Levels of Analysis of Foreign Policy §

• Foreign policy is an interaction between the actors $\leftrightarrows$ their environment

  • be it domestic or international.

• The 3 levels of analysis of foreign policy are

  • the international level
  • the national or state level
  • the individual level

• Kenneth Waltz (1959)

  • First Image: human nature
  • Second Image: Domestic organization and structure and power struggle
  • Third Image: structure of the international system, relationship among states and group of states

Tip

💡 Some analysis might use one or multiple levels of analysis for one Foreign Policy

1. Kenneth Waltz Images of IR §

1.1. First Image: Individual §

• Rational Choice Theory: Leaders have
  • many advisors inputs from all fields of the state
  • experience in analyzing cost vs benefits
  • pressure to meet expectation by mass public elector
• Cognitive School of Thoughts: leaders/individuals aren’t always as rational as we think they are
  • Human nature aren’t always rational, they make mistake, and overlook obvious things
  • Cognitive Fallacy
    • Groupthink: a cognitive fallacy where people want to fit into popular decision/option in fear of being isolated, left out, and being wrong.
    • Cognitive dissonance: when leader try to ignore negative info, having biased pre-assumptions,
    • Cognitive consistency: attempting to recreate past glories using same method for different situation

1.2. Second Image: State §

• The political system, ruling elites, political ideologies, religion, interest groups, CSOs, public opinion, strategic culture…
  • Democratic Peace Theory
  • Strategic culture: political culture than transfer from one generation to another through education and social processes
    • neutrality position, isolationism, internationalism

1.3. Third Image: External/Structural Factor §

• Realism: foreign policy tools available to act, react, and interact in int’ environment depending on the nature of polarity within the system
• Liberalism: multiplex world order of amitav acharya

2. Levels of Foreign Policy §

2.1. The International Level §

• Supported by Kenneth Waltz
• International system is the arguably the strongest determinant of Foreign Policy
• It explores
  • nature and the rules of the international system
  • distribution of power among states and non-state actors
  • the number of poles in the system…
• Criticisms on this level (by David Singer)
  • it “exaggerates the impact of the system upon the national actors and conversely, discounts the impact of the actors on the system.”
  • it assumes all states enact the same foreign policy in the same context

    • Therefore for accuracy, the state level is needed if the international level is used

    • After Cold War’s end, there’s less confidence in only using international levels analysis only

      “it is impossible to explain or predict system change on the basis of system-level variables alone”

      • Hudson

2.2. The State Level §

• David Singer supports this
• It determines national goals are selected, the internal and external factors that have impact on those processes through electoral framework & institutions
• It explores
  • Material dynamics: determine power level of states and who to pursue in Foreign Policy
    • size of the country
    • geopolitical positions
    • resources
    • economy
    • population
  • Nature of the state: such as Democratic Peace Theory that determines behavior and stability of relations
    • political system
    • institution
• Why it’s good?
  • more comprehensive and detailed as it portrays
    • significant differentiation among the actors in the international system
    • allows more valid generalization in comparison between them
  • This level makes it possible to ask and answer questions about the goals, motivations, and purposes of national policy
• Criticisms
  • it exaggerate the differences among sub-systemic actors that may lead to Ethnocentrism
  • it developed during boom of globalization that erodes state’s importance and made them more interdependent

2.3. The Individual Level §

• David Singer says Individual level is already accounted for by electoral process in state level.
• Rational Choice Theory: Leaders have
  • many advisors inputs from all fields of the state
  • experience in analyzing cost vs benefits
  • pressure to meet expectation by mass public elector
• [Cognitive School of Thoughts]: leaders/individuals aren’t always as rational as we think they are
  • Human nature aren’t always rational, they make mistake, and overlook obvious things
  • Cognitive Fallacy
    • Groupthink: a cognitive fallacy where people want to fit into popular decision/option in fear of being isolated, left out, and being wrong.
    • Cognitive dissonance: when leader try to ignore negative info, having biased pre-assumptions,
    • Cognitive consistency: attempting to recreate past glories using same method for different situation

3. Theories on Foreign Policy §

• Classical Realism: focus on individuals and prioritizes the role of leaders and statesmen in the formulation and conduct of foreign policy decisions.
  • Permanent international anarchy
  • Human nature — bad and greedy to maximize their interests in a conflictual int’l environment
  • Survival and security as top priority (high politics, raison d’etre)
  • Morality in interstate relations (e.g. Any particular foreign policy action would be deemed as moral so long as it serves to survival, security and power of a state).
• Liberalism or Pluralism: values societal and intra-state relations in FP analysis.

  • States are no longer unitary actors: non-state actors influence FP formation

  • States prioritize social and economic cooperation in addition to security

  • Interstate organizations or institutions create and shape norms and security to regulate states’ behaviors vis-a-vis other powers in international relations

    💡 Ex: ASEAN’s Way, Charters, Values, norms, regulations… that all influence it’s members FP.

• Structural Realism focuses more on power distribution (capabilities).
  • [Kenneth Waltz|Kenneth Waltz]: Capabilities as the combination of size of population and territory, resource endowment, economic capability, military strength, political stability and competence
  • Hans Morgenthau (2006) listed elements of national power: geography, natural resources, industrial capacity, military preparedness (technology, leadership & quantity and quality of armed forces) population, national character and morale, and quality of government and diplomacy.
  • John Mearsheimer modified this aggregated capabilities approach by introducing a distinction between latent power (‘raw potential’, primarily population and wealth) and military power.
  • [Glenn Snyder] argues capability is considered in terms of a relationship, that is, what a given state could accomplish in interaction with other states. Two foreign policy strategies to survive in a self-help environment.
    • Internal balancing vs. external balancing
• Neo-Classical Realism: both internal and external factors
  • Neoclassical realism argues that the way how states would respond to external environment would be decisively informed by their internal characteristics.
  • Int’l environment offers states a mixture of opportunities and constraints, but the way states respond would be fundamentally shaped by their internal characteristics.
• Organizational behavior approach argues that states are made up of different organizations which compete with each other in order to shape the FP preferences and behaviors of their states
  • e.g. bureaucratic organizations, MoFA, MoD, ministry of economy, national intelligence…
• Social Constructivism: A change in collective norms/identity leads to a change in FP.
  • This change may occur because of any or all of the following:
    • The beginning or ending of an established norm
    • The development of a new identity
    • The changing of an identity
• Domestic Actor Theory a change in which actors and/or institutions control the small state’s government leads to a change in foreign policy.
  • This change may occur because any or all of the following
    • A change in control of the government as different parties control key leadership positions (e.g. prime minister, president…)
    • A change in domestic institutions that lead to a change in the number of influence of veto players
    • A change in power of non-governmental actors to influence policy decisions (e.g. fl public opinion)

4. What are the Foreign Policy Instruments? §

• Congress of Vienna: was a foreign policy tool to maximize their national interest
• Diplomacy: is a tool with which the states address the other states and communicate with them in order to explain their national goals, policies, and views on current affairs, and try to influence their counterparts’ views and positions on issues that are important to them.
  • The art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
  • Skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility
  • Profession, activity, or skill of managing international relations, typically by a country’s representatives abroad

4.1. What are the types of diplomacy §

• Bilateral Diplomacy — recognition by states of each other as legally established states is a prerequisite to create bilateral diplomacy
  • e.g. Cambodia recognized with 170 countries
• Multilateral Diplomacy - With the establishment of UN after the second World War, the multilateral diplomacy, involving more than two nations or parties to seek diplomatic solution to transnational problems, gained importance in IR
• Summit Diplomacy — one form of multilateral diplomacy, but summit diplomacy refers to conference diplomacy (less institutionalised) in which the heads of state or government come together to conduct negotiations
  • e.g. G7, G20, Shangri La Dialogue…
  • to remove tension, build confidence, trust, and share ideas
• Ad Hoc Diplomacy: the oldest form of diplomacy that aims to conduct diplomatic relations by sending a sgecial and/or temporary envoyv on mission
  • e.g. UN Special Envoy (human rights) Cambodia
• Parliamentary Diplomacy
  • Two types of parliamentary diplomacy: Institutional and diplomatic.
    • The first type of parliamentary diplomacy can be occurred in three particular contexts;
      • (1) Legislative process in which ratification of int’l treaties and execution of law take place;
      • (2) Parliamentary monitoring of int’l affairs through committees;
      • (3) Political role of parliaments directly related to discussions of foreign affairs of the country and approval of budget of the ministry of foreign affairs.
    • The second type of parliamentary diplomacy has three domains:
      • (1) Bilateral diplomacy in which parliaments aim to cooperate with other parliaments with a view to develop strong relations;
      • (2) Multilateral diplomacy that takes place through parliamentary delegations, which could be in the form of parliamentary meetings of 10s.
      • (3) Different forms of associations of the parliamentarians around the world (e.g. Inter-Parliamentary Union).
• Quiet diplomacy is often used by IOs, especially UN, to discuss a particular situation away from int’l and domestic scrutiny. Within the context of quiet diplomacy, instead of publicizing the statements on the concerned topics, the involved countries and organizational representatives keep silent until a solution is found to prevent fouling effects of third party, domestic, or int’l involvements.
• Open/Secret Diplomacy — Open diplomacy is a term developed by the U.S. President Woodrow Wilson at the end the World War I as opposed to the secret diplomacy conducted between colonizing European powers prior to the war.
  • Secret Diplomacy is Dealt between governments without criticism from public/civilian
  • Public Diplomacy requires agreements to be sensible and fair to be accepted by the public
• Coercive diplomacy refers to the usage of threat of force by a state or group of state to achieve its/their objectives in international relations. Coercive diplomacy usually involves the military strategy to force other states or non-state actors to behave in certain manner.

4.2. Other Instruments §

• Propaganda: spread of rumors, bad info about adversary, and half-truths spread by government to its people and international actors to make oneself look better or others to look bad.

  • The Psychological warfare used in combination with military, economic, and political actions to

    • demoralize or break enemies population’s will to fight or resist you

  • To convince neutral states, shift enemies states, and get on good side of international community

  💡 Ex: Vietnam war was psychological war between ideologies. Vietnam demotivate US’s soldiers from fighting

• Public diplomacy (or people’s diplomacy) since the end of the Cold War is used sometimes to disseminate information to one’s own country in order to garner or enhance public support for certain policies of the government (= soft power)

  • The portrayal of own international image in a positive light for the mass public of other countries

    💡 Ex: Japan putting its imperialistic past behind and focus on technological and cultural factors of its country instead (rebranding)

---

• Economic instrument
  • Foreign/development aid — economic assistance
  • Economic sanctions take large part in economic tools of foreign policy with their coercive effects.
  • Other Related Economic Instrument (ex: quota, blacklist, boycott, embargo, blockage)