foreign policy and national interest

8/13/2019 foreign policy and national interest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/foreign-policy-and-national-interest 1/7

h pter Foreign Policy and

National Interest

WHAT IS FOREIGN POLICY

Foreign pol icy and diplomacy have been described as wheels with which the

process of international relations operates. No state can live in isolation. Even

before interdependence of s ta tes reached the present s tage, the s tates hadseveral types of relat ions among themselves . These included t rade relat ions ,

cultural relation s and, of cour se, political relations. Ev ery state, like an indiv idual,

seeks to promote its own interests. These interests are called national interests.

Foreign policy is formulated by every state so as to serve its nation al interests.

The governments of states have to decide on a certain course of action and

refrain from certain other s. Accord ingly, govern men ts beh ave in a particular

manner in relat ion to gov ernments of other s ta tes . As Professor Mah endra

Kum ar says , The s tudy of this behaviour is , broadly speaking, the content of

foreign policy. 1 The behaviour of each state affects the behaviour of others.

Every state, keeping in view its national interests, tries to take maximum

advantage of the actions of other states. Thus, the primary purpose of foreign

policy is to seek adjustments in the behaviour of other states, in favour of

oneself

Foreign policy has been defined by Modelski as the system of a ctivities

evolved b y commun ities for changing the behaviour of other states and for

adjusting their own activities to the international environment.2 He adds

that the most imp ortant task of foreign policy must be to throw light on the

ways n which states attempt to chang e, and succeed n changing, the behaviour

of other states. Hugh Gibson has defined foreign policy as a well rounded,

comprehensive plan, based on knowledge and experience, for conducting

the business ofgovernment with the rest of the world It s aimed at promoting

and protecting the interests o f the nation.'^ According to Nor thedge , /bre /gw

policy is an interaction between forces originating outside the country's

borders and those working within them. Hartman has described the foreign



oregn Poicy of nda

policy thus: / / is a systematic statement o f deliberately selected national

interests . Thus , the emphasis in every defini tion is on beh aviour of s tates to

regulate their own ac t ions and, i f poss ible, change or regulate the behaviou r of

other s tates , with the v iew of serving their nat ional interes ts .

Rodee has also underl ined the same point . He says that foreign policy

involves the formulat ion and implementat ion of a group of principles which

shape the behaviour pat tern of a s tate while negotiat ing with other s tates to

protect or further its vital interests. very good definition of foreign policy is

given by Cecil V. C r a b , Jr He says:

Reduced to its most fundamental ingredients, foreign policy consists o f

two elements: National objectives to be achieved and means for achieving

them. The interaction between national goa ls and the resources for attaining

them is the perennial subject of statecraft. In its ingredients the foreign policy

of all nations, great or small, is the same.

Th e idea of Cra b Jr. is that foreign policy ma kers identify the national goalsto be achieved and the means to achieve them. The interact ion between the

object ives and the means is foreign policy. Similar opinion is expressed by

Couloumbis and Wolfe. They wri te that , ....foreign policies are syntheses of

the ends (national interests) an d means (power and capabilities) of nation-

states. In order to unders tand this defini t ion, i t will be prop er to examin e what

is meant by nat ional interes t and power.

At this s tage, full im plicat ions of Modelski ' s defini t ion m ay be analyze d.

As ment ioned above , he s ays tha t fore ign pol i cy impl i e s changing the

behaviour of other states.' This means , according to Modelski , a des irable

change in the behaviour of other s tates is the end of foreign policy. But ,

according to Professor Mahendra Kumar, this is an incomplete and imperfect

meaning of foreign policy. A change in behaviour of other s tates may not

always be desirab le. At times, i t may be desirable to ensure con tinuat ion o f the

same behaviour of others . And, at yet another t ime, i t may become necessary

to make certain adjus tments in one 's own behaviour. Thus, The aim of foreign

policy should be to regulate, and not merely to change, the behaviour of other

s tates . Regulat ion means adjus t ing the behaviour of other s tates to sui t one 's

own interes t as best as poss ible. 6 While during the Cold War period both the

United States and the former Soviet Union at tempted to al ter the behaviour of

other s tates to ensure maximum number of bloc fol lowers , India sought to

regulate the behaviour of maximum num ber of countries to bui ld a s trong non-

al igned movem ent. The US po licy of containment of commu nism was to change

the l ikely course of events in i ts favour. The United States had unsuccessful ly

tried to persuade India to s ign the Nuclear Non-Prol iferat ion Treaty. In 1996,

while efforts were made to regulate the behaviour of India so as to ensure

unanimous endorsement of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), India

oregn Poicy and Nationa Interest 3

on i ts part , tr ied to change the at t i tude 6f nu clear powers to declare a t ime-table

for des truct ion of their nuclear weapons. Both the efforts fai led. Thus, every

at tempt at change of behaviour of others may not succeed. Foreign policy,

therefore, means deciding on certain goals and making efforts to regulate

behaviour o f others to achieve these goals . The goa ls are sought to be achieved

with the help of power. Thus, nat ional interest and power are vi tal ingredients

of foreign policy.

We have seen that foreign policy is concerned both with change and

status quo. There is another dimension also. As Fel iks Gross says , even a

decis ion not to have any relations with a state is also foreign policy. Each

individual s tate has to decide the degree of i ts involvement in i ts relat ions with

another country that w ould protect i ts interes ts . India 's decis ion in 1949 not to

have any re lat ions with the racis t regime of South Africa was a defini te foreign

policy. Similarly, the American decision not to recognize the Soviet Union, after

Bolshevik Rev olut ion t i l l 1934, was clearly the US policy towards U SSR. T heforeign policy may be either positive or negative. It is positive when it aims at

regulat ing the behaviour of other s tates by changing i t , and negat ive when i t

seeks such a regulat ion by not changing that behaviour. Thus, to conclude,

every s tate adopts certain principles to guide i ts relat ions with other s tates .

These principles are based on interaction between nat ional interes ts and means

(power ) to achieve them. As Bandop adhyaya says , The formulat ion of foreign

policy is essent ial ly an exercise in the choice of ends and m eans on the part of

a nation state in an international setting. 7

In the mak ing of foreign policy, the role of policy mak ers is indeed important.

A lot depends on the perceptions and ideology of the foreign minis ter who

guides the officials w ho identify the aims of foreign p olicy and determ ine the

principles to be fol lowed. Today the people and media also are playing ai

important role. M odelski cal ls the flow of act ions from the comm unity towat J s

the policy makers as the input and the decis ions of the pol icy makers as the

outpu t . Accord ing to Mahendra Kumar, foreign po licy includes (i) the pol icy

make rs , ( i i ) interes ts and object ives , ( i i i ) principles of foreign policy, and (iv)

means o f foreign policy. He, therefore, defines the foreign policy as a thought-

out course of action for ach ieving objectives in foreign relations as dictated

by the ideology of national interest. *

NATIONAL INTEREST

If foreign p olicy is the resul t of interaction between ends and means, nat ional

interes t , the end, must be clearly unde rs tood. National interes t is the key note

of interna tional rel ation s. It is said that self interest is not only a legitimate,

but a fundamental cau se for nat ional pol icy. Accord ing to Hans Morg enthau,

the great real is t scholar, who has been described as the twentieth century



oregn Poicy of ndadescend ant of K auti lya, al l pol it ics is s t ruggle for power, and, as long as the

world is pol i t ical ly organized into nat ions , the nat ional interes t is indeed the

las t word in world po li t ics . No governm ent can act contrary to the nat ional

interes t of the country. No country, whatever i ts ideals, can afford to base i ts

fore ign pol i cy on cons ide ra t ions o the r t han the na t iona l i n t e res t . Lord

Palmers ton had very right ly opined, over a hundred years ago, that : We have

no eternal al l ies and we have no eternal enemies . Our interes ts are eternal and

those interes ts i t is our duty to fol low. It is true. Friendship or enmity between

nations keeps on changing as environmental changes occur and as every s tate

seeks to prom ote i ts self-interes ts . If the interes ts of two cou ntries clash, they

ei ther make ad justments after negotiat ions or go in for a pol icy of confrontat ion.

George Washington, the fi rs t US Pres ident , had declared the universal t ruth

that no country can be trusted further than it is bound by its interests; and no

prudent s tatesm an or pol i t ician wil l venture to depart from i t .

I t is often seen that a part icular governmen t may hav e wron g or misplace dbelief about the nat ional interest of the country. Policies based on such bel iefs

are bound to fail, but so long as a leader is in powe r he t ries to pursue the po licy

based on his perception of nat ional interes ts . Thus , Napoleon had said that he

was act ing in the interes t of France when he ini t iated his campaign agains t

Russia, and later when he launched his desperate bat t le at Waterloo. Adolf

Hit ler jus t i fied h is expansionis t pol icies , including annex ation of Austria and

breakup of Czechoslov akia (1938) in Germ any's nat ional interes t. Bri t ish Prime

Minis ter Nevil le Chamberlain was determined to appease the dictators of

Germany (Hit ler) and Italy (Mussolini) because he assumed that that was in

Bri tain's nat ional interes t . Friendly social ist govern ments were ins talled in

East European countries in 1945 as that , according to Stal in, would best serve

the Soviet nat ional interes t . In recent t imes Pakis tan government appeared

convinced that i t was in that country's nat ional interes t to des tabi l ize Indian

state of Jammu & Kashmir. These exceptions apart , normally a well thought-

out foreign policy is based on the genuine perception of the country's goals

and object iv es and , therefore, i ts nat ional interes ts .

Jawaharlal Nehru had declared in 1947 in the Const i tuent Assembly ofIndia (Legis lat ive): Wha tever pol icy we may lay dow n, the art of condu cting

the foreign affairs of a country lies in finding out what is mos t advantageous to

the country . .. whether a country is imperial is t ic or social is t or commun is t , i ts

foreign minis ter thinks primari ly of the interes ts of that country. However,

certain ideal is t s tatesmen deny the o verriding role of national interes t in foreign

policy making. The U President, Woodrow Wilson who led the Allies to victory

in the First World War, said It is peri lous to determine the foreign policy of a

nat ion in terms of nat ional interes t. . . We dare not turn from the prin ciple that

moral i ty and not expediency is the thing that must guide us . We have no

selfish end s to serve . This is an exceptional view which is not general ly


shared by s tatesmen. However, Mahatma Gandhi , though he was never in the

government, was one of those who ins is ted on the value of moral i ty. For

example, after independence when be went on fas t unto death to press the

Indian Government to pay Rs. 55 crore to Pakis tan (his reasoning was that we

owed i t to that country ), Gandhi was em phasizing mo ral i ty even at the cost of

national interest. But, what exactly is national interest?

National interes t has been described as the general and continu ing ends

for which a nat ion acts . Bandop adhyay a says: every s tate aims at preservin g

i t s pol i t i ca l i nd epen den ce and t e r r i t or i a l i n t egr i ty by s a fegu arding i t s

internat ional boundaries . The means may vary . . . but the nat ional interes t in

the preser vation of territorial integrity is clear.9 This idea has been explained in

clearer terms by Spykm an. He says: Because terri tory is an inherent part of a

s tate, self-preservat ion means defending i ts control over terri tory; and, because

independ ence is the essence of s tate, self-preservation also mean s fight ing for

independent s tatus . . . the bas ic object ive of the foreign policy of al l s tates is

the preservat ion of terri torial integri ty and poli t ical independence. 10

The idea of nat ional interes t can be, at t imes , qui te vague. It assumes

variety of meanings in different contexts . However, as Padelford and Lincoln

observe : Conc epts of nat ional interes ts are centered on core values of the

society, which include the welfare of the nation, the security of its political

bel iefs , nat ional way of l i fe , terri torial integri ty and i ts self-preservat ion.

Acco rding to Robert Osgo od, nat ional interes t is s tate of affairs valued solely

for i ts benefi t to the nat ions . And, Morg enthau m aintains that the main

requirem ent of a nat ion - s tate is to protect i ts physical , pol i t ical and cul tural

identi ty agains t threat from other s tates . Foreign policy makers can never

ignore the s tate ' s nat ional interes t . I ts essent ial components are general ly

bel ieved to be securi ty, economic development and a peaceful world order.

Defence of the s tate is natural ly the primary concern of a foreign policy.

Secondly, promotion of economic interes t , including favourable condit ions of

trade, is another vi tal object ive of foreign policy. Last ly, most modern s tates

a re a l s o conce rned wi th ma intenance of i n t e rna t iona l peace , re s pec t for

international law, pacific settlement of international disputes and strengtheningof the sys tem of internat ional organizat ion.

POWER

Detai led analys is of the concept of power is nei ther feas ible nor intended in

this introductory chapter on Foreign Policy. Since we have referred to foreign

policy as synthesis between ends and means, and pow er has been identified

as the means , i t wil l be proper to briefly indicate the meaning and importance of

p o w e r in foreign policy. Power is a phenomenon of al l relat ionships . Power has

been defined by various scholars , but the idea behind al l the defini t ions is



6 oregn Poicy of nda

same. It has been described as the abi l ity or capaci ty to control others and get

them to do what on e wants them to do and also to see that they do not do w hat

one doe s not want them to do. The concept of power is a central concept in

internat ional relat ions . The concept of power was discussed by Kauti lya, the

maste r of statecraft in ancien t India. He interpreted it as the possessio n of

s treng th derive d from three elements namely, know ledge, mil i tary might and

valour. In the twentieth century, Hans Morgenthau echoed the same feel ings .

He describe d al l pol i t ics as s truggle for power. Therefore, internat ional pol i t ics

is s t ruggle for power among states . Accord ing to Morge nthau. power is man 's

control over minds and act ions of other men . In internat ional relat ions power

is the abi l i ty of a s tate to make i ts wil l prevai l and to enforce respect and

command obedience from other s tates . This defini t ion of power by Professor

Mahendra Kumar implies that power is an abi l i ty to get things done as Actor

A wants Actor to do. If'A' succeeds, it has power. This ability, when exercised

enables a s tate to control the behaviour of other s tates . Since foreign policy isaimed at regulat ion of behaviour of other s tates , power alo ne enables s tates to

formulate and successful ly implement their foreign policies .

Robert Dahl explain ed powe r by s tat ing: 'A' has power over ' B ' to the

extent that i t can get 'B ' to do someth ing that kB' would not otherwise do.

Thus, every s tate, big or small , has power to secure compliance from some

other s tate. Power, as mentione d abo ve, is a vital means of a s tate. Since every

state des ires more and more power, i t often becomes an end in itself Vernon

Van Dyke conc ludes thus: Power is both the capstone amo ng the object ives

which the s tates pursue and the corners tone among the methods which they

employ . Most s tates use power as means of at taining nat ional object ives

which are const i tuents of their foreign policies . Couloumbis and Wolfe define

power as an umbrel la concept that denotes anything that es tabl ishes and

mainta ins the cont ro l of Ac tor A ove r Ac tor B . Power , according to

Couloumbis and Wolfe, has three ingredients . They are: authori ty, influence

and force . Toge the r t hey cons t i t u t e power . Author i ty means volunta ry

comp liance by Actor B of the wishes of Actor A, out of respect , affect ion, etc.

Influence has been defined as use of ins truments of persuasion by Actor A to

get i ts wishes accepted by Actor B, who m ight be ini t ially reluctant to carry out

wishes of Actor A. Final ly, force means coercion of Actor B by Actor A in

pursui t of i ts pol i tical object ives . Force m ay mean use of force, short of war, or

threat thereof Thus, Actor A may exercise power depend ing on the avai labi l i ty

of authori ty (voluntary compliance), influence (compliance by persuasion)

and force (use of coercive means).

In the present context , power is the means employ ed by s tates to chan ge,

adjust or regulate the behaviour of other s tates . Power, thus is the means of

foreign policy, whe reas nat ional interes t is the end or the goal .


DETER MINANTS OF FOR EIGN POLIC Y

Foreign policy making is a dynamic process . Normally, change of government

does not change the fundamentals of the foreign policy of a s tate, though a

revolut ionary change in pol i t ical set-up may resul t in dras t ic changes . Why

does i t normally remain unchanged? It is because foreign policy of a s tate is

determined by a number of factors , many of them are s tat ic . There are some

factors that do chan ge, but their impact in shaping a country 's foreign policy is

usual ly secondary. The foreign policy of a country is com pou nded out of

many fa ctors and forces . All of them interact and determ ine the foreign po licy.

Accord ing to Paddleford and Lincoln: Fundam ental ly, foreign policy has i ts

roots in the unique his torical backg round s, pol i tical ins t i tut ions , t radi t ions ,

e c o n o m i c n e e d s , p o w e r f a c t o r s , a s p i r a t i o n s , p e c u l i a r g e o g r a p h i c a l

circumstances , and basic set of values held by a nat ion. 12 James Rosenau

includes geography, s ize, economic development, cul ture and his tory, great

power s tructure, al l iances , technology, social s t ructure, public opinion and

governmental structure as inputs of foreign policy. Brecher refers to geography,

external environment, person al i t ies , econom ic and mil i tary posi t ion and pub lic

opinion as the determinan ts of foreign policy. Accordin g to J B andopadhyaya ,

the bas i c de t e rminant s of fore ign pol i cy inc lude geography, economic

development, political traditions, domestic milieu, international milieu, military

s trength and nat ional character.

Professor Appadorai discussed two broad determinants which influence

the making of foreign policy. These are cal led by him as domest ic en vironm ent

and internat ional environment. Appadorai mentions these two environments

in the context of Northedge's opinion that foreign policy is an interact ion

between forces originat ing outs ide the country's borders and those working

within them. The factors shaping India 's foreign policy wil l be discussed in

detai l in Chapter 2. Here a very brief mention will be made of the factors that

general ly determine foreign policies .

Firs tly, geograph ical s i tuat ion is a bas ic determinant . Th e s ize of the s tate

large enough to supp ort a populat ion, a cl imate that is nei ther excess ively cold

nor very hot , a topography offering boundaries with natural barriers such as

mountains , r ivers and seas and a compact terri tory enable a country to makeand implement independent foreign policy. Geography and terrain were very

important assets , before modern mil i tary machinery cam e into exis tence. Like

the s ize and topography, natural resources and s ize of populat ion contribute to

the power of the s tate, which in turn shapes i ts foreign policy. Of the

geographical factors special at tent ion must be drawn to locat ion. Bri tain and

Japan, though small in s ize, became great nat ions because of their abi l i ty to use

the oceans as highways of commerce. The absence of natural front iers as in

case of Poland often threatens their securi ty. As Appadorai wrote, That Bri tain



oregn Poicy of nda

is separated from Europe by twenty miles of water gave her an advantage

denied to several countries such as France and Germany, which had to spend

much of their resources in fight ing each other on border problems . He added

that air power has indeed reduced the s ignificance of this factor. The s i tuat ion

of a country can en able i t, or deprive i t , to have an indepen dent foreign po licy.

The U S with vas t territory separated from other continents by the Atlant ic and

the Pacific gav e her unprecedented importance. The United States could eas i ly

follow a policy of isolation for a long time, and finally emerge as a super power.

It is her location and size that enabled America to remain free from any attack

and bat t les on her terri tory during the Second World War. India 's posi t ion in

South Asia enables her to be a major pow er and adopt assert ive foreign policy.

The vast s ize of Russia and large populat ions of China and India are important

determinants of their foreign policies . However, the mere s ize of a nat ion's

populat ion is not an index of i ts s trength. There a re cases , l ike that of Is rael , of

havng very small s ize of terri tory as well as small populat ion, yet having

adopted very aggress ive and effect ive foreign policy.Secondly, his tory and tradi t ions have s ignificant influence on foreign

policy making. His torical t ies of the United States with Bri tain, the mother

country, had an impact on the US policy for a very long time. British imperialism

in India, and our s truggle for freedom against colonial ism and im perial ism, has

had direct impact on India's foreign policy. India's full support to freedom

struggles in Afro-Asian countries and fight agains t racial discriminat ion was

the outcome of our his tory. Similarly, t radi t ional values are of immense

importan ce. Accord ing to App adorai , Tradi t ional values may be described as

those principles embodied in bel iefs and pract ices which have been transm it ted

through success ive generat ions and have been regarded as worthy of es teem

and adopt ion . 13 Foreign Minis ter is a part of social mil ieu and he cannot

disregard the bas ic values held in the society. Thus, democrat ic values in the

US and secularism in India are so deep rooted that they cannot be ignored by

any foreign policy maker in these countries .

Thi rd ly , t he pos s es s ion of raw mate r i a l s and na tura l re s ources and

compu ls ions of econom ic development also determine the course of a country's

foreign policy. Th e poli t ical s t rength o f a country is often m easured in terms ofeconomic s trength. Hence, this factor cannot be ignored while shaping the

foreign p olicy. A weak indu strial base has adve rse effect on the effectiven ess

of the country 's foreign policy. After indepen dence, India had to devote i ts

at tent ion to the process of development. For that purpose she needed not only

foreign aid but also foreign technology. By adopting the policy of non-

al ignment India ensured aid from al l quarters . The countries manufacturing

large quanti t ies of armaments look at their foreign policy options qui te

differently from those who are essentially oil producing and exporting countries.

But the possess ion o f natural resources , l ike oi l in West Asian countries , i tself


is not enough, unless coupled with other factors such as an able and far-

s ighted government, technological organisat ion and mil i tary s trength. Oil as a

source of energy has becom e important for industry and war One drop of oi l

said Cleme nceau, the French Premier, is worth one drop of blood of our

soldiers . I ts possess ion has direct impact on foreign policies of West Asian

countries and i ts lack has another type of impact on the policies of others .

Fourthly, high nat ional morale makes for a successful con duct of foreign

policy. Obviously, a homogene ous society makes for s trong nat ional uni ty and

high morale. Sharp divis ions in the society — between rich and poor, between

different classes , communit ies and cas tes — have adverse impact on foreign

policy. Social cohesion, therefore, is another factor in the shaping of successful

foreign policy.

Fifthly, pol i t ical organisat ion, pol i t ical t radi t ion, s t ructure of g overnm ent

and enl ightened leadership also contribute to the shaping of an effect ive foreign

policy. The tradi t ions of peace, t ruth and non-violence enabled India to ins is t

on peaceful set t lement of internat ional disputes and encourage disarmament.India 's assert ive and continued s tand agains t s igning the discriminatory nuclear

non-prol iferat ion treaty, NPT, as well as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

(s igned by several countries in 1996) is guided by our commitment to nuclear-

weapons-free world without any discriminat ion. The qual i ty of leadership is an

important factor. A far-s ighted Nehru who bel ieved in democracy, an ideal is t

Wilson who wanted to end al l future wars , a determined Winston Churchil l

committed to win the Second World War, and a low-profi le yet s t rong Lai

Bahadur Shastri go a long way in formulating foreign policy that effectively

protects the national interests. On the other hand, leaders like Hitler or Mussolini

or Yah\ Khan or Saddam Hussein promise a glorious future for their countries,

but their policies often lead to disaster. democrat ic regime is in the long run

far mo , : effect ive than a despotic sys tem which shows only short term gains ,

but ch i js in the end. Besides , domest ic pol icies always influence the foreign

policy. The perception of rul ing el i te , the imperat ives of s tate-building and

ideologies of political parties are important variables that influence foreign policy.

Sixthly, mil i tary s trength of a country has direct impact on i ts foreign

policy. Possess ion of large and powerful armed forces equipped with modernsophis t icated wea pons of warfare makes for an effect ive and a ggress ive foreign

policy. A country with weak military machine will normally be at a disadvantage

even at peaceful negotiat ions . But , i t has been seen that an enl ightened

leadership and high m orale of people and the army, as in the case of Israel make

up for small size of army an d make for a successful foreign po licy. Ordinarily , a

mil i tari ly superior country would t ry to pursue a bold policy to maximise i ts

gains , and a weak country would t ry to minimise i ts disadvantages .

Seventhly, public opinion has lately become an important factor in the

shaping of foreign p olicy. The foreign p olicy is no more ma de in the secrecy of



1 oregn Poicy of nda

Foreign Offices . I t is made in open, and public opinion can often force ch ange

in foreign policy and in i ts implementat ion. Bri t ish public ' s annoyance led to

the res ignat ion of Foreign Minis ter Sir Samuel Hoare in 1935 because of his

secret deal with his French coun terpart to bai l out the aggressor Italy. Again, i t

was public opinion agains t Bri t ish adventure in Suez cris is that forced Eden

Govern ment to qui t in 1957. It was because of fear of annoyan ce of a minori ty

comm unity that forced Indian foreign policy makers not to es tabl ish diplom atic

relat ions with Israel for four decades . US involvement in Vietnam War and

lately in Iraq had been s trongly opposed by American people. All foreign

policy makers are now very sensi t ive to public opinion.

Last ly, internat ional mil ieu is one of the most important determinants of

foreign policy. In any case, foreign policy s the sum total of decis ions taken by

a country to regulate the beh aviour of other s tates . Therefore , the internat ional

system at any given point of time has direct impact on foreign policies. Appa dorai

sums up the posi t ion thus: The comp lexity of foreign policy arises from the

interact ion of he des ire of s tates within the internat ional commun ity to ach ievetheir own nat ional interes ts , and their consequent at t i tudes to internat ional

issues . 14 The d ifficul ty in condu cting the foreign policy arises because s tates

do not have sure means of control l ing the behaviour of other s tates . To quote

Appado rai again, I t can persuade, promise or deny economic and mil i tary aid;

i t can threaten another s tate with the use of force; nevertheless , i t cannot be

certain the s tate wil l act in the way i t des ires . These views of Appa dorai have

their value. But , as far as shaping of foreign policy is concerned the role of

internat ional s i tuat ion canno t be denied. During the Balance of Power System

in the nineteenth century, conclusion of al l iances , pol icy of buffer s tates and

race of armam ents al l were guided by the place of a s tate in the sys tem. E ach

weaker s tate always sought the help of an unat tached power, general ly known

as the balancer. During the inter-war period (1919-39), the quest for French

security, fo llowed by rise of fascism n Italy and Nazism in Germ any and militarism

in Japan had their im pact on foreign policies. The US changed i ts pol icy towards

the Soviet Union and recognised her because in 1933 Hit ler ' s emergence in

Germany posed a threat to the world order created after the War. Japanese

aggress ion in Manch uria (China) in 1931 provided a common threat to USA as

well as USSR in the Far East . The two pow ers gave up their host i l i ty.

The Cold War system (1945 -90) did not leave any country's foreign policy

unaffected. The fear of US atom bom b made the Soviet Union leader of Eastern

Europe, and al l the countries in the region adopted social ism and came under

Russian wings . The ent ire pol icy of containment of communism adopted by

the US, set t ing up of NATO, SEATO, etc. everything was the resul t of the

development of USSR as chal lenger to capi tal is t sys tem advocated by the

United States. The frequent use of Veto in the UN Security Council was a direct

resul t of the Cold W ar poli t ics . As far as India is concern ed, the ad option and


propaga t ion of t he pol i cy of non-a l ignment was a c l ea r re s pons e to the

internat ional mil ieu represented by a bipolar world and the Cold War.

The detente between the USA and China (1971), expu ls ion of Taiwan from

the UN o n the ini t iat ive of Ame rica, and s trategic relat ionship that de veloped

between USA and China s ince 1971 (Bangladesh war ) had direct impact on the

foreign policy of India. Several other countries also had to do reappraisal of

their foreign policies in view of close l inks between China and the U S. One of

the immediate outcome of US-China-Pakis tan s trategic relat ionship was Indo-

Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperat ion (1971) which further s trengthened

the relat ionship between India and the then Soviet Union.

Part i t ion of Bri t ish India caused by imperial is t Bri tain's pol icy of divide

and rule, encouraged by Muslim League's concept of two nat ions , created

such host i l i ty between India and Pakis tan that we had to unwil l ingly spend

large sums of money on defence as our neighbour was always out to damage

our interes ts .

Internat ional organisat ions and the express ion o f world pub lic opinion, in

and outs ide the UN, also have powerful impact on foreign policies of various

count r i e s . Whe the r t was UK-France-Israel at tack on Egypt (1956), Ame rican

in t e rvent ion in V ie tnam conf l i c t , Sovie t ac t ion in Hungary (1956) and

Czechoslovakia (1968), Bangladesh cris is (1971) , Cuban m iss i le cris is (1962),

Soviet occupation of Afghanis tan for nearly nine years al l such act ions evoke d

strong public react ion al l over the world. Such react ions and express ion of

opinion in various internat ional fora also help in the formulat ion of foreign

policy.

Later, the war between Iran and Iraq (two Muslim neighbours) in 1980s

influenced the policies of several countries . Then in 1990 Iraq committed

unprovoked aggress ion agains t i ts neighbour, oi l -rich Kuwait and annexed i t .

Interes t ingly, Kuw ait had given big help to Iraq during i ts war against Iran. The

annexation of Kuwait brought the UN on the scene, and with i ts authorisat ion

US-led forces laun ched at tack on Iraq forcing i t to surrender and also v acate

Kuwait . The world opinion general ly s ided with Kuwait and approved UN

action. But , when in 2003, the United States again at tacked Iraq on the groundthat i t had weapons of mass des truct ion (WMDs), the UN did not support

American act ion, and there was resentment agains t the US both by friends and

foes. Bri tain was the only major power to support the US act ion. Foreign

policies of most of the countries had to be reassessed in view of US act ion

which defeated Iraq and brought change of regime with Pres ident Saddam

Hussein hiding and then being arres ted and hanged.

Foreign policy is the bas is of al l internat ional relat ions . Some scholars

even identify foreign policy with internat ional relat ions . We do not subscribe

to this view. Foreign policy is not synonym of internat ional relat ions , yet such



Foregn Policy of ndia

relat ions are cond ucted o nly through foreign policies of different c oun tries,

which are shaped as a resul t of interaction amo ng nu merous determinants .

NOTES

1. Mahendra Kumar Theoretical Aspects of nternational Politics, Agra p. 310.

2. George Modelski A Theory of Foregn Policy, London p. 3.

3. Huge Gibson The Road o Foregn Policy, N ew York p. 9.

4. Cecil V. Scrabb Jr..American Foregn Policy n he uclear Age, New York p. 1

5. Couloumbis Wolfe. ntroduction o nternational Reations: Power and ustice,New Delhi, p . 125.

6. Mahendra Kumar, op. cit., p. 311.

7. J. Bandopadhyaya he aking of ndias Foregn Policy, Allied p. 1.

8. Mahendra Kumar, op. it., p . 315.

9. Bandopadhyaya, op. it., p. 3.

10. Nicholas J. Spykman America s Strategy n orld Politics, New York. p. 17.

11. Couloumbis Wolfe, op. it.. p. 86.12. Padleford Lincoln nternational Politics, New York p. 307.

13. A. Appadorai Domestic Roots of ndia s Foregn Policy. Delhi p. 11.

14. Appadorai, op. cit., p. 7.

Documents

foreign policy and national interest