DETERMINANTS AND BASIC PRINCIPLES OF FOREIGN POLICY

CHAPTER I

Introduction

Foreign Policy can be defined as a set of principles, decisions and means, adopted and
followed by a nation for securing her goals of national interest in international relations. Foreign
Policy defines the goals of national interest and then tries to secure these through the exercise of
national power. Development of Nation-States and increasing interactions among them has
resulted into formation of foreign policy in the modern times. Establishment of United Nations
and process of decolonization that has liberated many states into sovereign entities have further
provided impetus to interrelationships among states. There is certain unanimity among scholars
and statesmen on necessity of a foreign policy for each state, since no state will like to function
in complete isolation from rest of the world. Feliks Gross said that even a decision to have no
relations with a particular state is also a foreign policy or, in other words, not to have a definite
foreign policy is also a foreign policy. For example, India’s decision to have no diplomatic
relations with Israel up to 1992 was integral part of its foreign policy. India wanted to continue
good diplomatic and trade relations with Israel’s adversaries, i.e. the Arab states, whose support
on Kashmir was crucial for India, along with access to crude oil. A state without foreign policy
will look like a team playing football without any strategy to post the goals, hence all eleven
players being clueless about their role and functions on the playground. Thus, in a modern state
that lacks foreign policy; the External Affairs Ministry will have no priorities in developing
bilateral relations or participating in multilateral forums. The Defence Ministry will have no
clear cut ideas about armed preparations of country’s military, since no criteria have been set up
before it to define friends and to recognize enemies in the international sphere. The Finance as
well as Commerce Ministry will struggle to take stand on issues of import-export during bilateral
or multilateral trade negotiations. A state without a foreign policy can be compared to a ship in
the deep sea without knowledge of directions. As the radar on the ship navigates it towards land
destination, foreign policy leads the state in fulfilling its national interest and acquiring rightful
place among comity of nation-states. Therefore, it can be said that foreign policy will exist as
long as sovereign states operate in international sphere.
Statement of the problem under study

The statement of problem in the research is that there is no uniformity among the foreign policies
of the states.

Reasons for choosing topic

International relations is a vast and interesting area to be dealt with, among them foreign policy
is an interesting and important area associated with international relations and I have chosen this
topic to understand the determinants and basic principles of the foreign policy.

Objectives

 To study the various influencing factors of foreign policy of world countries.

 To understand the main principles and determinants which influencing much on foreign
policy of Western Europe relations.
 To analyse the circumstances in which those determinants are not influencing in the
current world order

Hypothesis

In order to conduct a research work, some important hypotheses are to be formulated. The important
points and assumptions are normally available through the formulation of hypothesis. The major
hypotheses developed on the basis of study of available literature and evaluation of articles as well as
the books referred is that the determinants and basic principles of foreign policy.

Research methodology

The researcher has selected a doctrine research based upon the determinants and basic principles
of foreign policy. The sources used in this project are primary and secondary sources like books,
articles. The research methodology mainly involves the foreign policy and the influencing
factors of foreign policy of world countries.
Sources

 International relations by Palmer perkins

 International relations by V.K. Malhotra
 www.yourarticlelibrary.com/internationalpolitics
 www.authorstream.com/determinants-foreign-policy

Review of literature

The researcher has extensively relied upon articles referred and the books referred. The
international relations explains the determinants and basic principles of foreign policy. And the
types of determinants, internal and external factors influencing the foreign policy.

Tentative chapterisation

CHAPTER I

Introduction

CHAPTER II

Determinants-Internal factors which influencing foreign policy

CHAPTER III

External factors

CHAPTER IV

Other factors

CHAPTER V

Conclusion
Definitions of Foreign policy

Foreign policy, according to Hartman, “is a systematic statement of deliberately selected

national interests.” Foreign policy connotes a greater degree of rational procedure, and a type of
planning involved in a step by step progress to a known and defined goal. It is a relatively
rational answer to prevailing external conditions. Though there are certain constraints, national
and international, to any such well thought out planning, yet an endeavour is invariably made,
and will continue to be made.

Padelford and Lincoln observe that through foreign policy, every state decides “what course it
will pursue in world affairs within the limits of its strength and the realities of the external
environment.” It, therefore, gives a sense of direction to a state. It suggests a adequate means for
the easy journey to this direction. It creates a sense of purpose as well as a confidence to achieve
that purpose. It becomes so indispensable that no state can operate at international level without
it. Foreign policy may be defined both in narrow and broad sense. Narrow definitions emphasise
the action aspect of foreign policy. In this sense, according to Schleicher, it refers to the, ”actions
of government officials to influence human behavior beyond the jurisdiction of their own state.”
Therefore, foreign policy mainly implies a course of action. Padelford and Lincoln remark,
”Foreign policy is the key element in the process by which an state translates its broadly
conceived goals and interests into concrete courses of action to attain those objectives and
preserve its interests.”

George Modelski explains “Foreign Policy is the system of activities evolved by communities
for changing the behaviour of other states and for adjusting their own activities to the
international environment.” According to Normal Hill, “Foreign Policy is the substance of
nation’s efforts to promote its interest’s vis-a-vis other nations.” And Dr. Mohinder Kumar
defines “Foreign Policy is a thought out course of action for achieving objectives in foreign
relations as dictated by the ideology of national interest.”
Components of Foreign policy

According to Lerche and Said, normally foreign policy includes three elements. They are
formulation of the objective in the most precise terms possible, the nature of the action to be
undertaken stated with sufficient clarity to guide and direct the state’s other officials, and the
forms and perhaps the amounts of national power to be applied in pursuit of the objective.

Mahendra kumar describes four components as policy makers, interest and objectives, principles
of foreign policy, and means of foreign policy. According to Jangam, foreign policy is the policy
of a nation towards other nations and generally it involves four factors such as principles
underlying foreign policy, problems faced by the nation, the particular way of making policy
including the role of foreign policy makers, and the products or results of foreign policy.

CHAPTER II

Determinants

There are common determinants that can be applied to any state to assess its foreign policy.
These determinants are of two types: internal and external.

Internal Factors

1. Size - Territorial size of a state influences its foreign policy in a sense that bigger the size
greater role the state can play in international politics. India’s ambitions to achieve great power
status in world politics can be attributed to its size, which is 7th largest sovereign state in the
world. Similarly, one of the major factors of importance of United States, Russia and China is
their gigantic size. On the other hand, smaller countries generally do not get opportunities to
perform larger than life roles in international arena. Smaller island countries in the Asia-Pacific
region and in Africa continent do not play significant roles in world politics. Big size makes the
geographical location of a state crucial in international sphere. India is geo-politically important
in world politics because its vast size places it at the inter-junction of South-East Asia, Central
Asia, West Asia, South Asian countries and China. India’s huge population, if seen in terms of
human resources, also provides strength to its foreign policy. No important country in the world
can ignore such a vast size of people, and on the other hand, India needs cooperation from other
states to fulfill growing needs of its population. Thus, territorial size, geographical location and
population play important role in determining a state’s foreign policy. However, there are
examples of smaller countries acquiring importance in international domain, either due to its
substantial population, or geographical location, or superior economy. A case of Bangla Desh fits
in the first scenario, while a land-locked country like Nepal becomes important due to its
location between two emerging powers, i.e. India and China. Japan and South Korea have gained
much superior status in world politics, in comparison to other countries of their size, due to their
rich economic structures. Their substantial population within a small territory and geographical
location in the Pacific Ocean adjacent to Russia and China are also the factors in their emergence
at world stage. In the recent past, a small-size Britain dominated world politics for about two
centuries due to its advance maritime, industrial and management skills. In today’s world,
comparatively smaller countries in the West Asian region have acquired importance due to rich
oil and gas resources. On the other hand, big size countries like Australia and Canada are not
significant actors in international politics because of their isolated location and smaller
population.

2. Geography - A state’s climate, fertility of soil, access to waterways, deposits of mineral

resources, diversity of crops, availability of drinking water etc. affect and influence its foreign
policy. Sufficiency of these factors makes the state self sufficient, and thus, it can assert in
relations with other states. It is observed that land locked countries, countries in the tropic region
and those bordering superpowers are more dependent on other states than the countries with
access to warm ports, in the temperate region and at a considerable distance from superpowers.
After independence, India could not be compelled to join either of superpower blocks and it
could formulate its own policy of non-alignment because it had more than one ways of doing
trade with other countries, it was confident of developing capacities to utilize natural resources
and development of agriculture, and it was at a geographical distance from the then superpowers,
i.e. U.S. and U.S.S.R.

3. History and Culture - Historical experiences and cultural traditions of a state use influence on
its foreign policy. Generally, state with unified culture and common history finds it easier to
formulate effective and consistent foreign policy. In such a case, great majority of people, who
share similar experiences and common perceptions of historical events, support the state’s
foreign policy. On the other hand, country with different cultures and various historical
experiences in its different parts, finds it difficult to formulate foreign policy in union. Without a
common anti colonial legacy and deep-rooted culture of peace and cooperation in Indian society,
was not possible for the government to formulate country’s foreign policy in post independence
era. Yet, Indian government has been increasingly facing dilemma in its foreign policy on such
issues as nuclearisation, strengthening relations with Israel, engaging Pakistan, atrocities on
Tamils in Sri Lanka etc. It is, indeed, an enormous challenge before the policymakers in India to
generate unanimity in the country on its foreign policy given the hugeness, diversity, different
regions geographical proximity with neighboring countries and lineages across the borders.

4. Economic Development - Level of economic development influences state’s foreign policy in

more than one ways. Advanced industrialist countries play dominant role in world politics, and
formulate their foreign policies to maintain such superiority. These countries have large
resources at their disposal to build military capabilities on one hand, and disperse monetary
benefits on other states in the form of aid and loan. They remain in constant search of new
markets for their products, access to raw and natural resources as well as skilled and unskilled
labour. It makes pertinent on them to develop close diplomatic ties with other states and
encourage people to people contacts among them. Developing countries, too, follow their suit to
receive benefits of trade and technological breakthroughs. However, developing countries remain
dependent on advanced industrialist countries to a large extent to get developmental loans,
import of technologies and even food-grains to meet their ends. Accordingly, it has to adjust its
foreign policy. Similarly poor or least developed countries orient their foreign policy to garner
maximum support from rich nations, in the form of aid, technology, provisions of health-care
and access to higher education etc. In recent years, we have witnessed that Germany is playing
leading role in Europe’s politics, despite not being permanent member of U.N.S.C. and being a
non-nuclear state. Germany’s increased weightage is entirely attributed to its economic
development. Talks of emergence of China and India on world stage are based on their economic
resurgence in recent years. On the contrary, in post-cold war period, Russia’s influence waned to
a considerable extent as its economic power has diminished after disintegration of U.S.S.R.
5. Technological Progress - Economic development and technological progress are closely inter-
wined with each other. As a result, economically developed countries have technological
advantage too. The advance industrialized countries provide technological equipment and know-
how to developing and poor countries, but can exert such leverage to mould their foreign policy.
Technological breakthroughs in military sphere have further increased developing world’s
dependency on advance countries. Rosenau rightly says, “Technological changes can alter
military and economic capabilities of a society and thus its status and role in the international
system.” However, developing countries can counterbalance advance countries technological
dominance by producing semi-skilled, skilled and trained human resources. Today, Germany,
South Korea and Japan are in a position to play crucial roles in international politics due to their
technological excellence. On the other hand, India and China have gained currency in world
politics because of their capabilities in adapting to new technologies due to their technically
skilled labour force.

6. Military Preparedness - Capabilities of a state to defend its borders against armed aggression
plays important role in its foreign policy. Militarily capable states exercise greater independence
from external forces in formulating their foreign policy. Increased military preparedness of a
country might result in change in its foreign policy. Indian foreign policy has acquired new
dimensions after nuclearisation, as it attempts to gain the status equivalent to P-5 countries. Since
country’s pride is associated with military victories; in the case of defeat, state suffers
international humiliation that negatively affects its foreign policy. India has undergone this
experience after the 1962 boundary war with China, when its prestige declined among third
world countries. India had regained the lost pride and prestige in 1971 when it decisively
defeated Pakistan that resulted into latter’s partition and creation of Bangladesh.

7. National Capacity - National capacity of a state is comprised of its economic development,

technological progress and military capability. It exercises profound influence on state’s foreign
policy. In early 20th century, the United States changed its foreign policy from that of isolation
to engagement, as its national capacity had seen tremendous increments during that period.
Similarly, today, China is exerting its influence in international politics as it has become
confident of its national capacity.
8. Social Structure - Social structure influences, albeit indirectly, foreign policy of any country. It
is true that it is difficult to measure divisions or homogeneity of a particular society, and more
difficult is to judge its impact on foreign policy. However, it is certain that changes in social
structure cause a change in the foreign policy in long term. A state divided on racial or religious
or regional lines struggle to put forward its best possible foreign policy, as it becomes difficult
for it to receive co-operation from all quarters of society. On the other side, a homogenous
society produces more coherent, and even aggressive, foreign policy. In post-World War II era,
nationalism and other ideologies were used to bridge the social differences to strengthen
country’s foreign policy.

9. Ideology of State - A proclaimed ideology of the state comprehensively influences its foreign
policy. In 1930s, Nazi Germany’s emphasis upon superiority of Aryan race played important role
in its foreign policy. Similarly, United States and U.S.S.R.’s stated objectives of promotion of
democratic system and socialist system respectively dominated much of their respective foreign
policies during cold war period. Ideological preferences of the state reflect upon process of
policy formulation as well. State with democratic values of open debate and dissent tend to listen
to the public opinion seriously. Under democratic set up, pressure groups, political parties with
different shades of ideologies and press indulges in public opinion making that deeply influences
foreign policy of a country. In 1970s, the United States government bowed to tremendous
domestic pressure to withdraw from the Vietnam War. It is said that the United States actually
lost that war within its borders than in Vietnam. On the contrary, there was no scope for building
such public opinion in erstwhile U.S.S.R. due to its authoritarian set up, which had emanated
from its ideological understanding of Dictatorship of Proletariat. In authoritarian systems, only
government’s positions on foreign policy issues are allowed to be published in the press.
Electronic media is also monopolized with government propaganda on foreign policy. In
democratic systems, press plays important role in discussing government’s actions and inactions,
and in the process determining its foreign policy. Thus, role of press becomes important in
democratic systems in disseminating information and views on foreign policy of respective
governments.

10. Spread of Internet - Internet, particularly social media websites, circulation of bulk e-mails,
news portals and blogospheres have begun to influence state’s foreign policy. Dissemination of
internet services in any society, even if for commercial or scientific purposes, leads towards its
emergence as a tool of public debate and opinion making. In China, even after governmental
restrictions and vigilance, Internet has become a medium for people to express their opinions.
During diplomatic crisis of bombing of Chinese embassy in erstwhile Yugoslavia and Japanese
premier’s controversial visits to war shrines, public opinion generated on internet sites created
immense pressure on Chinese government to act decisively to defend country’s sovereignty and
honour respectively. In coming days, Internet is bound to play an increasing role in the state’s
foreign policy.

11. Form of Government - Form of government established in a state plays its role in a country’s
foreign policy. Totalitarian or authoritative forms of government, such as governments in
oneparty system or under complete control of military junta, are capable of quick foreign policy
decisions. In such systems, decision-making is restricted to elite core within the government,
making it easier to formulate foreign policy. However, it is observed that decision-making under
closed system has often, if not always, lead to country’s isolation in international politics as
happened with the regimes in North Korea and Myanmar. Dissenting voices are suppressed by
oppressive methods like detention, censorship and promulgation of strict regulations. On the
other hand, within democratic systems, different forms of government act differently in
formulating the foreign policy. In West-ministerial system, executives lead the decisionmaking
process of foreign policy formulation. The legislature does debate government’s foreign policy
in parliamentary system, however, it is not necessary for the latter to ask for legislative consent
for foreign treaties and agreements. Thus, governments in parliamentary system enjoy
considerable autonomy of decision-making in foreign policy matters. Under the U.S. style
presidential system, Congress’ nod is essential for execution of any treaty or agreement with
other states and foreign entities. The Congress can even initiate and pass legislations on foreign
policy matters that are binding on the President of the United States for execution. In a bi-party
polity, generally, the government of the day enjoys clear majority on its own, which makes it less
susceptible to opposition or allies’ pressure in its foreign policy. In a multi-party polity, coalition
governments have to sort out conflicting view points and interests of two or more ruling parties.
This may lead to avoidance or postponement of the decision on foreign policy.
12. Leadership - Leadership plays influential role in the country’s foreign policy. Rosenau says,
“A leader’s belief about the nature of international arena and the goals that ought to be pursued
therein, his or her peculiar intellectual strengths and weakness for analyzing information and
making decisions, his or her past background and the extent of its relevance to the requirements
of the role, his or her emotional needs and most of other personality traits these are but a few of
the idiosyncratic factors that can influence the planning and execution of foreign policy.” (James
N Rosenau in Rosenau, Thompson and Boyd, (Eds), World Politics: An Introduction, p.28) Even
though, government structure and societal realities constrain the qualities of a leader, during
crisis time the leader shows the path to the government and society. Winston Churchil’s astute
leadership had steered the England to victory in second World war, while Indira Gandhi’s apt
decision-making in 1971 helped India not only to defeat Pakistan militarily but also to counter
diplomatic pressures applied by the United States and China on the latter’s behest. In recent
years, AtalBihari Vajpayee’s leadership played crucial role in breaking the self-imposed freeze
on country’s nuclearization.

CHAPTER III

External Factors

1. World Situation - A prevalent framework of world politics plays decisive role in deciding the
foreign policy of a country. When India became independent, world was divided into two hostile
camp, which was much beyond India’s capacity to change. In the bi-polar world dominated by
military alliances, India sought its interest in maintaining distance from military alliances but
forging ties with individual countries from both the blocks. In the subsequent years, as Pakistan
moved closer to the western block and China became hostile to India, New Delhi forged closer
comprehensive ties with the USSR. After the demise of USSR, India began to re-set its relations
with the US as it remained as the only super power in world politics.

2. Military Strength of Adversaries - India had opted for peaceful world order and friendly
relations with its neighbours at the outset of independence. However, disputes with Pakistan over
Kashmir and conflict with China on border issues forced wars on India. Consequently, India had
to adjust its foreign policy goals and embarked upon increasing military strength commensurate
with the strength of its adversaries. This has resulted in India buying weapons and military
technologies from various countries, and accordingly strengthening bilateral relations with those
countries. Thus, formulation of foreign policy is a result of complex internal and external factors.
These are combined with country’s long term aspirations as well as its leaders’ ambitions to play
a role on world stage that give final shape to country’s foreign policy.

Foreign policies of Great Britain, France and other states

The soviet union and the Unites states are the two super power states of the world today.
Great Britain is perhaps the next most influential state, with worldwide interests and
commitments. Britain, is however declining in relative importance and is reducing her
international commitments. France has declined greatly in power and prestige, but she still plays
a major role in Western Europe, in the NATO alliance, The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
in Africa, and in world affairs generally. The military power of Germany and Japan, not long ago
the most powerful states of Europe and Asia, is no longer formidable, but both Germany and
Japan have experienced a remarkable economic resurgence in recent years and they have re
emerged as major powers. India’s potential is far greater than her power in being. The same is tru
of communist China, even though the Chinese communist army is probably the largest in
existence today and China is developing a nuclear and thermonuclear capability. Nevertheless,
India and China, by far most populous nations in the world, are playing important roles in world
affairs. In recent years, especially since the humiliating reverses at the hands of China in October
to November, 1962 and the death of Jawaharlal Nehru in May, 1964 India’s influence has waned,
and she has been reducing her international activities, but she is still the giant of non-communist
Asia and of the entire underdeveloped world outside of the Communist orbit. Communist China
has become a particularly disturbing force, because of her militant actions and policies at home
and abroad. For special reasons, the republic of Korea Turkey, the republic of China on Taiwan,
and south Vietnam have formidable military and establishments, far out of proportion to their
economic capabilities, but none of these countries could be regarded as a major power.

The United States remain uncertain of their capacity to convince the European Union to
participate actively in NATO, and the will of the United Kingdom to pursue the military alliance
that they have been building together since 1941 for the purpose of dominating the world.
Because despite the allegations of the European leaders, the Brexit does not isolate the United
Kingdom, but enables it to turn to the Commonwealth and to create links with China and Russia.

Press-ganging the Europeans into NATO

The United States and the United Kingdom had planned to push the members of the
Union to announce the increase of their military budget to 2% of their GDP during the Alliance
summit in Warsaw (8 and 9 July). Besides this, there were plans for the adoption of a strategy for
deploying forces at the Russian border, including the creation of a joint NATO–EU logistical
unit which would enable the collective use of helicopters, ships, drones and satellites.

Until now, the United Kingdom was the most important contributor of the Union in matters of
Defence, providing close to 15% of the EU defence budget. Apart from this, it was in charge of
Operation Atalanta for the protection of maritime transports off the coast of the Horn of Africa,
and had made its ships available in the Mediterranean. And finally, it was planned that the UK
would furnish troops for the constitution of EU combat groups. With the Brexit, all these
engagements are now null and void.

For Washington, the question is now whether London will or will not accept to increase its direct
investment in NATO, of which it is already the second most important contributor, to
compensate for the part it played in the EU - but without gaining any particular advantage by
doing so. Although Michael Fallon, the current British Minister of Defence, has promised not to
weaken the common efforts of NATO and the EU, no-one can see why London would agree to
place new troops under foreign command. And Washington questions the will of London to
pursue the military alliance that it has been building with the Crown since 1941. Of course, we
should not rule out the possibility that the Brexit may be a British trick enabling them to
renegotiate their «special relation» with «the Americans» to their advantage. However, it is much
more probable that London hopes to extend its relations to Beijing and Moscow without
necessarily forgoing the advantages of its entente with Washington.1

1
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/new-british-foreign-policy
CHAPTER IV

Other factors

Some of the models that have been put forward are; the power balance model, status quo
or revisionist model, the great individual model and the interdependence explanation.

The Power Balance

The views foreign policy as essentially shaped by one’s relative power within the
International System. It states as huge actors who simply react to shifts in the regional or global
power balance. Domestic or national politics play no significant role in shaping foreign policy.

A state is democratic, authoritarian, communist or capitalist, its internal organization and

ideology are unimportant in explaining why states do the things they do. The most important
factor here is power. States constantly and continuously try to increase their power and influence
and offset the rising power of other states in the international system they operate in. The
behavior of policies or states thus changes with shifts in the international power balance.

People who make foreign policy decisions are assumed and the word here is assumed, to be
rational because in real world they are not. There are also assumed to have access to enough
information to make rational decisions and then choose that option which best advances the
states national interests within the prevailing power balance at that particular time or period. As
foreign policy decision makers do constantly attempt to rationally make decisions, they can
rarely do so because real policy making is not a rational process.

This is partly because states are not unitary actors in that it is composed of different human
individuals and institutions which are incapable of flawlessly gathering and processing
information needed for every decision and then rationally make and implement the best decision
for a given situation.

In real life, policy makers and institutions concerned are forced to make dozens of important and
routine decisions daily and its not so common that they have the time, information or ability to
rationally evaluate the options. The realist explanation does not explain why states do not always
or even usually follow the dictates of power politics as much as it offers a strategy for
governments. An example is given that Great Britain and France ought to have intervened
against Hitler in 1936 when German troops marched into the demilitarized Rhineland rather than
waiting until Poland was attached in 1939.

The Great Individual Model

Leaders make decisions and their decisions reflex a complex mix of their personality,
intelligence, knowledge, view of history, fears and ambitions and because all individuals are
different, their decisions on same topical issues will be different.

For example, the positions held by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Winston
Churchill to Hitler’s rise. During the Czechoslovakia crisis of 1938, while Churchill was
advocating for a strong British response, Chamberlain remarked,” How horrible, fantastic,
incredible it is that it should be digging trenches and trying gas-masks here because of a quarrel
in a far away country between people of which we know nothing (Winston, 1948) And what
would have been the fate of Germany and the world had Hitler been killed rather than spared in
World War 1.

A leader is only as powerful in international relations as his own state. United States Presidents
have previously and in present times been viewed as powerful as the state itself, so is Russia.
However as in the case of former Libyan Leader the late Muammer Qadhafi who was so
passionate of creating a North African empire and by large also a United States of Africa with
himself as the head, his ambition never came to be because his state lacked the strength, military
power, technology to take over the region.

Status quo or Revisionist Model

This model states either hold a status quo or a revisionist orientation towards the world
or act accordingly. While all states strive to protect their national interests, most are contented
with the international status quo and their place in it. War is caused by a few trouble makers who
try to revise the power balance in their favour. In the case of the world wars, it is the motivated
demanding governments of Japan, Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union that sought to expand
their power. Revolutionary states are naturally aggressive and they seek a revolution without
borders in which their ideology is imposed everywhere. Revolutionary France, the Soviet Union
and Iran all dispatched their agents to former revolution elsewhere.

At the end, the fires of revolutionary dedication burn out and the revisionist states becomes a
status quo state. The French were exhausted by a decade of a revolution and eagerly accepted
Napoleleon’s dictatorship in 1799 although, that did not inhibit the emperor from attempting to
conquer Europe. In Iran, a decade of revolution and foreign war reduced the government and
people’s revolutionary fire. Following the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, the successor president
Rafsanjani attempted to re-establish normal relations with other states.

It is limited in that few states in history have been revisionist in the revolutionary sense of trying
to overthrow and change the entire world order. Almost all states are revisionist in the sense that
they want things from each other territory, open markets, finance and so forth. Governments
believe that their interest in a conflict is worth going to war to protect or enhance the interest and
some of these wars like the world wars led to wide changes in the power relations among states.

The Inter-dependence Model

This element combines elements of International and national perspectives and maintains
that growing interdependence between states and democracy within the state will bind them to
the point where power politics becomes impossible. International relations will increasingly be
shaped by shared interests and negotiations rather than force and those foreign policies will be
based on global interest rather than national interests.
CHAPTER V

Conclusion

It is not un-common to hear foreign policy makers having different opinions and
perceptions on policy objectives as well as of the realities of the environment. Policy makers are
cognizant of any possible outcomes in the policies arrived at in whichever environment.
Considering this, efforts are made to narrow any gaps by ensuring that they have as much
information as possible by relying on one source of information

It is also with no doubt that each of the models is offensive and inconsistent to a certain degree.
There is no hard and fast rule model or explanation that explains the type of level of analysis that
one adopts in analyzing the foreign policy formulation of a state, but it all depends on what an
analyst wishes to study.

In every state, each policy is shaped by an often vastly different constellation of internal and
external forces. Further, the theory that guides an analyst into knowing these variations in order
to understand foreign policy also varies. Therefore, there is no level of explanation or model that
is all exhaustive, it augurs well to take knowledge and data from each model and that will
significantly assist in understanding analysis of states foreign policy.