12 Pages
Unlock Document

International Studies
Brian Orend

INTST 101: Introduction to International Studies Brian Orend Unit 3: Foreign Policy and Diplomacy Foreign policy concerns how one country relates to another country, for instance how Canada ought to relate to America, or how America ought to relate to Iraq. There are two fundamental, logical issues of foreign policy: ▯▯▯ZKDW¶V▯WKH▯JRDO, in our relations with another country?; and 2) what are the means we ought to use to achieve that goal? 1. :KDW¶V▯WKH▯*RDO▯RI▯)RUHLJQ▯3ROLF\" In terms of the basic goals of foreign policy, there is a classic, time-honoured split between Realismand Idealism. 1.1. Realism Realism is the view that, as a country, your goal VKRXOG▯EH▯WR▯DGYDQFH▯\RXU▯RZQ▯FRXQWU\¶V▯QDWLRQDO▯ interests▯▯,W¶V▯OLNH▯D▯IRUP▯RI▯QDWLRQDO▯HJRLVP▯▯:KHQ▯ dealing with the outside world, ³the international community,´ one RXJKW▯WR▯³/RRN▯2XW▯)RU▯1XPEHU▯ 2QH´▯▯GR▯WKH▯EHVW▯ you can for your own society, especially in terms of: national security/defence, growing the economy and population, access to natural resources, DQG▯ DXJPHQWLQJ▯ RQH¶V▯ FXOWXUDO▯ and political influence around the world. At PLQLPXP▯▯UHDOLVP▯LQVLVWV▯\RX¶YH▯JRW▯WR▯SURWHFW▯ZKDW▯ \RX¶YH▯ already got; at most, you should get as much as you can and, in fact, re-make the world in your own image. Prominent realist thinkers would include Machiavelli and Hans Morgenthau. Prominent realist politicians would include Henry Kissinger and former US President Richard Nixon. 1 INTST 101: Introduction to International Studies Brian Orend 1.1.2. Constrained vs. Unconstrained Selfishness 5HDOLVWV▯GRQ¶W▯KDYH▯WR▯EH▯DV▯FUXGH▯DV▯ what they are, at times, made out to be. It all depends how you define ³HJRLVWLF´▯ RU▯ ³VHOILVK▯´ There is a difference between what David *DXWKLHU▯ FDOOV▯ ³FRQVWUDLQHG▯ PD[LPL]DWLRQ´▯versus ³unconstrained PD[LPL]DWLRQ▯´▯ 7R▯ EH▯ DQ▯ unconstrained maximizer (of your own pleasure and interest), you simply always put your own interests at the forefront in a YHU\▯REYLRXV▯▯XQFRQFHDOHG▯ZD\▯▯7KHUH¶V▯QR▯DUW▯WR▯LW at all: you just demand your way, DJDLQ▯DQG▯DJDLQ▯DQG▯DJDLQ▯DQG▯DJDLQ▯▯%XW▯▯RIWHQ▯▯RWKHU▯SHRSOH▯GRQ¶W▯OLNH▯XQFRQVWUDLQHG▯ maximizers, and they retaliate with selfish or un-cooperative behaviour of their own. This actually decreases the ability of unconstrained maximizers to get what they want. So, clever realists often suggest, especially when it comes to foreign policy, that the best policy is that of constrained maximization, wherHLQ▯RQH¶V▯PRWLYHV▯DUH▯VWLOO▯IXQGDPHQWDOO\▯ VHOILVK▯EXW▯RQH▯KLGHV▯RQH¶V▯VHOILVKQHVV▯EHKLQG▯D▯SROLF\▯RI▯QHJRWLDWLRQ▯▯FRPSURPLVH▯DQG▯ reasonableness. One is more artful and tactful DERXW▯WKH▯SXUVXLW▯RI▯RQH¶V▯LQWHUHVW▯▯RQ▯WKH▯ common-VHQVLFDO▯ JURXQGV▯WKDW▯³KRQH\▯ DWWUDFWV▯ PRUH▯IOLHV▯WKDQ▯YLQHJDU▯´▯ I shall argue below that recent American foreign policy has forwarded more of an unconstrained maximization approach, whereas recent Canadian foreign policy sports an orientation of constrained maximization. 1.1.3. The Assurance Problem One of the most important concepts within the realist world view is the so-FDOOHG▯³UHDOLVW▯ DVVXUDQFH▯SUREOHP▯´▯The assurance problem is this: fundamentally, countries cannot trust each other. There are just too many differences between them, in terms of their world- YLHZV▯▯LQ▯WHUPV▯RI▯WKHLU▯LQWHUHVWV▯▯LQ▯WHUPV▯RI▯WKHLU▯H[SHULHQFHV▯▯$QG▯WKHUH¶V▯QR▯HIIHFWLYH▯ world government to help them align their policies. In the end, countries have no one to rely upon except themselves. In this sense, the international arena is completely different 2 INTST 101: Introduction to International Studies Brian Orend from the arena in well-ordered domestic or national societies, like here in Canada. Here, we can more or less count on peace and order and good government, and on most people being basically law-abiding, etc., and maybe even sharing a roughly-defined world view. But internationally, there just LVQ¶W that kind of peace and order and good, over-arching government, and there is no guarantee RI▯JRRG▯EHKDYLRXU▯IURP▯RWKHUV▯▯7KXV▯▯WKHUH¶V▯D▯ELJ▯ WUXVW▯▯RU▯³DVVXUDQFH´▯▯SURblem in international life. The international world is just far more dangerous and unpredictable. Thus, realists conclude, the only smart policy is a selfish policy²looking out for yourself, since no one else will. Whether that selfishness gets expressed iQ▯D▯FRQVWUDLQHG▯RU▯XQFRQVWUDLQHG▯ZD\▯ZLOO▯GHSHQG▯RQ▯RQH¶V▯RZQ▯SRZHU▯ and the nature of the situation one is in. 1.2. Idealism Idealism, by contrast, is the view that your goal as a country, when dealing with others, ought to be to do your part in making the world a better place. It is like a form of national altruism or un-selfishness. When dealing with the outside world, use your resources and influence to improve the world: make it richer, happier, more secure, and so on. Be a good international citizen. Give a damn, and act accordingly. Prominent idealist thinkers would include Immanuel Kant, whereas prominent idealist politicians would include former US President Woodrow Wilson. The idealist response to the assurance problem is this: insist on multi-laterDO▯▯³PDQ\-VLGHG´▯▯▯QRW▯XQLODWHUDO▯▯³RQH-VLGHG´▯, approaches to international problems. Instead of going it on your own, join in with others and everyone can then help each other. This co-operative approach, it is said, is so much better than constantly looking over your shoulder, seeing if anyone is about to undermine your interests and stick it to you. Support the UN and international law, instead of just always 3 INTST 101: Introduction to International Studies Brian Orend going it alone in terms of foreign policy. The strong point here that they have is this: withouW▯VRPH▯LGHDOLVP▯▯WKH▯ZRUOG▯ZRXOG▯QHYHU▯EHFRPH▯D▯EHWWHU▯SODFH▯▯DQG▯WKDW¶V▯DFWXDOO\▯ a nice, sober, realistic thing to keep in mind. In other words, where would the world be without some idealism? 1.3. Common Ground Between the Caricatures This big distinction between realism and idealism is, I think, often radically over-played and exaggerated: essentially, caricatures. Idealists tend to think that realists are completely unprincipled, ruthless, cynical. Machiavelli, for instance, was even derided as being fully evil in his day and time (Renaissance Italy). Realists, for their part, view idealists as utterly unrealistic, utopian do-gooders; even as sort of being stupid and out of touch with the way the world really is. The charges essentially boil down to excess pessimismon the part of the realists; and excess optimismon the part of the idealists. The good news is that there is common ground between the two doctrines: 1. Often, ideals and interests can run together. In other words, following ideals can often be in your interests. Consider, as an example, in your personal life when it is often in your best interests to treat others in accord with the ideal of honesty. 2. Peoples and nations often have, as part of their interests, their ideals. They want to see their ideals realized in the world. In other words, they define the realization of their ideals as part of their national interest. 3. The point that some idealism is necessary for the world to improve at all is a neat HPSLULFDO▯FODLP▯▯3UHVXPDEO\▯▯LW▯LV▯LQ▯RQH¶V▯own best interests to live in a better world over time. But I do want to add some caution here, and I guess in doing so maybe I reveal my slight bias: 1. States often pay way more lip-service to their ideals than their interests. 2. As a result, I think that interests tend to be a much better indicator of actual behaviour than ideals. 4 INTST 101: Introduction to International Studies Brian Orend 3. The reality of hypocrisy. Often, peoples and states fail to live up to their own ideals. Or, they say they believe in something, but the reality is they behave in a way inconsistenW▯ZLWK▯WKRVH▯EHOLHIV▯▯,▯JXHVV▯,¶P▯VD\LQJ▯WKDW▯ZH▯DUH▯UDUHO\▯VXUSULVHG▯ ZKHQ▯ZH▯SUHGLFW▯SHRSOH¶V▯DQG▯FRXQWULHV¶▯EHKDYLRXU▯RQ▯WKH▯EDVLV▯RI▯ZKDW▯ZRXOG▯EH▯ in their selfish interests to do than in expecting them to follow what they tell us are their ideals. 2. What are The Tools of Foreign Policy? Every foreign policy textbook in the world will tell you that there are three basic tools to use, as you try to realize your goals in foreign policy: diplomacy; sanctions; and force. 2.1 Diplomacy Obviously, this is when you try to persuade the other country to adopt your view, and act accordingly. This is done by talking, negotiating, lobbying, dealing, trying to persuade them rationally, through argument, or through offering positive political or economic incentives▯▯:LQVWRQ▯&KXUFKLOO▯RQFH▯PHPRUDEO\▯VXPPDUL]HG▯WKLV▯DSSURDFK▯DV▯³MDZ▯MDZ´▯ ▯DV▯RSSRVHG▯WR▯³ZDU▯ZDU´▯▯▯ Diplomacy happens every day, and this is one of the main functions of consulates and embassies around the world. For example, Canada has a massive diplomatic presence in the United States. This is because America is our largest trading partner and has the most affect, of any other country, upon the quality of our lives. So, the Canadian government has invested massively in having a huge diplomatic staff, and not just at the main embassy in Washington. Canada actually has smaller consulates all around the United States, essentially in every city over a population of 500,000. The job of the diplomats is to use persuasion and lobbying and deal-making in represHQWLQJ▯&DQDGD¶V▯QDWLRQDO▯LQWHUHVWV▯WR▯GHFLVLRQ-makers in the United States, trying to 5 INTST 101: Introduction to International Studies Brian Orend SHUVXDGH▯$PHULFD▯WR▯DGRSW▯&DQDGD¶V▯YLHZV▯RQ▯FHUWDLQ▯LVVXHV▯▯7KH\▯DOVR▯KHOS▯&DQDGLDQ▯ businesses trying to negotiate deals with American businesses. But note that diplomaF\▯GRHVQ¶W▯DOZD\V▯KDYH▯WR▯EH▯SRVLWLYH▯DQG▯JORZLQJ▯LQ▯LWV▯QDWXUH▯▯ even though this is commonly what we mean when we compliment someone on being ³GLSORPDWLF▯´▯'LSORPDF\▯FDQ▯LQYROYH▯EHKLQG-the-scenes private threats, or even in-front- of-the-camera public criticism. These things are quite common in international relations. But the point is that it remains diplomacy as long as it is just words. When hostile actions start taking place, then we are moving out of the realm of diplomacy and towards the other tools of foreign policy. 2.2. Sanctions 6DQFWLRQV▯UHSUHVHQW▯▯VKDOO▯ZH▯VD\▯▯³VWHSSLQJ▯LW▯XS▯D▯QRWFK´▯LQ▯WHUPV▯RI▯WKH▯KRVWLOLW\▯DQG▯ displeasure you are willing to show in your relations with another country. You are also here more willing to move away from positive incentives, and mutually beneficial deal- making, and towards negative incentives: threats, non-cooperation, punishment, deliberately taking actions which you believe will thwart the interests of the other country. Sanctions can vary in level and intensity and affect. Small sanctions include WKLQJV▯OLNH▯ZLWKGUDZLQJ▯\RXU▯DPEDVVDGRU▯IURP▯WKH▯RWKHU▯FRXQWU\▯▯WKH▯³WDUJHW▯FRXQWU\´▯▯▯ Or, maybe closing your embassy. Or, PD\EH▯H[SHOOLQJ▯WKH▯WDUJHW▯FRXQWU\¶V▯GLSORPDWV▯ from your own country. You are clearly conveying displeasure, and punishing that society, but only to a small extent and in a way which is very targeted towards the government of that society. 2.2.1. Targeted vs. Sweeping Sanctions What about economic sanctions? Here we must distinguish between targeted and sweeping sanctions. Targeted sanctions are when the measures of punishment and un- cooperation are focused upon hurting the elite decision-makers in the target country. A recent example was in 1994, when the USA slapped targeted sanctions on the leaders of a military coup in Haiti and their families. The coup leaders had their US bank accounts DQG▯DVVHWV▯³IUR]HQ´▯▯ZKLFK▯LV▯WR▯VD\▯WKH\▯FRXOG▯QRW▯DFFHVV▯WKHP▯RU▯VHOO▯WKHP²the US 6 INTST 101: Introduction to International Studies Brian Orend government made it illegal for an
More Less

Related notes for INTST 101

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.