Foreign policy: Goals, means and driving forces — lecture #9

Alrighty, time to leave the different theoretical apporaches to the study of international politics, and turn to the foreign policy of states.

————————————————————————————————————————–

Deinition.
Foreign policy can be defined as a government’s determined and public action aimed at its surroundings. Foreign policy refers to the content of and the relationship between foreign political goals and means, and must not be confused with foreign politics, which refers to the decision-making procedures and processes of negotiations which produces a consensus concerning foreign political goals and strategies — ie. the political process of determining the foreign policy.

The goals of foreign policy.
The goals of a state’s foreign policy, can be found by examining what the state wants to accomplish. There are three basic and general goals, which all states are concerned with. The first is territorial security and political independence and sovereignty. This goal can be reached through the means of isolationism, self-help, neutrality, non-alliances (such as the “Third World” during the Cold War), and alliances. The second goal is economic security and welfare. This goal can be realised through economic self-sufficiency, free trade, protectionism, and trusts (e.g. production trusts such as the OPEC). The third general goal of states’ foreign policy is prestige. It can be accomplished through impression control and management, demonstrations of military, economic or technological power, or of cultural importance.

Additionally, there’re other goals. These can be just about anything, but some more common ones inculde the spread of human rights, sustainable development, religious beliefs, political or economic convictions, and imperialistic or revolutionary goals.

Based on this, we can illustrate the goals of a state’s foreign policy by inserting them into a Maslowian pyramid hierarchy of needs. In the bottom layer, the most fundamental one, we have territorial security and political independence. This is a prerequisite for a state’s survival. A state which only focuses on this goal can be refered to as a military state. In the second layer from the bottom, we can place economic security, with the merchant state as the equivalent state. This need is not as basic as territorial security and political independence, but it is more important than the third level: Social security. A state on this level, a welfare state, has as its main target the social welfare of its citizens. Above this, we could for example find the green state, with a focus on environmental security: Once the state’s borders are secure, an economic basis is established, and the citizens live decent lives, the state of the environment might become a major concern for both decision-makers and the population. Above this level again, there’s various other goals, such as human rights and whatnot.

The goalshigher up in the pyramid can come into conflict with the lower, more fundamental goals.

The three faces (or definitions) of power.
A state can have power over other states in many ways. First of all, there’s the kind of power which state A has over state B when it (A) is able to make B do something B wouldn’t otherwise have done. Second, state A has power over state B when A influences B into doing something B wouldn’t otherwise have done — i.e., state B believes that state A has power over it, and behaves accordingly. Finally, power can be defined as the ability to keep issues off of the agenda, to make sure that issues that would e.g. hurt a state’s interests never really become an issue, or at least not one people focuses on or cares about.

It’s also possible to separate between solid and non-solid determinants of power. If we take a look at military power, we find that weapons and other equipment, troops, fortifications, and stuff like that, helps determine how powerful a state is. However, there are also less tangible determinants, such as combat morale. In the realm of economic power, solid determinants inculde GNP, production of goods and technology, while the less tangible ones include such things as what services are understood to be valuable, and the population’s (the market’s) faith in the economy and its institutions. And finally, when it comes to normative or ideological power, Mao’s “Little Red Book” can be seen as an example of a solid determinant (as can a state’s ability to create and spread propaganda or information), while e.g. indoctrination of the population can be seen as an example of a less tangible determinant of power.

The means of foreign policy.
The means of foreign policy — the tools a government can utilise in attempts at reaching its goals — can be divided into four rough categories. First, there’s diplomacy, such as negotiations and exchange of information. Second, there’s political propaganda, or the art of persuading on a large scale. It can also be seen as a method of putting pressure on political leaders through the use and manipulation of public opinion. The third category, economic tools, can be divided into two sub-categories. The first of which is rewards: aid, loans, credit, and so on. The second is treats and punishments: Trade boycotts, trade embargos, export prohibitions, blockades, blacklisting of companies and confiscations. The fourth main category includes such means as covert operations, and military demonstration and intervention.

What can explain foreign policy?
When looking at foreign policy, should we focus on the goals or the behaviour of states? The rationalist school (Realists, Liberalists and Radicals) takes the preferences of a state’s foreign policy for granted, focusing on the study of foreign political behaviour. They have no theories on how the preferences come into existence to begin with.
The Constructivists (and especially a guy named Wendt, presumably Alexander), on the other hand, sees the goals and preferences of foreign policy, as well as the national interest, as reflections of the nation’s identity, and the historical experiences and myths which support this identity. What you desire is a function of what you are, which in turn is a function of what you’ve experienced and how you’ve interpreted your experiences.

So, more precisely, what can explain a state’s foreign policy? It is here possible to make a distinction between factors on system level and the ones on a national level. (Or, alternatively, external and internal factors.) In the former group we find e.g. international systemic structures (such as the polarity of the system), international economic structures, the foreign policy of other states, global and regional problems, and international law and world opinion. The latter group (internal factors) includes such factors as socio-economic and security-related needs, geographical and topographical conditions, national atributtes (territory, population, demographics, ethnic composition, comparative advantages, degree of economic welfare), the philosophy and organisation of the governing body, public opinion, the size of bureaucracy and ethical considerations.

The internal and the external factors influence each other, and together they also influence the process of decision-making and the state’s foreign political actions (goals and behaviour).

Summary.
Foreign policy is the goals a state attempts to accomplish outside of the country’s borders, as well as the values underlying the goals. The means (methods) are chosen based on the avaliable resources, the state’s perception of “national interest”, the concrete challenges of the state, and the possibility the state has of choosing freely among its means.

Foreign policy is complicated and the costs and risks are considerably higher than in domestic policy, because foreign policy directly involves other states.

The goals of Norway’s foreign policy.
The goals of Norwegian foreign policy is dominated by a conflict between idealistic and materialistic interests, or, if you will, between altruistic and egoistic motivations. One such goals is to influence the distribution of goods to Norway’s benefit. Another goal is to protect Norway from having the will of another state forced upon it. A third goal is the promotion of norms for behaviour and forms of cooperation that can prevent armed conflicts from breaking out. The fourth and final goal is the promotion of sustainable economic and environmental development.

Norwegian defense and security policy.
The main goal of the Norwegian defense and security is to protect Norway’s territorial borders and political independence: To protect Norway against the enforcement of the will of other countries. The means through which we seek to accomplish this goal, is deterrence and reassurance.

The deterring aspect is maintained through us being net importers of security through our NATO membership; i.e., we receive more from this arrangement of collective security than we contribute to it. Norway’s deterring capability is also supposed to lay in our capacity for holding back an attack on Norwegian territory until NATO (read: American) forces can come to our rescue. Whether or not we’ve ever actually been capable of this is the theme of much discussion.

During the Cold War, Norway was the only NATO member with a border against the Soviet Union. This made Norwegian politicians impose certain limitations on NATO operations in Norway, in order to reassure the Soviet Union that we had no aggressive intentions. These limitations included a prohibition against nuclear weapons on Norwegian soil or on vessels docked in Norwegian ports. In times of peace, no foreign bases would exist in Norway. All allied aircraft and ships would stay west of the 24. longitude, i.e. west of Finnmark and parts of Troms, and there were rules for the number of aircrafts and ships in this area. Also, no military exercises were to take place in this area. These degree to which these rules were upheld varied over time, and they were often stretched and bended.

New threats and preferences in security policy.
In 1905, Norway is granted its independence from Sweden, without having to resort to violence. Up until 1940, Norway chose neutrality, when the Germans kinda made the choice for us. The German occupation (1940-45) was taken as proof that neutrality didn’t work. This, combined with the perception of the Soviet Union as a threat (even though they actually liberated Northern Norway in 1944), convinced central Norwegian politicians that a membership in the newly established North Atlantic Treaty Organization was necessary to safeguard Norwegian security. A UN-membership wasn’t seen as an alternative to a NATO membership, but rather as a tool for a long term strenghtening of international law, by being a means to (a) prevent the unilateralism of great powers, and (b) promote a multilateral arena where small states such as Norway could play an active part.

After the Cold War ended in 1989, Norway’s importance within NATO has been reduced, as the Soviet North Fleet was dissolved. Norway’s tried to increase her relevance to NATO by contributing to NATO’s “out of area” operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. This has been done at the cost of both territorial defense of Norway, and of a strong participation in the UN’s peacekeeping operations.

Norway may have less that 1% of the World’s population, but…
Norway’s the world’s second largest exporter of oil and gas.
Norway has 30, 45 and 75 %, respectively, of the EU’s and the EEA’s hydroelectric production (30), and oil (45) and gas (75) reserves.
Norway’s the third largest fish exporter in Europe.
Norway’s navy is the third largest in Europe.
Norway’s one of the world’s leaders in the field of martitime shipping and extraction technology.
Norway’s an important gatherer and analyser of military intelligence within NATO.
Norway’s one of the world’s largest contributors of multilateral aid.
Norway’s one of the most active peace negotiators in the world.

Controversies and conflict dimensions.
What should the defense preferences be in the post-Cold War era? Should we have a territorial defense force based on professional forces, for use in international military operations? Should we participate in the UN’s peacekeeping missions, or those undr the authority of NATO? Should Norway turn more to the European Union, and less towards the US as compared to today, concerning our security needs?

And what about our relationship to the EU? Should we go for a full membership, or settle for an ordinary trade agreement?

There’s also an issue of international trade and the free flow of labour. Norway is dependent of exports, and is because of this in favour of free tradem except on the area of agricultural products, where cheap imports has the potential of destroying Norwegian agriculture, causing rural depopulation. Many Norwegians are also sceptical to importing cheap labour, or social dumping, as this could undermine the relative harmony between employers and labour organisations, and thus the cornerstone of the Norwegian welfare state.

Finally, there’s some controversy relating to the Norwegian contributions to international aid. Should we keep our high levels of aid, or should we reduce them? Should we prefer multilateral or bilateral aid? And what kinds of demands should we make of the states who receive our aid, in relation to conditions for reception?