (4), pp 391–402 Smith,Tony; Richard C. Leone1995: America's Mission: TheUnited States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century. Princeton University Press Tuck, C 2004: Borneo 1963–66: Counter-insurgency Operations and War Termination, Small Wars and Insurgencies, Vol 15, No 3, Winter 2004.    Tures, John A 2007: To Protect Democracy (Not Practice It): Explanations of Dyadic Democratic Intervention (DDI) the Use of Liberal Ends to Justify Illiberal Means, OJPCR: The Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution, pp 85 Read More

The role of the military power of the nation state is perhaps one of the most important factors that affect the foreign policy of the nation state. The realist proposition that states’ internal capabilities shape their foreign policy priorities is supported by the fact that states’ preparations for war strongly influences their later use of force (Tures, John A 2007). Thus, although most states seek similar goals, their abilities to realize them vary according to their military capabilities.

Because military capabilities limit a state’s range of prudent policy choices, they act as a mediating factor on leader’s national security decisions. For instance, in the 1980s the Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi repeatedly provoked the Unites States through the anti American and anti Israeli rhetoric and by supporting various terrorist activities. Qaddafi was able to act as he did largely because neither bureaucratic organizations nor a mobilized public exited in Libya to constrain his personal whims.

However, Qaddafi was doubtlessly more highly constrained by the outside world than were the leaders in the more militarily capable countries towards whom his anger was directed. Limited military muscle compared with the Unites States precluded the kinds of belligerent behaviors he threatened to practice. Conversely, Saddam Hussein made strenuous efforts to build Iraq’s military might (partly with the help of the U.S. arms sales) and by 1990 had built the world’s fourth largest army.

Thus, invading Kuwait to seize its oil field became a feasible foreign policy option. In the end, however, even Iraq’s impressive military power proved ineffectively against a vastly superior coalition of military forces, headed by the United States (Tures, John A 2007). The 1991 Persian Gulf War forced Saddam Hussein to capitulate and withdraw from the conquered territory. Twelve years later, the United States invaded Iraq and finally ousted Saddam Hussein from office. The significance is that the belief of any nation state about their own military capabilities and those of their adversaries (and their enemies’ intentions) guide their decisions about war and peace.

The role of force therefore in the international scenario is of great importance. The military strength of a nation state is therefore an important determinant of the position that a country holds in the international field. For example, after the end of the cold war in the year of 1945 (Carver, Michael 1986), the two greatest military powers in the world was the basis on which the two great powers were identified. Based on the military power of the nation states of United States and the former Soviet Union were identified as the superpowers in the international arena.

The importance of security is also important when one is looking into the factor of force. It has been observed that in the international arena, force and aggression from a certain nation state also acts as a stimulus for nations to enter into alliances, where the basis is also military collaboration. For example, after the end of the Second World War a number of nation states entered into military alliance to ensure protection against foreign aggression (Carlsnaes W). The western block formed the NATO which called for military assistance in case of an attack on any of the member states.

The NATO then continued to play a major role in the formulation of the foreign policy of a number of nation states during the cold war years. There has been observed that due to such actions the role of force while formulating the foreign policy cannot be ignored. The role of force in the interaction between nation states cannot be ignored in the international field. For example, when one analyzes the foreign policy of one of the oldest nation state, that is the UK, the use of force and its role in the shaping of its foreign policy is clearly evident (Crocker III, H. W. 2006).

Read More