States across the world engage in the formulation and implementation of Foreign Policy with a purpose of inducing other states to adopt their mode of lawmaking. The whole process is a set interaction between internal and external forces that originate from within and outside the nation’s borders (Stanger 2014). On the other hand, the foreign policy of a particular State focuses on the behavior of other countries. It is a way in which sovereign states interact with each other to produce a desired goals and objectives. To achieve these, Mushtaq and Choudhry (2013) posit that there is an intensive diplomatic process and observation of other state behavior to help shape the policies. However, as Chan (2015) argues, foreign policy cannot be studied in isolation with the nature of the state such as liberal and non-liberal because of the differences in the institutions and approaches. This paper explores whether there is a significant difference between liberal and non-liberal state in foreign policy. There is a significant difference in terms of foreign policy making in liberal and non-liberal countries.
Foreign Policy Making Process
Foreign policy formulation and implementation is one of the paramount elements of the nation when translated into conceived objectives, interests, and goals. For these targets to be achieved, there must be a course of action defined by various state actors. According to Mushtaq and Choudhry (2013), the foreign policy of particular states comprises a set of principles that aims to regulate the interaction of domestic and international factor in a state. Chan (2015) note that the objectives of these policies are different categories, but there are broad goals that are similar in all countries including territorial integrity, political independence, and economic development and the status of a nation. The analysis of foreign policy seeks to understand how different state formulates their foreign policy. Therefore, the analysis must understand various factors in the domestic and international political arena that requires the theoretical overview and public policy. The understanding of Foreign Policy also requires knowledge regarding intergovernmental organizations, diplomacy, economic sanctions, and war (Mushtaq and Choudhry, 2013).
As noted by Mushtaq and Choudhry (2013), foreign policy making comprises different stages in both kinds of States. It is necessary for the actors to assess the domestic and international political landscape. Foreign policy requires being formulated and implemented in the local and international context. Hudson (2013) argues that all the actors of the state need to understand well to enhance the quality of foreign policy. The State needs to consider issues such as international crisis and the dictates of the public opinion. For example, Pakistan tested a nuclear bomb in response India’s nuclear tests due to mounting public opinion.
Many States have different foreign policy objectives and goals that are subject to both international and domestic political environments at a particular period. In some cases, foreign policy goals lead to conflict which the state need to solve (Hudson 2013). For example, Hudson (2013) states that after the 9/11 attack, States such as Pakistan sided with the United States due to survival agenda and objectives. During the cold way, the leadership turned away from the country due to different reasons.
Additionally, determination of policy alternatives is necessary because the options need to be in place to meet the set goals and objectives concerning the prevailing political environment. This includes a thorough assessment of the capacity to deal with the consequences of policy implementation of these options (Hudson 2013). On the other hand, formal foreign policy decisions are taken at a particular level in the government. In many cases, foreign policy actions fall under the executive branch of government led by the president (Smith, Hadfield, and Dunne 2012). Various actors involved in making foreign policy decisions comprise the head of state. Depending on the system of the government, it is either the president and in some cases the head of government including the prime minister and his cabinet ministers (Smith, Hadfield, and Dunne 2012).
Once the actors arrive at a particular foreign policy decision that requires implementation, a formal decision then follows to ease and make the process successful. Alden and Aran (2013) suggest that foreign policy calls for an experienced specialist in one of states bureaucracy, in many countries; it is placed in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and State Department in the United States federal government. However, there are departments in the bureaucracy where the role of implementation is passed, and these include defense and trade (Alden and Aran 2013).
In the application process, there are short, middle, and long-range objectives to be achieved. These goals must be met at all costs because the State cannot ignore them. An example of these goals includes political independence and territorial integrity because they determine the existence of the state (Alden and Aran 2013). As such, the authors note that the state has to realize the objectives quickly, directly, and by use of force because there is no luxury in fulfilling these core objectives. Further, it cannot afford the threat of magnifying the challenge. For example, the State has to deal with threat emanating from other states and organized criminal groups within the country (Snyder 2003). It also has the role of maintaining the geographical integrity, building arms and army to deter any threats from various dimensions.
Middle Range Category
The objectives in the state comprises economic uplift of the society in a bid to raise the standard, enhance the prestige of the nation and expansion of political, social, and economic ideologies (Hudson and Vore 1995). The objectives are achieved within a set timeframe. Foreign policy, in this case, aims at bringing economic prosperity to the society to enable it to carry assertive politics in an international environment. In the process, trade and economy are diversified to achieve a competitive edge in a competitive world (Snyder 2003). Therefore, the nation has to manufacture massive goods for export to other countries to avoid any exploitation.
Long-Range Objectives
These objectives are achieved at the expense of other nations. These objectives lack time restrictions as compared to short and middle range targets. An example of such foreign policies includes the expansion of communist, socialist, and capitalist ideology across the globe (Chan, 2015). This is because they viewed the capitalist system as being defective and exploitative in its very nature (Hudson and Vore 1995). Therefore, because there is no time limits the objective are time consuming, vague and indefinite and the outcomes are not guaranteed.
Foreign Policy Analysis
Hudson and Vore (1995) elucidates that foreign policy analysis focuses on the influence of the state, individual, and the international system. In terms of foreign policy formulation and implementation, leaders in the state play a significant role in shaping the relationship between the States in the global environment. Snyder (2003) hints of a general perception that individual are powerful actors in the international arena. However, this is debated from various quarters such as policy experts, and the media. Therefore, the role of the leaders in foreign policy is judged based on policy objectives, credibility, and inherent benefits.
Snyder (2003) further notes that in liberal states, there are forces that define foreign policy matters based on prevailing public interests such as security issues, monitor public opinion, and ensure unanimity on foreign policies. Even in the existence of a threat, they consider the policies as private goods because they are not driven by self-interests. Stanger (2014) adds that citizens in these states have the opportunity to thwart the plans based on the analysis of the international environment. In contrast, leaders in non-liberal states attain and maintain power immorally by use of conflict and oppression (Doyle, 2011). Doyle (2011) opines that their foreign policy is based on Machiavellian principles because of their resolve to cling to power for long.
The foreign policy direction tends to be porous and likely to cause social conflict. Besides, they are not cooperative, are inflexible in terms of bargaining, and usually cheat the international regimes (Stanger 2014). As such, leaders in these nations are more likely to be guided by the quest to survive more in power, and the policies tend to be more personalized. Foreign policy should not reflect individualistic preferences at the expense of the state and the public. Leaders should focus on enhancing state cooperation and agreements that increase the benefit for the country.
The role of States in foreign policy making is different to that of an individual because it stresses on the activities that take place in the domestic political environment. The State plays a strong role contrary to what people believe. The players include institutions of governance, public accountability, and transparency as they help shape both foreign and domestic policies (Alden and Aran 2013). In non-liberal States, leaders focus on their tenure as opposed to issues of importance such as national security, economic prospect, and collective national interest (Freedman 2016). As such, the States ensure the goals; objectives and decisions reached are guided by public interest and relationship between states. Further, it should accommodate both domestic and international determinants during formulation and implementation.
Liberal and Non-Liberal States Views of Foreign Policy
The concept of liberalism comprises essential characteristics such as positive, negative freedom and representative form of government (Alden and Aran 2013). Liberal and non-liberal differ due to the emphasis put on the freedom of the people and free elections after a set period (Freedman 2016). Nevertheless, they have some basic form of agreement concerning human rights, representative government, ownership of private property rights and free markets.
A liberal democracy is defined by a political system characterized by a free distribution of power and fair elections (Doyle 2011). The rule of law is adhered to, separation of authority, a guarantee of fundamental liberties such as the freedom of property, speech, and religion. On the contrary, non-liberal states also conduct elections, which are termed unfair, and fail to reflect the will of the people (Freedman 2016). The only individuals who support such government are those who wield immense power.
Doyle (2011) asserts that some liberals have tried to explain the problem of achieving liberal peace and the reasons why these States are more likely to be pacific in nature. However, there is no clear explanation of why these countries engage in conflict with non-liberal states. The reasons behind the above are due to the existence of liberal norms, citizens’ support of policies, which they are ready to bear the cost. An example is a war that comes with an exorbitant cost (Snyder 2003). However, Freedman (2016) sought to explain and predict the existence of liberal peace. The explanation is based on various factors such as the existence of Republic states, the formation of pacific union and treatment of foreign citizens.
The analysis of the author is somehow ironical. Liberal democracies are favored because they can avert and repel external threats through diplomatic policies (Doyle, 2011). They also tame acts of selfishness and aggression in the individual leaders and actors to achieve global peace. Thus, the threats of destructive violence push the States toward the objective of peace. Further, liberal democracies expect similar States to ensure justice and toleration of their counterpart because of the willingness to negotiate (Doyle, 2011). However, this is not the case in dealing with non-liberal states.
Kant Theory of Democratic Peace
The primary challenge of realist theory came from Kant’s liberal peace theory. The approach emphasizes on the essence of freedom among individuals in a State. Foreign policy formulation and implementation should reflect that of the person and not that of the State and international system (Smith, Hadfield, and Dunne 2012). Therefore, there is a different understanding of between liberals and realists. For example, it is necessary to consider the goals of the state and individual’s perception of security as opposed to the use of the military in solving issues between countries when making foreign policy.
Liberalists further argue that combating terrorism requires the guidance of the legal framework and not use of military force (Mushtaq and Choudhry 2013). Therefore, the model of peace argues that leaders look at the broader issues such as immigration and environmental factors when tackling a problem such as terrorism (Doyle, 2011). The model is prevalent in western politics and mostly invoked in reference to security dilemma.
Kant theory also believes in human conduct to enable peaceful relations among States in the international policy environment (Doyle, 2011). In this case, states apply the concept of cooperation with their counterpart when dealing with global challenges such as security and economic inequality (Freedman 2016). For instance, there is increasing security threat in many countries mostly due to terrorism, which according to the theory requires the cooperation of various international institutions in the states to deal with the problem. According to the model, security management comprises of two techniques that include arms control and collective security.
Collective Security involves a protective measure employed by United States such as U.S. Britain and France. In a case of a threatening situation, the allied States take a particular action toward the origin of the threat (Freedman 2016). The objective of such is to thwart the attention of the aggressor to create a secure international environment for all states. Another aim of such security measure is to prevent any similar action from taking place.
Arms Control, on the other hand, is designed to reduce proliferation of arms completely. In cases where arms are in circulation, the effort is directed to controlling the number of weapons through disarmament (Freedman 2016). Thus, the theory holds that the proliferation of weapons can be contained and this means fewer arms in circulation and deep threats. However, different States holding a joint exercise to mitigate the risk mutually can accomplish the tasks.
Liberal and Non-Liberal Foreign Policy Process
Liberal and non-liberalist States have experienced various forms of problems when dealing with each other. When dealing with strong non-liberal states, there is a high probability of missed opportunities when it comes to exploiting divisions and implementing beneficial negotiations (Stanger 2014). An example includes USSR and China because there is no engagement in pure and rational politics. Instead, these nations engage in battling the beliefs of others (Chan, 2015). For example, non-liberalism is translated to a massive violation of human rights of expression, speech, and assembly. Snyder (2003) argues that, when dealing with non-liberal states, liberals get entangled into often remarkable non-liberal foreign policy. For example, the United States supported dictators as during the cold war era.
Liberal states have recorded dismal performance in terms of extending social and economic help to third world nations. These States do not get along with tyrants who tend to violate human rights by supporting violence against their subjects. (Doyle, 2011) The strained relationship is expressed by the termination of trade ties to defend the idea of liberalism globally. Refusing to deal non-liberal states lead to some consequences in the country’s State of economy and security (Snyder 2003). Therefore, these countries are exceptionally worse when deciding on the modalities of giving excess. They also have issues when providing real freedoms relating to development and opportunities to developing countries. Much of the effort is directed toward promoting human rights, free trade, foreign investment and calling for democratic elections with developing world.
In many cases resolving these dilemmas, liberalism requires use of threats to subdue others. This is because it would be necessary to adopt pure realists that perhaps would call for a military intervention as opposed to tolerating them. Hudson (2013) explicitly describes his radical ideas on the best way of implementing liberal foreign policy when targeting both non-liberal and liberals. Therefore, liberalism enhances peaceful cooperation between nations because citizens have a greater input in what the State engages to do. Besides, these nations have institutions in place to checks the balances of power on matters of foreign policies (Smith, Hadfield, and Dunne 2012). On the other hand, lack of checks and balances in non-liberal nations led to the use of military force without considering the possible consequences on the population socially and economically.
Kant championed the idea behind peace between liberal democracies in his 1785 writing (Doyle, 2011). He states that democratic states tend to be more peaceful when dealing with each other. On the contrary, he did not believe favor democracy because of its despotic nature due to the tyranny of the majority (Alden and Aran 2013). According to Democratic Peace Theory, if citizens gain control of the leaders they can put into power, the likelihood of the leader being aggressive to other nations is reduced because they can veto his ideas by removing him in a leadership position (Freedman 2016). As such, non-liberal are likely to go to war because they are militaristic in nature and therefore, these governments advocate to self-interests as opposed to that of the public.
The liberal peace approach ideas and views can be applied to the understanding of stable liberal States and not non-liberal states such as Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia. These nations went into war in the 1990s (Freedman 2016). However, another crucial caveat is that democratic governments need to be liberal. Snyder and Mansfield as cited in Stanger (2014) used extensive statistics collected for more than two centuries indicating that democratic governments have engaged in conflict more than liberal democracies and stable autocracies. The information suggests that democratic values lead to nationalism and likeliness of going to war are reduced. An example of such includes Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia. According to Snyder (2003), many democratic countries, which allow public participation, lack non-liberal values. Therefore, many may be widely linked to aggressiveness and in some cases imperial success.
Hudson (2013) opines that liberal democracies also tend to form leagues such as United Nations and the European Union with the purpose of enhancing economic, social, and political cooperation in achieving peace. As such, any signs of aggressiveness and hostility between liberal states can be resolved through third-party mediation. During the Cold War period, Iceland and Great Britain accepted mediation that prevented the actualization of the war between the two countries.
On the other hand, non-liberal states mostly communist and socialists (An example is China and Russia) are expected to maintain peace because they share similar social values and political ideologies. However, this was not the case because despite having deep trade links they were in conflict and war with each other at a particular time (Chan, 2015). Besides, the leaders of these non-liberal States foreign policies encourage aggression to both the citizens and the foreigners (Hudson 2013). An example includes the U.S. and the Soviet Russia foreign policies toward each other government. This, however, did not translate to having a quarrel with the citizen of the other country. Non-liberal states could easily wage war against another country because no democratic process is required in the liberal government. For instance, Iraq engaging in war with Kuwait in 1990 is an indication of how these non-liberal States lack constraints when it comes to conflict (Mushtaq and Choudhry 2013).
Contrary to what happens in non-liberal States, leaders in liberal nations require consent from various institutions such as parliament to take any military action against another country. The consent is rational, as it must explain why the matter is of national interest by mobilizing public opinion (Mushtaq and Choudhry 2013). The effort is also directed to instilling the feeling of confidence that the nation is going to engage in war for justifiable reasons. This is evident in liberal countries such as Great Britain when supporting the U.S. war in Iraq war in the last decade. The Tony Blair-led government had a difficult task convincing the Parliament and swaying public opinion in support of the government course (Freedman 2016).
As seen, the process of convincing other groups to support the government course is a complex one and therefore it is expected to consume a lot of time. Since liberal states encourage negotiation and exploration of other mechanisms, war can be avoided before it even starts. In a crisis likely to escalate into war, government from both sides can engage in fruitful discussions before military actions (Chan, 2015). The duration can lead to a peaceful settlement instead of conflict. Besides, they are less likely to cut short the negotiating process to pre-empt one. This, however, must be accompanied by favorable public opinion and support from other institutions. Leaders in the liberal states have democratic institutions to hold them into account as opposed to non-liberal.
Differences between Liberal and Non-Liberals Foreign Policy
The paper has explored the writing of various authors about the distinction between democratic and non-democratic nations in foreign policy making. Liberal states are defined by guarantee to human right, freedom of expression, assembly, press, and free and fair elections. An example of these countries includes the U.S., United Kingdom, and France. The Non-liberal states lack these characteristics. Although there may be elections in the country, the outcome is not an outright reflection of people will (Doyle, 2011). In these states, there are significant differences in forming foreign policy.
In non-liberal states, the policy reflects the will of individual leaders as opposed to state’s interest (Doyle, 2011). Leaders in such a system are inflexible in dealing with their international counterpart and usually, don not follow international obligations. The policy tends to produce conflict if things don’t go as per the leader expectation. Therefore, this police tends to be self-centered while ignoring the input of the citizens and do not consider the international environment (Chan, 2015). In sharp contrast, a leader in liberal states has different approach to foreign policymaking because the system reflects the will of a majority in the state and can be altered when the citizen changes their stance (Doyle, 2011).
Foreign policymaking is also consultative and inclusive of other relevant institutions. Therefore, it reflects the will of the state and the individuals with conscious regard to international environment situation. For example, when going to war, the president must seek approval of the Congress, the people (Doyle, 2011). Therefore, one can argue that there exists a difference between the two kinds of State in foreign policy formulation.
Conclusion
In essence, the literature reveals significant variation in foreign policy making between non-liberal and liberal States in foreign policy forming process. The variance is seen due to the behavior of the state and leaders in responding to international systems. Liberal states involve the citizens in foreign policy making because they are accountable to them through fair elections. On the contrary, non-liberal states are not accountable to citizens and therefore pursue policies that guarantee their hold to power and their well-being. Difficulties arises when liberalists and dealing with non-liberalists due to inflexibility and non-committal to the agreed plans.
Bibliography
Alden, C. and Aran, A., 2013. Foreign policy analysis: new approaches. New York, Routledge.
Chan, P. C. W. (2015). China, state sovereignty and international legal order. Boston, Brill Nijhoff
Doyle, M. W. 2011. Liberal peace: Selected essays. New York: Routledge.
Freedman, A.L. ed., 2016. The Internationalization of Internal Conflicts: Threatening the State. New York, Routledge.
Hudson, V.M., 2013. Foreign policy analysis: classic and contemporary theory. Lanham, Maryland. Rowman and Littlefield.
Hudson, V.M. and Vore, C.S., 1995. Foreign policy analysis yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Mershon International Studies Review, 39(Supplement 2), pp.209-238.
Mushtaq, S. and Choudhry, I.A., 2013. Conceptualization of foreign policy: An analytical Analysis. Berkeley Journal of Social Science, 3(Spring), pp.1-21. Available at http://www.berkeleyjournalofsocialsciences.com/spring4.pdf (accessed 4 October 2016)
Smith, S., Hadfield, A. and Dunne, T., 2012. Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Snyder, R.C. ed., 2003. Foreign policy decision-making: An approach to the study of international politics. New York, Free Press of Glencoe.
Stanger, A., 2014. One nation under contract: The outsourcing of American power and the future of foreign policy. New Haven, Yale University Press.
