A nation formulates its foreign policy, taking into account its diversenational interestsand objectives In this formulation, general, internal and external determinants also play a role to varying degrees. These were discussed in detail in the previous article. Under the influence of thesefactors, foreign policyit takes different shapes and forms in different countries. This article is aboutTypes of foreign policy.
Types of foreign policy and elections:
In other words, different countries have different approaches and inclinations tointernational relations. Consequently, they make different foreign policy decisions. For example, some States are more active in international relations, while others prefer to remain inert or isolated due to internal problems or other reasons.
Few may choose to follow a neutral path in foreign affairs, while others may prefernot aligned. Many ambitious states may be bent on expansion or empire building, while others may be content with the status quo.
Some aggressive states may adopt a policy of confrontation, while peace-loving states may opt for a policy of peaceful coexistence. Sometimes powerful states choose a universal nationalist policy. Various types or types of foreign policy are the results of these elections. This article examines these options and types.
1. Policy of Imperialism:
Many powerful and ambitious nations tend to dominate and rule over others. For a long time, imperialism was a powerful instrument for pursuing and promoting the national interest. Imperialism has long been used as a foreign policy option by several European powers and, in an unprecedented and indirect way, it remains the option of many powerful nations. Human history reveals that the tendency to dominate others has manifested itself in one form or another at different times. Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Bismarck, Hitler, etc., strove to build an empire and adopted a policy of expansion.
The term imperialism has been used subjectively and arbitrarily. The use of the term is so arbitrary that it does not match its true nature, if the country's policy is imperialist. Still, any kind of foreign policy adopted by its opponents is sometimes called imperialist. Communists called Western powers imperialists; anti-communists gave communists the same name, while non-committal nations labeled both communists and capitalists imperialists.
Different scholars have defined imperialism differently, in their own way. That's why Palmer and Perkins watch. One can discuss, denounce, defend and die for imperialism, but it cannot be defined in a generally accepted way. However, some of its important definitions are as follows:
imperialism is a policy aimed at creating organization and maintaining an empire says, Moritz Julius Bonn. In the words of Charles A. Beard, imperialism is the use of governmental and diplomatic machinery to acquire territories, protectorates and/or spheres of influence generally occupied by other races or peoples and to promote industrial, commercial and investment opportunities.
On the other hand, Parker T Moon notes that imperialism means the domination of non-European native races by different European nations. Morgenthau defined it all together in terms of the expansion of state ownership.I canbeyond its borders. Marxists like Lenin defend imperialism in purely economic terms and consider it the highest stage of capitalism. Imperialism is closely related to colonialism. Both terms refer to a superior-inferior or ruler-subject relationship.
The motives of imperialism are economic gains such as control of free competitive markets, sources of raw materials and capital investment in virgin lands. Another reason is the increase in prestige and national glory through the acquisition of a vast colonial empire. It also serves the purpose of extreme nationalism and national defense.
Colonies were also conquered to settle the surplus population there. The policy of imperialism was also pursued to spread a certain religion, culture or ideology. Advanced Western societies attributed another motive to imperialism, namely, the complement of Asia by the less fortunate and poor yellow man and Africa by the black man. They held that it was the white man's responsibility to bring the good things of his own religion and civilization to the backward peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Various methods were used to successfully implement the policy of imperialism such as military intervention and economic methods of warfare such as exploiting foreign markets to sell finished products and buy raw materials and cheap labor. Means of economic investment and economic assistance are also currently used.
Through cultural methods, imperial states conquer men of mind from other nations and may impose their religion, culture, or political ideology. This method is considered far superior to military victory and economic dominance. Soviet and Chinese Christian and Communist missionaries used this method.
Imperialism in practice:
It was Britain that followed this policy in letter and spirit for a long time. British imperialism had its tentacles across the world that it was generally said that the sun never sets on the British empire. In 1914, the British Empire, although it had suffered many setbacks, was still the largest and richest empire in the world.
France was the second largest empire in Africa and Southeast Asia. Germany under Bismarck between 1884 and 1890 acquired Togoland, Cameroon, South West Africa, German East Africa. The Kaichow lease and extensive economic rights in China's Shantung Peninsula and scattered island groups in the Pacific. Like Germany, Italy was also lagging behind.
Though not very strong, he held three colonies in Attica, Criteria in the Red Sea, Italian lands in Somalia, and Libya in North Africa. Japan began its run as an imperialist in 1894. It annexed Formosa and the Ryuk Islands from China, absorbing Korea in 1910.
He also acquired, after defeating Russia in 1905, Arthur's import for lease in southern Sakhlina and removed Russian influence from Korea and southern Manchuria. Russian imperialism had its own characteristics. It represented the expansion of an aggressive land-hungry population into the contiguous territory. He wanted absorption of the new area, but not a permanent colony.
His sphere of influence was in Persia, Manchuria and Mongolia; Spain, Holland and Portugal also had their colonies in Latin America, Africa and Asia, respectively. It is worth mentioning that while British, French, German and Dutch imperialism declined, Soviet Union imperialism expanded after World War II to all of Eastern Europe and parts of Asia.
US imperialism is divided into three parts: continental expansion, overseas expansion and intervention. Its continental imperialism was short-lived. Most of the acquired territories were bought, followed by political equality. Expansion abroad was done through several processes. Alaska and the Virgin Islands were purchased.
The Hawaiian Islands and the Channel Zone were acquired almost voluntarily. Puerto Rico and the Philippines etc. they were conquered in 1395. The Panama Canal Zone was leased to build a canal for its defense and trade. With the exception of the Philippines, they are all still political subordinates. Its intervention in the Western Hemisphere is considered defensive imperialism. The Monroe Doctrine (1823) and the Truman Doctrine 1946) were examples.
imperialism had its merits and demerits. Those who speak in favor claim it was a blessing, as it proved to be a mutual benefit for both the master countries and the colonies. For example, it promoted political unity, economic development, government training, the spread of general and technical education, the creation of infrastructure, and the promotion of internationalism. His opponents condemn him by highlighting his evils.
For example, it is the symbol of political subjugation, economic exploitation and racial discrimination. It destroyed the native culture and social values of the colonial people; it also provoked wars and international rivalries. In the middle of the 20th century, the policy of imperialism was universally despised and gained notoriety.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the spirit of nationalism took hold in the colonies and the masses militarized against it after World War II; European imperial powers lost control of their colonies due to exhaustion in a five-year war.
Immediately after World War II, decolonization began, resulting in the decline of imperialism. Decolonization, its causes and impacts are discussed in detail in a later chapter. Currently, there is no inclination towards empire building and the policies of imperialism have lost their relevance.
The Politics of Nee-colonialism:
Neocolonialism has now taken the place of imperialism. With the death of the old or classic imperialism, Maccolonialism was born in the second half of the 20th century. It is also known as economic imperialism or dollar imperialism or red imperialism. The era of military or political imperialism and direct control or domination has passed, and in its place has arisen covert or indirect imperialism.
Several powerful and developed countries are now adopting the policy of new colonialism instead of imperialism. Economic imperialism is that form of imperialism in which a country, although free from the direct control of an imperialist country, indirectly dances to its tune.
The United States and the then Soviet Union, by providing economic aid to underdeveloped countries, indirectly exert their influence over them. By providing a dollar that is an economic aid to backward and small countries, the US exerts considerable influence over them, and this is called dollar imperialism. Some of Communist China's expansionist and aggressive policies, particularly along its borders, have been criticized by critics of red imperialism.
Today, most nations in Asia and Africa are sovereign and politically free. On the surface they may be free, but in reality they are victims of the tentacles of the great powers. In fact, smiling independent nations are not independent but dependent. This last type of imperialism is called neocolonialism.
In the words of Palmer and Perkins, neocolonialism is seen as a new and more insidious form of imperialism, widely prevalent and particularly controversial and dangerous. It is the continuation of exploration by other means. The rod lock prevails over satellite systems, economic shackles, sphere of influence, and ideological subversion.
The main objective of neocolonialism is to maintain the flow of imperialist profits from the former colonial territories after the granting of political independence. Its aim is to have economic dominance rather than political and military dominance. Thus, in the words of the late President Nasser, trade and aid, a veil to dominate the resources of nations and deplete them for the benefit of exploiters.
Britain exerted its economic influence over the Arab world using oil diplomacy. In the post-World War II period, US dollar imperialism dominated Western Europe and Asia, and the newly independent nations of Africa. Latin American nations are all sovereign states, but their economic life is so completely dependent on the United States that they cannot dare adopt an independent policy. Eastern European states remained under Soviet control for many years.
3. Balance of Power Policy:
The balance of power was discussed at length in a previous article.. There it was mentioned that nations use balance of power as policy. As a policy, it aims to create or preserve balance or imbalance as the case may be; it is a policy of maintaining or producing a condition.
This policy is based on the assumption that unbalanced power is dangerous. Therefore, it is argued that in a multistage system, the only policy that can control the quarrelsome behavior of other states is to confront power with countervailing power. When Winston Churchill writes of the balance of power as the wonderful unconscious tradition of British foreign policy, it is evident that he has a balance of power as a policy in mind.
Kenneth Thompson and Hans Morgenthau also see the balance of power as politics. As a policy, the balance of power is a study of the methods and techniques adopted to achieve balance or imbalance. These methods are alliances and counter-alliances, arming and disarmament, compensation and partition, division and rule, intervention, acquisition of territory, and creation of buffer states.
4. Alliance Policy:
As mentioned above, alliance politics is often used to maintain a balance of power within the multi-state system and promote the country's development.national interest; states also resort to alliances simply for convenience. If a state is powerful enough to stand on its own, it will avoid alliances. Likewise, if a state is reluctant to make the commitments resulting from an alliance, or if the likely gains derived from an alliance are less than the commitments involved, the state may avoid the alliance.
The term alliance means a provision of mutual military assistance between two or more sovereign states. Alliances are made to complement national militaries. Usually, the states that have the alliance make a formal commitment to unite with each other to enlighten a common enemy. Sometimes the alliance may not involve actual military assistance and may only involve granting permission to deploy forces in its territory or the right to move forces across territory.
At other times, countries may enter into alliances to promote cooperation in other fields, but, above all, military considerations underlie such cooperation; indeed, these alliances are only successful if the military rationale is intact. Prior to World War I, alliances were generally non-aggressive in nature. Alliances used to have a clause obliging the signatory states not to aggress. If a state party to the alliance provoked a war, the other ally was released from the obligation to help the first.
There are several types of alliances. First, there is a wedding ring that serves as an identical or complementary intercom. The Anglo-American and US-Pakistan alliances are an example designed to promote complementary interests. Second, some alliances are of an ideological nature that establish certain general moral principles, and the signatories of these alliances undertake to observe these alliances. The Treaty of the Holy Alliance of 1815, the Atlantic Charter of 1941, the Arab League concluded in 1945, etc., are examples of this type.
Third, alliances entered into by states having the same power and serving identical interests are mutual alliances. On the other hand, if the main benefits of an alliance go to only one of the parties, while the other has to bear the main burden, the alliance is called unilateral. Fourth, alliances that attempt to protect the total interests of the contracting parties during war and peace are general.
On the other hand, alliances concluded in peacetime are limited in that they concern only a part of the total interests of the parties. Fifth, alliances can be temporary or permanent. Sixth, an alliance is said to be operational if it coordinates the general policies and specific measures of the signatories.
On the other hand, some alliances are concluded by States because they agree on general principles and objectives. But these alliances remain ineffective because members disagree over concrete policies and measures.
Alliances in practice:
The practice of forming alliances has been followed for a long time. References abound in ancient India, ancient China, and ancient Greece to show that different states formed alliances to further their national interests. In the medieval period, allied states often formed alliances to control other states to establish their hegemony.
In the late 19th century and early present, the world was divided into two groups of alliances known as the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente. In the interwar period, France strictly followed the policy of forming alliances for the post-World War II period. Whento cold warwas underway, a series of military alliances took place. The world was divided into two hostile camps led by the USA and the USSR. The United States formed NATO, SEATO CENTO, etc., while the USSR concluded the Warsaw Pact.
Alliance policy has its pros and cons. An alliance is beneficial insofar as it offers the possibility of military assistance in case of need and acts as a deterrent to the enemy country. Increase the prestige of smaller countries by bringing them closer to powerful allies. Alliances contribute to world peace by maintaining a balance of power. They also help in the growth of confederation or some kind of federal unity between sovereign states.
Alliances also have some negative aspects. They can be a further burden on a country's strength. Allied states have an obligation to assist an ally in the face of crimes, although states' resources and interests may require refraining from involvement in this conflict. They were also responsible for the power struggle between nations. Furthermore, all alliances generate tensions between allies because, over time, conflicts develop between them, undermining their solidarity. Both NATO and the Warsaw Pact have witnessed such tensions. Despite these disadvantages, the alliance policy has remained alive and will remain alive in the future.
5. Loyalty Policy:
Loyalty and alliance are two different and distinct foreign policy options. Certain third world countries followed the fidelity policy. By adopting this policy, countries become allies of one of the two superpowers, expecting certain benefits. They feel that their allegiance to the superpowers enhances their sense of national security and allows them to obtain needed outside help for their domestic operations.
the development and promise of children to face enemies at home and abroad. In general, countries following this policy fully support the superpower's philosophy and fully support it regardless of whether they have entered into an alliance with it.
Furthermore, they also look to the superpower for guidance, support and assistance; superpowers also encourage loyalty and provide large funds and other facilities to win small powers over to their side. Undoubtedly, states that follow this policy lose some freedom. Still, they pursue it because they get material and political benefits from a superpower.
Most of the time, the State that owes loyalty to the governing power follows the dictates of the latter, as the refusal to do so would imply the denial of certain benefits and would cause inconvenience. Typically, weaker states give preference to their mentors' wishes without regard for their sovereign rights.
In summary, the loyalty policy has the following characteristics:
- The states involved in this arrangement are of unequal strength.
- Although there is formal equality between states, in reality the powerful partner dominates. The degree of freedom left to the weaker state is not conclusive to strong leadership, and in its own interest it may be asked to defer to the stronger power.
- Loyalty to a great power automatically implies recognition, by all involved, of the fact that the small power has the capacity to compromise its ally and that the latter presumably cannot afford the losses that the defeat of its partners entails.
6. No Escalation Policy:
The excess of alliances and loyalties on the part of several countries and its disastrous consequences forced the newly independent States to opt for a policy of non-alignment. Non-alignment is one such phenomenon that has emerged on the international sceneafter the second world warwhen the world was divided into two hostile power blocs.
Cold War contradictions created the situation. It became essential for newly independent states to declare their determination to avoid military alliances dominated by the two superpowers. These newly independent states refused to join existing military alliances, despite their great loyalty and economic and military weakness.
These nations were interested in playing an active role in shaping their own future and in influencing world affairs in general. These nations felt that the only way to achieve their goal was to adopt a policy of non-alignment.
The policy of non-alignment means staying out of a state's alliance. It implies freedom from compromise with any power bloc. It emphasizes independence of choice and action in external affairs. The policy of not aligning with any bloc, but at the same time being friendly to all, could exert a moderating influence on international relations calledmisalignment.
Non-alignment in practice:
Initially, some countries, such as India, Indonesia, Egypt and Yugoslavia, sought non-alignment in the late 1950s. After some time, more and more new independent states in Asia, Africa and Latin America followed suit. In 1961, when the first Conference of non-aligned countries took place, about 25 nations followed this policy; at the New Delhi summit in 1983, their number rose to 99. Now over 100 states are following this policy; Of all other types of foreign policy, this policy is the only one followed by many countries.
Non-alignment is a positive and active policy. In addition to seeking to protect the freedom of newly independent states, it allows them to work to promote international peace by building bridges of understanding between hostile power blocs. It exerts a sober influence in the sphere of international relations to reduce tensions. It also allows them to mobilize economic resources for their development and to work for international peace without inhibition.
On the other hand, the non-alignment policy has been the target of much criticism. It was observed that in contemporary times there is no possibility of misalignment, nor does it exist in the real sense of the term. With the end of bipolarism, the cold war and military alliances, it has no relevance. However, the assumptions of this policy still believe in its relevance in more than one respect.
The isolation policy means little participation in world affairs. Implies a low level of involvement in poms. Military, diplomatic and commercial transactions with other States. This policy does not mean that the persecuting State does not maintain commercial or diplomatic relations with other States. The State may maintain commercial or diplomatic relations as long as they do not generate unpleasant military consequences or military threats from abroad. Assumptions.
Isolation policy is based on the assumption that security and independence can be achieved by cutting most transactions with other states and maintaining diplomatic and commercial contacts with other states, managing all perceived or potential threats, creating deterrent measures in the home front. Such a policy is viable only in a system with a fairly dispersed power structure, where there are no military, economic, or ideological threats, and where other states regularly change allegiances. States that follow this policy are generally self-sufficient in their economic and social needs. The activities of other states do not disturb the internal developments of the isolated state.
States may follow this policy due to geographic factors to deal with the actual or potential threat by withdrawing behind borders and building defenses to make the state immune to military attack or cultural infiltration. High mountains, wide seas, and deserts can protect political units, as long as other states have no means of circumventing Practical Isolation.
A state may deliberately choose an isolation policy in the face of a perceived threat. For example, Japan adopted this policy after coming into contact with Europeans. The Japanese emperor sealed off the Japanese islands to prevent their conquest by Europeans or to prevent their culture from infiltrating Japan.
However, after the middle of the 19th century, he abandoned this policy and began active commercial and military relations with Great Britain there. This resulted in the declaration of the Truman Doctrine, and the US helped Greece and Turkey to control communist expansion.
The United States also initiated a comprehensive European Recovery Program in the name of the Marshall Plan to contain communism and growing Soviet influence in Europe. It also provided economic and technical assistance to Afro-Asian nations under the Ponto Quatro Program. He sponsored or concluded several military alliances to deal with the communist threat in different regions.
These alliances were: Organization of American States (OAS), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) and ANZUS. The United States also militarily resisted the Communist invasions of Korea, Berlin, and Vietnam.
In Latin America, the United States did not follow the isolationist policy; instead, he tried to act like a hemispheric cop. He has always tried to bring Latin American countries under his control for political, economic and military reasons. He intervened in Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, etc., to contain communism and protect democratic governments.
Using the blockade, he pressured the Soviet Union to withdraw its missiles from Cuba. In the Far East, the US has failed to control the rise of Communist China. However, he tried to build Taiwan as an independent state and kept China out of the United Nations for a long time. He also provided all possible military assistance to South Korea and was finally able to repel the North Korean forces. After World War II, the United States showed a deep interest in the Middle East.
He provided great financial assistance to countries in this region to ensure stability in this part of the world. During the 1956 Suez Crisis, he supported the Arab demand and called for the withdrawal of Anglo-French forces from Egypt.
Despite its close relations with Israel, the United States has also maintained good relations with countries in the Middle East. He played a leading role in bringing about a negotiated settlement between Egypt and Israel through the Camp David Agreement.
Its military intervention forced Iraq to abandon its illegal occupation of Kuwait. After the Gulf War (1991), the United States emerged as the preponderant power in the world and perhaps paved the way for a unipolar world. The balance between the two superpowers is tipped considerably in favor of the US, and the Soviet Union's TAMs as a superpower have suffered a setback.
During the Gulf War, the Soviet Union was gripped by a severe internal crisis, in addition to severe economic difficulties, the danger of secession became alarming, and finally, in December 1991, it disintegrated. Buoyed by the victory, George Bush reiterated his pledge made in September 1990 to build a new world order based on US-Russian cooperation and allow the UN to play a significant role. President Bush's idea of the new world order is also based on collective security, the rule of law, gun control, freedom and justice.
Bush wants his countrymen to make the most of this opportunity, offered by the Gulf War, to advance on their proclaimed path. Without a doubt, Americans have a rare opportunity to improve the world. But they will do like LK. Baral. Is it a quest for a new world order or just an extension of Par-Americana? The United States is tempted to use its newfound strength to further its interests. He strives to combine the role of a messiah with that of a world policeman.
Thus, the United States occupied a dominant position and a status of power in the international sphere due to its military, political, economic and technological position.
The era of For Britannica ended after World War II, Par Sovietica died in the late 1980s, but Pax Americana lives on with more vigor and vitality.
soviet pair.Although the days of the Fax Sovietica were also over, it remained in Soviet history for a long time. Fax Sovietica refers to the expansionist choice of Soviet foreign policy. Through it, the Soviet Union spread its ideology and influence to other countries in the world. This expansionist tendency has always been present in Russia. Even during the tsarist era, the theses of peaceful coexistence as a fundamental principle of Soviet foreign policy were already reaffirmed.
Characteristics The following are characteristics of the post-Stalin Soviet policy of peaceful coexistence.
- During the Stalin era, the Soviet Union considered all non-communist states to be its enemies. Khrushchev repudiated this principle and argued that all non-communist states are not enemies of the Soviet Union.
- Emphasis was placed on the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means and methods.
- Under this policy, the Soviet Union decided to provide aid and economic assistance to non-communist underdeveloped countries.
- The diplomacy of foreign visits was also accepted. It was considered necessary to relax the Iron Curtain policy in order to establish good and cordial relations with non-communist states.
- Western powers must be condemned as imperialists and colonialists, but the policy of open conflict and struggle with Western nations must be abandoned.
- In accordance with this policy, the Soviet Union divided non-communist countries into three categories: first, the United States; second, US allies and sympathizers; and third, uncommitted states, eg India, Indonesia, Burma, Yugoslavia, etc.
Peaceful coexistence in practice:
Relations between the USSR and India, the USSR and Finland, and between the USSR and various other non-communist and capitalist states provided an example of peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems. This was repeatedly emphasized in joint documents signed by the USSR and these states in the post-Stalin era.
Khrushchev and his successors carried out this policy in the following ways. The Soviet Union agreed to a truce in Korea in 1953 and in India-China in 1954. It also signed a treaty with Austria and granted it certain concessions in 1955.
In June of the same year, the Soviet Union agreed to a summit meeting with Great Britain, France and the United States to consider crucial issues between the Soviet Union and the West. The 1955 annual summit took place, paving the way for further fruitful negotiations on several fronts.
After the Potsdam Conference, it was the first meeting of the Big Four during the Cold War days. The Soviet Union relinquished its territorial claims near the Black Sea to Turkey in June 1955. In the same year, it called off a stalemate that had developed at the UN over the question of the election of Dag Hammarskjold as Secretary General.
With the policy of peaceful coexistence in mind, he accepted Hammarskjöld as UN Secretary General. The Soviet Union also abandoned the policy of opposing the entry of new members to the UN. Thus, in December 1955, eighteen new states became members of the UN. In 1956, the Cominform was dissolved.
In 1963, he signed three major agreements with the United States to establish a direct line between Washington and Moscow, cooperate with the United States on certain programs in outer space, and sign the nuclear test ban treaty. During the Cold War and the intense arms race, this treaty served as a significant milestone for disarmament.
The Soviet Union mediated to end the Indo-Pak War in 1965-66. The year 1968 saw the signing by the nuclear powers - the USSR, the USA, Great Britain - and many other non-nuclear countries of a major nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). In its effort to minimize arms race stress, the Soviet Union, along with the US, signed SALT-I and SALT-II agreements during the 1970s.
It was due to the success of the peaceful coexistence policy that culminated in the détente process throughout the 1970s. specific interests of the superpowers directly involved, but for the entire human race.
After Khrushchev, Kosygin and Brezhnev picked up the threads of peaceful coexistence. When Gorbachev arrived on the scene, he was not satisfied with mere peaceful coexistence; went a step further by making positive and constructive cooperation the goal between countries that follow different sociological economic systems.
In the 1970s, the term Peaceful Coexistence was used with increasing frequency in United Nations documents and regional and bilateral international documents. This principle was recorded in the Declaration on the Principles ofinternational law(1970) Charter of the Economic Rights and Duties of States adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1974 and the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1975.
It cannot be denied that the USSR initiated the policy of peaceful coexistence. But it was crowned with success due to the positive response from the USA. Palmer and Perkins criticize Throughout the Khrushchev era, the reality of the thaw and the new look was often belied by other Soviet actions, which seemed quite incompatible with professions of belief in peaceful coexistence and the reduction of international tensions.
They continued to be each other's political and ideological opponents until 1989-1990. There were several times when tensions arose between them, for example, during the 1956 Suez Crisis and the Hungarian question, the 1960 U-2 crisis, the 1962 Cuban episode, the 1965-68 Vietnam War, the West Asia crisis of 1967, etc. . .
The Soviet intervention in Afghanistan during 1979-1985 caused a setback in détente and ushered in an era of the New Cold War. Even so, it can be said that during these crises, the two great powers tried to avoid major wars and resolved these issues with a high degree of self-control and tolerance.
9. Neutrality Policy:
When two states or a group of states are actively involved in a war, other states may adopt a policy of neutrality. Neutrality is the condition of those States which, in time of war, do not participate in combat, but maintain peaceful relations with smaller and smaller States. Going to war, belligerents change their relations with each other. Even so, the powers that opt for neutrality do not change their relations with any of the belligerents and remain friends with both parties.
Neutrality is a condition that exists only when there is war; thus, the policy of neutrality expresses an attitude of impartiality adopted by third states in relation to the belligerents and recognized by the belligerents such rights and duties of attitude between the impartial states and the belligerents. The attitude of impartiality does not mean passive impartiality or inactivity. Still, it grants rights to a neutral state to protect its borders or defend itself when its rights are violated.
Neutrality does not require breaking relations with any of the belligerents. On the other hand, it grants a neutral state certain rights vis-à-vis the belligerents and obliges it to observe certain duties laid down by customary law or international convention.
Neutrality can be perfect or imperfect. Every sovereign state has the right to observe perfect or absolute neutrality. As for the wars in which other States can participate, an imperfect Neutrality is noted. Although neutral, it is obliged to provide, directly or indirectly, some assistance to one of the belligerents as a result of a treaty concluded before the war. It is also known as qualified neutrality. Another form of neutrality is perpetual or permanent neutrality, the example of which is Switzerland.
A state can be neutralized voluntarily or by force of circumstances. Switzerland's neutrality is by choice, but powers outside the country enforce Laos's because of the Geneva Accords. Other types of neutrality are general and partial neutrality, voluntary and conventional armed neutrality in a state of permanent mobilization, and benevolent neutrality, which implies that the list, while professing neutrality, indirectly has a partial attitude. The two countries that have long practiced neutrality are Switzerland and Austria.
10. The Status Quo Policy:
The classification of foreign policy provided by Lerche and Said is not very elaborate. It only includes two significantly applicable types and covers a wide range of cases.
These two categories are:
- The status quo politics and
- The policy of revisionism is explained as follows:
From the point of view of purpose that emphasizes satisfaction and conservation, the policy of choosing the status quo emerges. States that prefer this foreign policy option develop policies with several common distinctive features. The status that a State seeks to preserve is its own status in relation to the rest of the international system.
It does not necessarily mean enthusiasm for the details of the existing state of affairs, but rather a judgment that the general standard of satisfaction of value extracted by the State from the international system is the most favorable it can hope for with any reasonable effort.
Thus, a status quo policy by no means condemns the state to rigidly defending every detail of an established order; indeed, an enlightened status quo position - particularly when in the hands of a great power - leaves ample room for broad conjunctural change and the effort of state initiatives in question. What is beyond major modification is the state's relationship to the system as a whole.
Status quo policies are defensive in nature; however, they can often turn into tactical offensives for quite some time. The main terms used in this policy are defense, preservation and neutralization, rather than attack, exchange and advantage. Status quo politics serves to stabilize relationships rather than disrupt them. They accept the constraints of international morality, international law, international organizations, etc.
On the external limits of State action. This policy accepts conflict as a condition of existence, but never initiates it. States that follow this policy also never start major wars.
Whether adopted by a large or small state, status quo politics aims to develop the international system into a permanent set of relationships that embodies the relatively advantageous status that the list currently enjoys. Consequently, status quo policies are characterized by constraint in design, caution in execution, and acceptance of only a comparatively small risk burden.
From an operational point of view, its strength lies in its ability to anticipate situational changes and develop quick and effective responses to them. When status quo politics prevail in the international system, the general atmosphere is relatively calm and the change of relaxation is slow, evolutionary and limited in scope.
11. The politics of revisionism:
The other type of foreign policy that comes from the decay of current states and state creation is called revisionism. This policy is totally contrary to status quo policy.
Revisionism strives to favorably modify the international state over the null state in the system. It does not require Willy to assume that all international relationships are fluid and subject to change, but only those deemed significant.
This policy is strategically offensive; it requires a major environmental change in favor of the couple and is aimed at discovering or creating and taking full advantage of opportunities for effective action. Relations would not stabilize until the state gets what it demands. Revisionist states are not interested in any institutional arrangements that restrict their carefully guarded freedom of action in international politics.
States that follow this policy accept conflict as a means to achieve their goal. They are not afraid of tension in a dispute, nor are they averse to escalating it. Unlike status quo states, they are not stalemate or draw states. Larche and Said watch.
In a single struggle, it is usually the revisionist state that initiates the conflict and sets its terms in any controversy prior to all-out war; it is usually the revisionist state that decides how long the dispute will continue. Major wars were usually started by states that were revisionist in orientation, at least when the critical decision was made.
So this policy is bold in its design, optimistic about the calculation of cost factors, and willing to take on a comparatively large risk burden. Its strength lies in its ability to generate situational changes or capitalize on them quickly. It brings a high level of tension in international politics and a rapid and extensive pace of change.
12. Nationalist Universalism Policy:
When nationalist principles are projected in universal terms by a country, it is known as a policy of nationalist universalism. While primarily promoting national interests, a foreign policy can emphasize certain universal principles, such as maintaining world peace and justice, advancing individual liberty, and developing general human well-being.
This policy of nationalist universalism is the complete opposite of the policy of isolation. The successful execution of this policy depends on three conditions. First, the state adopting this policy must have overwhelming superiority, especially in the military field. Second, you must believe in an ideology that will give you the drive and self-confidence to carry out your global mission.
Thirdly, you need to be technically sound to be able to conquer a world empire and keep it together. Therefore, it is a politically, militarily, ideologically and technically sound and powerful state. It is not the policy of weak countries. How Great Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union pursued this policy will be discussed in the following paragraphs:
Pax Britannica. Pax means peace or stop fighting. When a powerful country enforces peace on other states, Pax is usually prefixed with the country's reinforcement. For example, Pax Romana, peace imposed on the states of the Roman Empire Pax Britannica, peace and principles applied in the British Empire.
The best days of Far Britannica were between the Congress of Vienna and the First World War (1815-1915). During these years, Britain played an important role in European politics, maintaining the balance of the power system in Europe and imposing its nationalist principles on the colonial states of the vast British Empire. Only twice was Britain's supremacy threatened during this period.
First in 1854-56 during the Crimean War, when the Russians threatened to take Constantinople.
Secondly, in 1870-1871 during the Franco-Prussian War, which led to the expulsion of Germany from France as the main power on the continent.
This, however, did not change the balance of power in the European system.
But there has been a sharp decline in Britain's power and influence in the present century, especially after the First World War. This was due in part to its internal difficulties and in part to competition with other states (USA, Germany, Japan, etc.) that had larger populations and resources.
The rising tide of nationalism in Britain's former colonial possessions also played a major role in the collapse of its empire. Although British power gradually declined after World War I, it only became visible after World War II.
After that, even British statesmen stopped bragging about the Pax Britannica and realized their country's fragile position. It is a different matter that they try to make the most of Britain's influence and prestige in the past, even now. They also made the necessary adjustments to their foreign and domestic policies. Thus ended the era of the Pax Britannica. However, Great Britain still occupies a prominent position among. the world powers.
The term Pax Americana is associated with the dominant role of the United States of America in the post-World War II period. This policy is in stark contrast to the US isolationist policy from its inception until World War I.
But after World War II, the United States realized that it possessed omnipotent and decisive power. It was within its capacity to resolve any international problem. He began to express faith in the principles of nationalist universalism.
In 1964, the US State Department described US goals in world affairs as national security through progress strengthened through association supporting the postwar freedom revolution, the promotion of the concept of an international community under law and peace through perseverance.
While these foreign policy objectives have changed as a result of circumstances, the great United States has tried to adhere to these principles.
While expressing faith in the aforementioned foreign policy principles, the US in the post-World War II period strove to play a dominant role in world affairs. In Europe, he was concerned about Soviet attempts to spread communism in Europe and create its sphere of influence in the United States and other European countries. He began by actively participating in the struggle for power in the Far East.
It was the United States of America that followed this policy for a long time. Although the United States was part of the European system in terms of commercial and cultural contacts, it was not directly involved in the many ideological, national, and dynastic issues that separated the various European powers.
Therefore, before the 20th century, American leaders preferred to stay out of European affairs and alliances. Thus, Americans opted for a policy of isolationism for geographic, political, and economic reasons that would guarantee the country's security and allow them to focus on internal development.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, the isolationist policy of the United States has shown signs of change. During World War I, the US abandoned this policy because of the serious threat to democracy from Germany and extended support and aid to European democracies. Still, he reverted to a policy of isolationism shortly after the war.
The United States Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which committed the United States to membership in the League of Nations and involved the country in indefinite and unpredictable contingencies. In general, it continued with the policy of isolation in the interwar period.
The United States decided to participate in World War II only after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. In the period after World War II, the isolationist policy of the United States underwent a radical change and began to play an active role in the international sphere.
Different countries have adopted this policy due to different reasons. States that adopt this policy are not essentially indifferent to developments in the world around them. They are very aware of international events and potential threats. This policy is mainly followed by relatively economically and militarily independent states, which realize that getting involved would only jeopardize their social, economic and political values.
This is no longer popular nowadays as no major nation follows it. The United States, its traditional practitioner, abandoned it during World War II.
8. Peaceful Coexistence Policy:
The Soviet Union first initiated the policy of peaceful coexistence during Malenkov's tenure, but it became clearer during Khrushchev's period and after Brezhnev Kosygin. Subsequently, many other countries in the world also adopted the principle of peaceful coexistence in their foreign policy.
Origin and Meaning. At the 20th Congress of the Communist Party in February 1956, Stalin and his policies were criticized, and the Leninist principle of inevitable war with capitalist countries was modified. The theory of peaceful coexistence was accepted as the basis of Soviet foreign policy.
After that, the Soviet Union revised its foreign policy. The new image emphasized the Soviet willingness to resolve outstanding issues between East and West diplomatically. Khrushchev advocated the policy of peaceful coexistence between capitalism and communism.
You would like both systems to coexist to demonstrate their superiority. In Khrushchev's opinion, the Soviet Union stood for peace and peaceful coexistence. Your country will never start war if it is not attacked.
Soviet people do not think about war, neither against the United States nor against any other country, against the spirit of Soviet ideology. The USSR wanted to compete in peaceful construction in constructive work.
Palmer and Perkins note:
The Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956 was a significant milestone in the history of Soviet communism. At this congress, Khrushchev and other Soviet spokesmen revealed ideological flexibility and new maneuverability in stark contrast to the rigidity of later Stalinism. They modified communist ideology in such a way that it facilitated cooperation with other countries, communist and non-communist. Likewise, and with the socialist parties of Europe and Asia, they announced that war is not a fatally inevitable rule. Russia moved in the direction where it met the least resistance.
Thus, it expanded its territory to Finland and the Baltic, to Poland, the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea, and Central Asia to Siberia and the Pacific. Russia also wanted to expand into certain areas such as the Balkans, the Turkish Straits, Afghanistan, Tibet and China. However, that couldn't happen because the other powers objected.
In the post-World War II period, the Soviet Union successfully extended its influence in Poland, Yugoslavia, Albania, East Germany, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Mongolia, Manchuria, North Korea, Vietnam, etc. by establishing communist regimes in these states Together with these countries, the Soviet Union formed a communist bloc and became its leader.
The USSR also entered into various treaties and agreements with Eastern European countries and established a Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) with Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Albania. In 1950, Russia concluded an Alliance Treaty of Amity and Mutual Assistance with the Communist Government of China.
The Warsaw Pact, a military alliance between the USSR, Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany, Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia, came into effect under the leader of the Soviet Union in 1955. The United States called all of these activities the Soviet Union. as Red Imperialism.
However, by the mid-1950s certain irritants had developed in the communist bloc. Under Tito's leadership, Yugoslavia broke out of the Soviet satellite system. The split between Russia and the Soviet Union distanced China from the Soviet Union and further weakened the Soviet bloc.
Later, Albania was separated from this field. Despite these losses, the Soviet Union continued to enjoy a dominant position in Eastern Europe. He even made efforts to increase his influence in the third world countries of Asia and Africa.
The Soviet Union also endeavored to create its sphere of influence in the Middle East. He supported the expulsion of the British from Iraq and Egypt and the expulsion of France from North Africa. In addition, the Soviet Union provided military and economic assistance to Egypt, Algeria and other Arab countries. The Soviet Union's failure to provide adequate military assistance to Arab countries during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War (which resulted in Israel's victory) undermined Soviet influence in the region.
After that, his influence gradually waned in this region. From 1979 to 1985, the Soviet Army was stationed in Afghanistan to support its puppet government there. In 1985, Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union, and his Perestroika and new political thinking brought about several changes in Soviet foreign policy.
The Soviet Union withdrew its forces from Afghanistan and freed the eastern European nations from its control. Now there is no communist or soviet bloc in the world. The Soviet Union has disintegrated since 1991, and its successor, the Russian Federation, still cannot afford to stick to the policy of nationalist universalism.
Middle Kingdom Complex:
Although the choice ofmiddle kingdomThe complex or intermediate zone occupied an important place in China's foreign policy, but has now lost its relevance. This concept was developed by Mao Tse-tung after World War II, when there was a civil war in China and the cold war between the two world superpowers.
The United States' conduct convinced Mao that, while it pretended to be neutral, it was actually favoring Chiang Kai Shek. Likewise, the Soviet Union harmed communist interests by looting Manchuria's industrial facilities and advised them to avoid a war because they feared the war would upset the post-war balance between the two power blocs.
Therefore, Mao insisted on the need to keep the revolution alive. He explained the international situation in his own way, saying that the Soviet Union was playing a relatively passive role. Subsequently, there was the possibility of a war between the two superpowers.
He suggested that the third bloc, which includes China and the entire capitalist world outside the United States and its dependencies, could play a more positive and dynamic role in the situation. This was his concept of the middle realm or middle zone complex.
Mao explained that the American conversation about war with the Soviet Union was my phobia created by the first to dominate all the cones between the two great powers.
He argued that the United States' worldwide network of bases could be used against the Soviet Union, but only after it had dominated the rest of the world. In reality, it was the policy of the US imperialists to harm and oppress all colonial and semi-colonial capitalist countries by peaceful means.
Mao believed that military bases and alliances such as NATO, SEATO, CENTO, etc. in fact, they were directed at the very countries they incorporated. He argued that these countries, including China, formed the real battleground for the fight against imperialism.
Therefore, it called the attention of all democratic forces that were in contradiction with the United States to form a united front against it.
In the late 1950s, Mao adopted a two-pronged strategy for implementing his middle realm concept. On the one hand, he tried to improve China's economic and military strength so that it could play an effective role in world affairs. On the other hand, he actively supported the struggles in the middle zone because he was convinced that only here could the global offensive of imperialism be thwarted.
Thus, throughout the 1960s, China projected to Third World countries the image of a revolutionary power that liked to support nationalist movements elsewhere.
After the Siam-Soviet split, Mao further modified his concept of the middle zone in 1964. Mac pointed out that there were two middle zones in the world. Asia, Africa and Latin America constitute the first intermediary zone. Europe, North America and Oceania make up the second.
Mao included Eastern European countries in the second middle zone, as they were part of Soviet hegemony.
The main capitalist countries of the second zone, with the exception of the two superpowers, were also subject to the control, intervention and intimidation of two masters to varying degrees. The contradictions between these countries and the two superpowers happened daily.
Thus, in Mao's concept, the middle zone of the middle zone countries was located between two superpowers on the one hand and the socialist countries on the other.
Mao's concept of China's Middle Kingdom failed to gain popularity among the nations. Instead, third world countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America were drawn into the non-aligned movement. After Mao's death in the mid-1970s, his successors largely abandoned ? Mao's foreign policy. In addition, the international situation has also undergone a radical change.
There is no cold war or bipolarism; instead, a process of détente is taking place between the US and Russia and between the US and China and between Russia and China. Since then, the Soviet bloc has collapsed and the Soviet Union as a world power has disintegrated. In the post-Mao scenario of China and the world, the concept of the Middle Kingdom has little relevance.
What are the 5 types of foreign policy? ›
These types are trade, diplomacy, sanctions, military/defense, intelligence, foreign aid, and global environmental policy.What are the 4 main foreign policies? ›
- Protect the United States and Americans;
- Advance democracy, human rights, and other global interests;
- Promote international understanding of American values and policies; and.
Security, prosperity, and the creation of a better world are the three most prominent goals of American foreign policy. Security, the protection of America's interests and citizens, is a perennial concern, but America has tried to achieve security in different ways throughout its long history.What are the three foreign policy decision making models? ›
There are five main models in foreign policy analysis that will be explored in this article: the rational actor model, the bureaucratic politics model and the organizational process model—all three of which were developed by foreign policy analyst and scholar, Graham Allison, and outlined in his book, The Essence of ...What are the 7 main tools of foreign policy? ›
- Economic Sanctions. ...
- Economic Statecraft: Foreign Assistance. ...
- Trade Policy. ...
- Armed Force. ...
- Deterrence. ...
- Arms Control. ...
- Peacekeeping. ...
- Intelligence: Covert Action.
Foreign policy is the set of decisions and actions that make up the public policy of a government to protect the well-being of its citizens and represent their national interests before other countries and subjects of international law.