POLA PERUBAHAN POLITIK LUAR NEGERI

Tugas utama analis kebijakan luar negeri adalah untuk memberikan penjelasan mengenai cara-cara dengan menyatakan usaha untuk mengubah atau berhasil dalam mengubah perilaku negara lain (Modelski, 1962: 7). Banyak sarjana telah mengusulkan beberapa cara yang digunakan kebijakan asing yang dapat dikembangkan lebih jauh. Modelski (1962) menggambarkan kebijakan luar negeri sebagai suatu sistem kegiatan. Dalam perspektif ini, karena kebijakan luar negeri dipandang sebagai suatu sistem di mana kebijakan luar negeri merupakan keputusan yang dirumuskan dan direncanakan untuk dieksekusi. Melihat dari sudut pandang ini, keputusan pembuat kebijakan amat penting dalam proses perumusan kebijakan luar negeri. Sebagai sistem aktivitas yang berkaitan dengan kegiatan lingkungan internasional, dua elemen lain tertanam dengan kebijakan luar negeri, yaitu kemampuan (kekuatan) negara untuk menerapkan dan konteks di mana kebijakan luar negeri dirumuskan serta diimplementasikan. Selain itu, catatan Modelski menjelaskan bahwa kebijakan dirumuskan di bawah bimbingan prinsip-prinsip tertentu dan harus dibuat dengan tujuan tertentu. Konsep-konsep dasar dalam kebijakan luar negeri, adalah: (1) kebijakan pembuat, (2) tujuan, (3) prinsip-prinsip, (4) kekuasaan untuk melaksanakan, dan (5) konteks di mana kebijakan luar negeri dirumuskan dan diimplementasikan (Modelski, 1962: bagian satu).
Perspektif lain memandang kebijakan luar negeri sebagai hasil dari interaksi kompleks antara negara orientasi, komitmen dan rencana tindakan, dan perilaku terhadap negara-negara lain. Dalam perspektif ini, Rosenau (1976) berpendapat bahwa pada dasarnya kebijakan luar negeri terdiri dari (1) sekelompok orientasi, (2) satu set komitmen dan rencana tindakan, dan (3) suatu bentuk perilaku (Rosenau, 1976: 16). Sekelompok orientasi mengacu pada sikap, persepsi, dan nilai-nilai, yang berasal dari pengalaman sejarah negara dan kondisi strategis yang menandai tempatnya di dunia politik. Berfungsi sebagai pedoman bagi pejabat negara ketika mereka dihadapkan dengan kondisi eksternal yang mengharuskan mereka untuk membuat keputusan dan mengambil tindakan. Dengan kata lain, ini adalah prinsip-prinsip yang mendasari perilaku negara-negara di arena internasional politik. Komitmen dan rencana tindakan adalah terjemahan dari sekelompok orientasi. Ini menggabungkan beberapa strategi, keputusan nyata, dan diamati kebijakan yang diambil ketika negara mendapatkan link ke lingkungan eksternal, dan terdiri dari tujuan spesifik dan berarti melalui apa yang mereka tercapai. Perilaku mengacu pada fase empiris untuk kebijakan pemerintahan yang terdiri kegiatan, yang merupakan terjemahan orientasi umum kebijakan luar negeri. Dilihat dari sudut ini, dengan kata lain, kebijakan luar negeri muncul sebagai perilaku eksternal negara-negara. Berbeda dengan dua perspektif sebelumnya, melihat ketiga kebijakan luar negeri sebagai kombinasi orientasi, peran nasional, tujuan, dan tindakan (Holsti, 1983: 97 -144). Orientasi umum merujuk kepada sikap dan komitmen terhadap lingkungan eksternal, dan itu menggabungkan strategi dasar untuk mencapai tujuan domestik dan eksternal, terutama bertahan dalam menghadapi ancaman. Strategi dan orientasi ini jarang diungkapkan dalam salah satu keputusan, tetapi hasil dari serangkaian keputusan kumulatif negara menyesuaikan objektif, nilai, dan kepentingan dengan kondisi dan karakteristik dari lingkungan domestik dan eksternal. Peran nasional adalah pembuat keputusan ‘definisi dari keputusan umum, komitmen, aturan, dan tindakan yang sesuai dengan negara mereka dan persepsi tentang bagaimana seharusnya negara tampil dalam berbagai masalah geografis dan pengaturan. Tujuannya adalah gambar atau kondisi yang diharapkan untuk mencapai di masa depan dengan memegang pengaruh luar negeri dan dengan mengubah atau mempertahankan perilaku negara lainnya. Tindakan kebijakan yang sebenarnya pemerintah suatu negara lakukan untuk negara-negara lain. Sementara tiga komponen pertama merupakan gambar dalam pikiran kebijakan pembuat, sikap terhadap dunia luar, keputusan, dan aspirasi, keempat komponen (tindakan) adalah diambil untuk mempengaruhi orientasi tertentu, memenuhi peran, atau mencapai dan mempertahankan tujuan. Dari tiga cara pandang yang berbeda-beda kebijakan luar negeri yang disebutkan sebelumnya, dapat dikatakan bahwa setidaknya ada tiga aspek utama dari kebijakan luar negeri, yaitu kebijakan asing, proses produksi menjadi sumber kebijakan, dan tindakan yang diambil untuk menerapkannya. Ada tiga label yang berbeda yang digunakan untuk membedakan tiga aspek utama. Pertama, mereka yang digunakan untuk membedakan sebagai sumber perilaku eksternal, proses yang membuat sumber-sumber ini terpadu ke dalam tindakan, dan tindakan itu sendiri. Kedua, istilah tiga aspek masing-masing sebagai independen, campur tangan, dan variabel dependen kebijakan asing. Lebih suka ketiga nama mereka disebut sebagai input, pengambilan keputusan, dan output dari kebijakan luar negeri. Mengingat bahwa kebijakan luar negeri terdiri dari tiga aspek utama, upaya untuk menganalisis perubahan kebijakan luar negeri, harus fokus pada tiga aspek utama; sumber kebijakan luar negeri, proses yang mengubah produksi menjadi sumber kebijakan, dan tindakan yang diambil untuk menerapkannya. Karena kebijakan luar negeri memiliki tiga aspek utama, teori analisis kebijakan luar negeri dapat diatur ke dalam tiga kategori; sistemik teori, teori-teori sosial, dan negara-sentris teori (Barkdull & Harris, 2002: 63-90). Kategori pertama mengacu pada teori-teori yang sedang berusaha menganalisis dan menjelaskan kebijakan luar negeri dengan menekankan pentingnya dan pengaruh sistem internasional. Kategori kedua menunjuk kebijakan luar negeri sebagai produk dari kombinasi antara politik domestik dan budaya dari suatu negara. Teori-teori ini menekankan pada pentingnya esensi dan faktor-faktor politik domestik di kebijakan luar negeri. Kategori ketiga adalah teori-teori yang mengejar jawaban atas pertanyaan mengenai kebijakan luar negeri dalam struktur negara, dan ini juga memasukkan individu-individu yang mengirim dan melaksanakan kebijakan luar negeri atas nama negara mereka.

Pola dari Perubahan Politik Luar Negeri
“Foreign policy is a goal oriented action taken by authoritative government towards entities outside state’s boundaries.” (Dugis, n.d) Dengan berbagai definisi yang telah dikemukakan demikian, politik luar negeri suatu negara bukanlah sesuatu yang statis dan tetap sepanjang negara itu berdiri. Perubahan dalam politik luar negeri akan selalu kerap terjadi dan pada kenyataannya menjadi cermin dari kualitas pembuat kebijakan itu sendiri dalam hal ini pemerintah.

Secara umum, perubahan politik luar negeri sebagai proses pembuatan keputusan itu dibedakan menjadi perubahan akibat perubahan rezim atau pemerintahan atau perubahan akibat pemerintah yang berkuasa berusaha merubah haluan politik luar negerinya sendiri. (Dugis, n.d) Kedua perubahan ini berdasarkan alasan terjadinya perubahan politik luar negeri itu sendiri, akan tetapi pada kenyataannya dapat pula membawa pada perubahan lain.
Menurut Hermann (1990), dalam perubahan politik luar negeri itu ada empat level perubahan yang dapat dianalisis. Pertama, adjustment change, sebagai level perubahan pertama, perubahan yang terjadi hanya mencakup cara dan tujuan dari politik luar negeri itu sendiri. Sebagai contoh, ketika Indonesia mengalami gagal panen berturut-turut, maka pemerintah akan segera melakukan penyesuaian kebijakan luar negeri dengan melakukan impor beras lebih banyak dari Thailand. Kedua, program changes, perubahan ini mencakup perubahan teknis kebijakan secara lebih jauh akibat perubahan target asal. Perubahan ini dapat juga mencakup perubahan instrumen yang dipakai. Seperti ketika penambahan kuota impor beras dari Thailand masih dirasa kurang, maka pemerintah akan mengambil kebijakan untuk mengimpor alat-alat pertanian atau metode pertanian modern dari luar negeri untuk memacu meningkatan produksi beras. Pada level ketiga, perubahan yang terjadi lebih kepada problem or goal changes. Perubahan ini berpengaruh cukup signifikan dalam pembuatan keputusan, karena masalah utama yang dihadapi kemudian berubah. Hal ini terlihat ketika dalam upaya menanganan krisis beras itu, Indonesia dilanda masalah terorisme, maka pembuatan kebijakan luar negeri yang ada akan berubah dan lebih terfokus pada masalah yang baru muncul itu. Level keempat mencakup international orientation changes, yang dapat mengakibatkan perubahan politik luar negeri suatu negara secara ekstrim. Hal ini terjadi karena perubahan yang ada bukan hanya pada level negara, melainkan juga pada level sistem internasional. Contoh yang dapat dilihat adalah pada masa krisis finansial global, ketika negara-negara Atlantik masih terfokus pada war on terror, hantaman ekonomi membawa perubahan yang signifikan dalam relasi dan peran negara-negara tersebut.
Sedikit berbeda dari pandangan sebelumnya, menurut Holsti (1982) perubahan pada politik luar negeri dapat disebabkan oleh masalah-masalah seperti, tingkat keterlibatan faktor eksternal, kebijakan dalam menghadapi faktor luar itu, arah dari keterlibatan faktor luar, dan komitmen militer dan diplomasi dalam urusan luar negeri. Hal ini membedakan pandang Holsti dengan Hermann dalam melihat perubahan politik luar negeri suatu negara. Jika Hermann memulai dengan melihat faktor domestik suatu negara kemudian baru keluar, maka Holsti lebih mengkaji faktor-faktor eksternal secara langsung.
Dari perpektif masalah eksternal ini, Holsti juga memberikan empat tipologi dari perubahan politik luar negeri suatu negara. Pertama, isolasi, ketika faktor-faktor eksternal tidak dapat sama sekali mempengaruhi kebijakan luar negeri yang dibuat. Di satu sisi hal ini dapat mengurangi kepentingan politik luar negeri suatu negara serta menghindari peran militer dan diplomasi. Kedua, self-reliance, ditandai dengan lebih maju dari tipe isolasi, dengan adanya relasi dengan faktor eksternal. Akan tetapi, peranan militer dan diplomasi masih sedikit. Ketiga, ketergantungan, yaitu suatu entitas negara yang mulai sangat tergantung pada faktor-faktor “luar negeri” sehingga berbagai hubungan dan urusan luar negeri menjadi faktor yang cukup dominan dalam kehidupan politik suatu negara. Non-alignment diversification menjadi tipe terakhir yang menunjukkan besarnya pengaruh dari faktor luar yang secara langsung mengarahkan interaksi yang ada.
Perspektif-perspektif di atas lebih melihat dari faktor-faktor domestik dan eksternal, namun tidak melihat sistem politik yang ada. Menurut Boyd (1987), “the former strongly influences the way in which changes in that system affect foreign policy”, yang menunjukkan bahwa level sistem juga memberikan pengaruh yang lebih. Hal ini juga dikembangkan oleh Goldmann yang melihat ada tiga dimensi yang dapat mempengaruhi perubahan politik luar negeri suatu negara. Pertama, the degree of institutionalization, mengkaji seberapa jauh sistem politik suatu negara menaruh perhatian terhadap masalah luar negeri. Kedua, the degree of support, menunjukan bagaimana faktor politik domestik turut mendukung atau melawan sistem politik yang ada terutama dalam kaitannya dengan masalah luar negeri. Ketiga, the degree of salience points to the significance of issues in the domestic power struggle, atau seberapa jauh pengaruh suatu isu permasalahan terhadap politik domestik. (Goldmann, 1988).
Ketiga hal yang mempengaruhi perubahan arah politik luar negeri itu membawa pada beberapa dinamika politik luar negeri seperti yang dikemukakan oleh Goldmann. Masalah kekuatan politik domestik menjadi pusat perubahan politik luar negeri suatu negara. Contoh yang dapat mewakili ini adalah masalah di Uni Eropa. Ketika Inggris dan Perancis masing-masing ingin berperan sebagai hegemon di kawasan itu, maka yang terjadi adalah masing-masing baik dari level individu maupun kelompok akan berusaha mengubah arah politik luar negerinya untuk semakin mendekatkan pada kepentingan itu.
Masalah kepercayaan dan perilaku aktor dominan juga dapat menunjukan perubahan arah politik luar negeri. Seperti kepercayaan diri negara China setelah berhasil membawa negaranya keluar dari krisis, akan membawa perubahan pada kebijakan luar negeri yang diambil. Transformasi dari sistem politik suatu negara juga dapat membawa berbagai perubahan terutama menyangkut politik luar negeri. Seperti pada sistem politik di Indonesia, yang sempat diperintah oleh setidaknya tiga era besar, Soekarno, Soeharto dan masa reformasi yang juga membawa perubahan pada arah kebijakan luar negeri Indonesia.
Diawali dengan konsep kebijakan luar negeri, Letus menetapkan bahwa itu adalah berorientasi tujuan atau masalah-program berorientasi policymarkers otoritatif diarahkan policymarkers entitas di luar yurisdiksi politik. dengan kata lain, ini adalah program yang dirancang untuk mengatasi beberapa masalah atau mengejar tujuan tertentu yang memerlukan tindakan terhadap entitas asing. mungkin program menentukan kondisi dan kenegaraan.
Dengan definisi ini, kebijakan luar negeri dapat dilihat sebagai subjek untuk lulus setidaknya empat tingkat perubahan:
1. Penyesuaian Perubahan
perubahan terjadi di tingkat usaha dan atau dalam lingkup penerima seperti perbaikan di kelas target. Apa yang dilakukan, bagaimana hal itu dilakukan, dan tujuan yang dilakukan tetap tidak berubah.
2. Perubahan Program
Perubahan yang dibuat dalam metode atau cara dengan mana tujuan atau masalah yang dibahas kontras dengan penyesuaian perubahan, yang cenderung kuantitatif, program perubahan yang kualitatif dan melibatkan instrumen baru kenegaraan. Apa yang dilakukan dan bagaimana hal itu dilakukan perubahan, tujuan sendiri yang harus diganti.
3. Perubahan Orientasi Internasional
Bentuk paling ekstrim dari perubahan kebijakan luar negeri melibatkan para aktor pengalihan seluruh orientasi terhadap urusan dunia. Kurang kontras dengan bentuk-bentuk perubahan yang menyangkut pendekatan aktor satu masalah atau spesifik mengatur aktor-aktor lain, perubahan orientasi melibatkan perubahan mendasar dalam peran para aktor internasional dan kegiatan. tidak satu kebijakan tetapi banyak aremore atau kurang secara bersamaan berubah.
Pada waktu yang berbeda, US mengilustrasikan kebijakan Vietnam menjadi empat tingkat perubahan. Setelah kekalahan Prancis di Indochina, pemisahan Vietnam Utara dan Selatan, dan pemerintah Amerika Serikat mengejar tujuan agar independen Vietnam Selatan dari Vietnam Utara, termasuk penasihat militer dari orang-orang amerika. Sehingga peningkatan bantuan militer selama periode ini akan ditetapkan sebagai penerapan perubahan. Dengan pengenalan pasukan tempur Amerika di tahun 1965, terjadi perubahan program, diikuti dengan penerapan lebih lanjut perubahan sebagai tingkat upaya militer amerika meningkat. Tekad untuk mengembalikan secara bertahap untuk memerangi tentara Vietnam dan menarik pasukan Amerika menandai program kedua perubahan. Tujuan perubahan itu terjadi ketika para pembuat kebijakan Amerika menyimpulkan bahwa kemampuan pasukan Vietnam Selatan melawan pasukan Utara itu dipertanyakan, dan ketika terpilih AS untuk menerima bahwa hasil daripada Amerika memperkenalkan Combat Forces.

dalam esai ini rediction utama kebijakan luar negeri akan didefinisikan sebagai tiga bentuk perubahan yaitu, perubahan berarti, berakhir atau keseluruhan orientasi. empiris yang dapat diandalkan diferensiasi notv selalu mudah. dalam perubahan program, bagaimanapun, orang akan berharap untuk menemukan perubahan dalam konfigurasi instrumen. semua perkembangan ini, ditambah pernyataan kebijakan dan langkah-langkah kebijakan sesuai dengan tujuan atau masalah sebelum perubahan. reorientasi internasional melibatkan perubahan dramatis baik dalam perkataan dan perbuatan di beberapa daerah isu yang berkaitan dengan hubungan aktor dengan entitas eksternal. biasanya, reorientations melibatkan pergeseran sejalan dengan negara lain atau perubahan peran utama dalam sebuah kesejajaran.

setidaknya empat bidang beasiswa, sampai taraf tertentu di berbagai bidang akademik penyelidikan atau disiplin, dapat berpotensi menyebabkan eksplorasi ini. mereka 1.domestic sistem politik, 2.bureaucratic pengambilan keputusan, 3.cybernetics, 4.learning.

Dasar bagi perubahan perspektif kebijakan luar negeri tergantung pada aturan dan rezim yang berkuasa pada saat itu. Jadi para pembuat keputusan tergantung pada kelangsungan dukungan yang mengalir, yaitu berasal dari entitas yang mengabsahkan berkuasanya rezim tersebut, yang bisa berasal dari kelompok kepentingan, asosiasi, pemimpin sektor sosial kunci, militer, kelompok etnis pemilik lahan, kelompok agama yang dominan, partai politik, dan lain – lain.
Perubahan pilihan kebijakan, atau sifat dari kebijakan itu sendiri kiranya memicu perubahan pada sistem kebijakan luar negerinya sendiri. Boyd (1987) menyatakan bahwa perubahan dari sifat kebijakan tersebut pasti terjadi pada negara – negara dunia ketiga :
> sistem komunis,
> demokrasi industrialisasi (post-industrial societies, pluralistic political economies, neocorporatis political economies)

Yang paling sering jadi sorotan adalah dinamika di Amerika, misalnya tentang tekanan – tekanan dari opini publik, kelompok kepentingan, partai koalisi, elit politik, atau pada level yang berbeda, koalisi maupun perpecahan sosial atau ekonomi. (Almond, 1950. Cohen, 1973; Hughes, 1978; Holsti dan Rosenau 1984) (Coba buka lagi mata kuliah interest groupnya amerika serikat & opini publiknya di SPAS).
Goldmann (1988 : 44) setelah membahas tentang tiga negara (AS, Jerman Barat, dan Uni Soviet) menyimpulkan bahwa setidalnya terdapat 3 dimensi yang perubahan kebijakan :
• Bagaimana pemerintah menjalankan kebijakan (derajat institusionalisasi)
• Derajat dukungan, termasuk aktor yang mungkin mendukung kebijakan dalam negeri, memiliki pandangan yang berbeda, atau bersifat oposisi
• Signifikansi isu dalam usaha kekuatan domestic
Politik Luar Negeri mempengaruhi politik luar negeri melalui :
• Isu menjadi bagian yang utama dalam struggle for political power. Biasanya para petinggi politik yang bertarung memperebutkan kekuasaan mereka memakai kebijakan luar negeri sebagai yang membedakan mereka dari rivalnya. Jika mereka berhasil memperoleh kepentingannya, maka rezim yang baru akan berkuasa dan kebijakan luar negeri akan berubah. Misalnya : Di Indonesia, SBY, Mega, dan JK memiliki perbedaan dalam kebijakan luar negeri. Kalau menurut saya pribadi, mungkin saja kebijakan luar negeri suatu negara tidak akan berubah jika, dalam pemilihan, incumbent berhasil kembali menduduki jabatannya namun tidak merubah arah kebijakan luar negerinya, namun meneruskan kembali kebijakan yang telah dilaksanakan sebelumnya.
• Sifat atau kepercayaan dari para pemilih dominan.
• Revolusi atau transformasi pada elemen esensial dimana kebijakan itu ada. Misalnya ada transformasi di bidang ekonomi, kebijakan pun pasti berubah.

Dalam menganalisis perubahan dari kebijakan, harus ditinjau juga dari aspek birokratiknya. Holsti (1982b :211) menyatakan bahya yang paling penting adalah the decisionmaking variables of personality and perseption. Variabel decisionmaking menjadi sumber utama perubahan, termasuk pada perubahan stuktur oragnisasi dan perubahan sifat dari personality pemimpin. Dengan adanya perubahan struktur pasti terjadi resistensi, misalnya pada prosesnya, administratifnya, dan lain – lain. Hal tersebut berkaitan erat dengan perepsi dan personaliti individunya. Untuk mengatasinya diperlukan individu – individu kunci yang berkualitas, berkompeten, dan cukup pengetahuan untuk menghadapi situasi perubahan tersebut.

Meringkas kesimpulan luas dari berbagai macam literatur dapat mengakibatkan penyajian atau penggambaran yang keliru. Namun bentuk penelitian seperti ini mungkin berguna dalam menawarkan perspektif personal. Dalam sistem politik domestik diperlukan 2 hal untuk memengaruhi perubahan kebijakan luar negeri. Pertama, harus ada perubahan dalam sebuah sistem dan kedua, perubahan sistem tersebut juga harus memicu sebuah perubahan lagi dalam kebijakan luar negeri suatu negara. Salah satu yang penting adalah perubahan mendasar pada sikap keseluruhan anggota komunitas politik yang terkait. Ada banyak cara lain dimana perubahan sistem politik memengaruhi kebijakan luar negeri. Diantaranya perubahan sistem politik secara keseluruhan termasuk sistem politik-ekonomi, contohnya saat sistem ekonomi pertanian berubah menjadi perindustrian.
Dalam apa yang telah dikarakteristikkan sebagai studi decision-making birokratis, muncul perubahan kebijakan luar negeri yang tergantung pada dikerahkannya seorang spesialis untuk menguasai struktur organisasi dan proses pemeliharaan kebijakan. Para pakar politik dan lainnya mengadopsi pemikiran ini dan menyimpulkan bahwa suatu kebijakan luar negeri berubah seiring dengan pergantian pemimpin. Para pemimpin baru terkadang mampu menciptakan perubahan organisasi.
Sumber-sumber utama dalam perubahan kebijakan luar negeri ada 4 yaitu:
- Leader driven
Merubah hasil usaha yang ditentukan oleh pembuat keputusan yang berwenang, seringkali kepala pemerintahan, yang mengemukakan pandangan dasarnya dalam kebijakan luar negeri. Pemimpin harus memiliki pendirian, kekuatan, dan energi untuk dapat mendorong pemerintahannya berubah arah.
- Bureaucratic advocacy
Sebagai agen perubahan, dapat menjadi sebuah kontradiksi pada apa yang telah digambarkan sebagai perlawanan terhadap organisasi birokratis. Bukanlah keseluruhan pemerintahan yang meraih kebutuhan akan perubahan namun sebuah grup dalam pemerintahan yang menjadi penyokong arah. Grup ini ditempatkan pada satu agensi atau tersebar diantara organisasi-organisasi yang berbeda, namun tetap dalam interaksi reguler. Agar efektif, mereka harus ditempatkan dengan baik dan memiliki akses ke official utama.
- Domestic restructuring
Mengarah pada komunitas politik terkait yang mendukung pada sebuah rezim untuk memerintah , dan kemungkinan komunitas ini berpotensi juga sebagai agen perubahan.
- External shocks
Merupakan sumber perubahan kebijakan luar negeri yang dihasilkan dari suatu peristiwa internasional. Rupanya kebanyakan perubahan ini berangkat dari persepsi pemimpin atau lingkungan eksternal. External shocks merupakan peristiwa besar dan berdampak langsung terhadap si penerima. Mereka tidak bisa diabaikan dan dapat memicu perubahan kebijakan luar negeri.
Sumber-sumber di atas saling memengaruhi satu sama lain. Asumsi dasar yang kita dapat adalah pemerintah merubah kebijakannya melalui proses keputusan. Dari poin ini kita menyadari berbagai tingkat perubahan yang perlu dijelaskan dan kita mengusulkan berbagai agen perubahan. Di lain kata, agen harus bertindak dalam proses keputusan pemerintah. Proses itu sendiri dapat menghalangi atau memudahkan perubahan.

Referensi:
Hermann, Charles F. Changing Course: When Governments Choose to Redirect Foreign Policy. Blackwell Publishing. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Mar., 1990), pp. 3-21. The International Studies Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600403. [accessed: 15/06/2009 09:15].
Dugis, Vinsencio. Explaining Foreign Policy Change. n.d. s.l. s.n

Kebijakan Politik Luar Negeri Gordon Brown-UK dan Angel Merkel-Germany dalam menghadapi krisis finansial global: A comparative study

Abstrak

Global Financial Crisis yang dimulai sejak 2008 hingga memuncak Oktober 2008 membawa dampak cukup signifikan dalam perkembangan politik luar negeri. Pengambilan kebijakan luar negeri negara-negara di dunia saat itu sangat dipengaruhi oleh isu ekonomi yang mengemuka akibat krisis supreme mortgage di Amerika Serikat. Salah satu dampak yang cukup signifikan terlihat dari pengambilan kebijakan luar negeri di Jerman dan Inggris sebagai sekutu dan partner Amerika Serikat serta sebagai dua kekuatan utama Eropa dalam bidang perekonomian. Baik pemerintahan Inggris maupun Jerman berusaha mengeliminir akibat dari krisis finansial yang dapat membawa dampak negatif bagi perekonomian dalam negeri. Kedua negara ini pada awalnya mempunyai kebijakan yang berbeda mengenai bagaimana masing-masing negara akan menghadapi resesi ekonomi yang terjadi di negara mereka. Merkel dan Brown sebagai kepala pemerintahan juga memberikan pengaruh yang cukup besar dalam proses pengambilan keputusan tersebut. Namun, pasca London Summit pada bulan April 2009, pemerintah Inggris dan Jerman menyekapati sebuah kebijakan ekonomi global untuk menanggulangi dampak krisis finansial global ini.

Melalui paper ini, aspek-aspek yang menyebabkan perubahan kebijakan luar negeri kedua negara akan dibandingkan melalui perspektif neo-realis secara khusus melalui game theory. Pendekatan yang digunakan terutama merujuk kepada pendekatan ekonomi kedua negara dalam mengambil kebijakan.

Introduction

The outset of global financial commenced as equal as the rapid expansion of international finance raise as well as the raise of global information revolution (Allen, 1999). The expansion and globalization of financial markets that has caused rapid expansion and globalization of financial markets shadows most other recent developments in international economics. This hypothesis is defined by what caused it: developments in information-processing technologies; government deregulation; and the more global nature of all economic activity.

An understanding of these structural changes and new equilibrium provides necessary introduction subsequently, where it will be argued that the financial globalization processes have increased the risk of economic crises. It will also be argued that financial market globalization has been a driving force behind the large US trade deficits and other controversial new trade patterns. As a part of this global nature of economic activity, it is not all surprising that such global success (as one can argue) of economy can actually become a global disaster as what we have seen with the experience of Great Depression. The huge amount of various actors involve with very close financial link sees that the global economy has the possibility of actually failing if one of the links break and spread like a chain reaction.

The 2008 Global Financial Crisis proves this assumption with the failure from one economic actor and the spread towards many area and thus becoming a global disaster. Interestingly, the way that each actors, especially state, behave in the face of a crisis or disaster becomes a fascinating case to study. Comparative foreign policy analysis often chooses case study in which certain situation forces actors to behave differently as what they have previously. As a comparative research, this paper will look at the affects of the global financial crisis between United Kingdom and Germany, how they respond to this crisis, what policies have been put out, and most important, why, if there’s any, is there a change of policy between two countries.

1. 1. Background

1.1Global Financial Crisis: What it Means and To What Extent[GER1]

The global financial crisis started in the United States, most believed. The condition begin where the export surplus by China and the oil-exporting Arab countries invested in western financial institutions, particularly in the United States. This provided the countries of the West with limitless credit, enabling them to keep interest rates exceptionally low. This gives the opportunity for the public to borrow above their capacity, especially since the banks in US enabled subprime mortgage. When the US Federal Reserve increased interest rate due to sharply rising costs of living, including that of oil (caused in part by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), millions of borrowers could not pay their mortgages. The banks which had lent money to them could not recover their assets. The situation had reached a point where the economy was operating on the basis of lending. The consumers purchased goods and services by borrowing money from financial institutions (banks) even without much reference to their earning capacity. When the lending was no longer available, the capacity of consumers to buy goods and services produced in the economy was reduced sharply. The crisis affected not only the banking sector, but the economy as a whole. Factories producing such goods (e.g. cars), and businesses buying and selling those goods, were unable to trade. Unemployment began to rise, further reducing the demand for goods and services, thereby accelerating economic decline. This scenario was not confined to the United States. It spread around the world. In fact, the same process was at work in other countries, particularly in the West (Fazal, 2009).

Western Europe proved especially vulnerable to the 2008 global financial crisis. This is due to the fact that finance and real estate typically make up between a fifth and a third of GDP of Western European economies (Eghbal, 2009). The sector employed an average 12.8% of the employed population in Western Europe in 2007. Thus, financial losses and layoffs had a considerable impact on the region’s economy. Due to the crisis in the financial sector, consumers and businesses are having difficulties obtaining credit and so demand and investments are softening. In countries with falling housing markets, such as the UK, Spain and Ireland, difficulties in obtaining credit reinforce the downward trend of housing prices. The damage to the real economy was almost immediate. The region’s major economies, Germany, UK, Italy, and Spain contracted in the third quarter of 2008, with France growing by a mere quarterly 0.1%. Most major economies in the region entered recession in 2008-2009 (Eghbal, 2009).

1.2Crisis Effect on Germany and England

As mentioned above, the crisis hit very badly in Western Europe. Two major economy in Europe, United Kingdom and Germany, are among the worst hit by the crisis. [GER2] Historically, these two countries have had their share in economic crisis. Frankel (1989) has shown that domestic versus international own-currency interest rate differentials for Germany collapsed in 1974 when most capital inflow restrictions were removed. Also, Artis and Taylor (1989) have shown that this differential tended toward zero in the United Kingdom after inward and outward capital controls were removed in October 1979 (Allen, 1999). So how did the global financial crisis affected United Kingdom and Germany?

1. United Kingdom

UK is expected to be among the worst hit by the crisis, mainly due to its bursting housing bubble, high household debt, a large government budget deficit and overdependence on the troubled financial sector. The UK’s problems have been exacerbated in Q4 (fourth quarter) 2008 by the depreciation of the Sterling. The currency depreciation increases the price of imports, thus burdening consumers and businesses who are already suffering because of the recession. The UK economy is expected to shrink by -1.3% in 2009.

1. Germany

The German economy is heavily dependent on its exports, and these would clearly suffer if world economic activity declined. Furthermore, as we have seen, the fallout from the US credit crunch can affect the balance sheets of German banks. Germany’s economy, while in ‘technical recession’ after shrinking -0.4% in Q2 (second quarter) 2008 and -0.5% in Q3 (third quarter) 2008, remained less troubled by the mortgage crisis and consumer confidence is higher than in other economies. Yet Germany’s dependence on exports puts it in a weak position and its economy is expected to contract by -0.8% in 2009

1. 2. Problematique

2.1Initial Policy of Britain and Germany

After the economic collapsed since the global financial crisis, both states, United Kingdom and Germany which effected worst, tend to isolate their policy in order to recover the domestic [GER3] [GER4] economic. This initial policy could be examined by the first phase after the financial crisis. The first phase has been intervention to contain the contagion and strengthen financial sectors in countries (Nanto, 2009). Both of states, on the macroeconomic level made the policy action include lowering interest rates and expanding money supply. On the micro level, the action to resolve the crisis were guaranteeing the banks deposits, infection of capital, and restructuring debt. Passing the “panic” phase, the second phase of the crisis is less uncommon except that the severity of the macroeconomic downturn confronting countries around the world is the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s. (Nanto, 2009). The real economic sectors started the negative phase and force the countries to resolve the pulled down capital stock market and the failure of export and commodity prices. The governments’ role in the economy and financial part of the countries continued to be more specific and returned to the traditional policy in order to avoid the declining of tax revenue and rising unemployment. The third and forth phase of the crisis examine the progress of the global economic fluctuation after the G20 London Summit which would be explain later. The third phase of the crisis, was tend to make changes in the financial system in order to reduce risk and prevent future crises, and the forth is dealing with political, social, and security effect of the financial turmoil.

Examining the initial policy from both government, there was similarity that both governments have responded to this financial market and real economy crisis with fresh money and propositions for new rules both nationally and globally. (Schirm, 2009). There were three major ways to face and resolve the crisis at first. The first one were rescuing the trouble financial institution (such as Northern Rock in UK and Hypo Real Estate in Germany) with high injection and being guaranteed by the government. The second, government gave high stimulus to resolve the real economy problem with the stimulus program reach 1,5% in UK and 3,4% in Germany of GDP. The last one, government of each state engaged in multilateral consultation to make a new deal in order to avoid and prevent the future global financial crisis, as we know that both states are joining the G-7 and G-20 which regularly held summit and other meeting to finish the problem[GER5] .

At the beginning, Germany who strongly recommended for the strict financial regulation criticizes the “Anglo-American” economic model. Knowing this fact, it is needed to make a “new order” which is hoped to avoid the crisis in the future. Besides, Germany together with France who tend to have industrial economic system tried to make a new formal regulation which could concern about the financial system [GER6] as a whole. In Great Britain, at first, just did the same as Germany administration in order to resolve the domestic problem. But, if Germany tried to make new rules to border the market fluctuation, and since Brown avoided making UK as an isolationist state, UK considered that the regulation and coordination of economic sector would decrease the market efficiency. Also, UK which is usually based on the US-centris in making the policy, saw the open market would give more benefit and would responsible more to face the crisis rather than the regulation which made by Germany.

2.2[GER7] The Result of London Summit

As the main turning point of the changing policy of United Kingdom and Germany, it is important to have an understanding of what is actually happening in the London Summit. The London Summit is a G20 meeting which occurred in April of 2009 as a part of the third phase of the financial crisis. As mentioned at the previous section, the second phase of the crisis sees that Germany and United Kingdom are heading different ways in terms of the policy they use to improve their economy. Germany, along with France and other western european countries, chose to regulate the market (China View, 2009). This policy lies by the belief that crisis originated in USA happens because of the lack of regulation by the US government. On the other hand, United Kingdom chose the path which US led. UK proposes the policy of stimulus by cutting taxes to increase the consumption of the public, which is to restore confidence and invigirate growth (China View, 2009). UK and US believes that the way to revive the economy is by boosting the consuming capability of the public and market. The problem raised in this paper is the changing policy of UK and Germany between the second phase and the third phase marked by the result of the London Summit. Below is the summary of key points from the G20 commitment at London Summit (BBC News, 2009) :

Financial Regulation A new Financial Stability Board, with a strengthened mandate, will replace the Financial Stability Forum Financial regulation and oversight will be extended to all financial institutions, instruments and markets This includes bringing hedge funds within the global regulatory net for the first time Members are committed to implementing tough new rules on pay and bonuses at a global level International accounting standards will be set Credit rating agencies will be regulated in order to remove their conflicts of interest A common approach to cleaning up banks’ toxic assets has been agreed Tax Havens There will be sanctions against tax havens that do not transfer information on request The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has published a list of countries assessed by the Global Forum against the international standard for exchange of tax information IMF Resources available to the International Monetary Fund will be trebled to $750 billion This includes a new overdraft facility, or special drawing rights allocation, of $250 billion Additional resources of $6 billion from agreed IMF gold sales will be made available for lending to the poorest countries The G20 also supports increased lending to the world’s poorest countries of at least $100 billion by the multilateral development banks Global Trade There will be a commitment of $250 billion of support for trade finance made over the next two years This will be made available through export credit and investment agencies, as well as through multilateral development banks National regulators will be asked to make use of available flexibility in capital requirements for trade finance Protectionism The G20 has pledged to resist protectionism There will be a commitment to naming and shaming countries that breach free trade rules The G20 will notify the World Trade Organization (WTO) of any measures that constrain worldwide capital flows The G20 has called on the WTO to monitor and report publicly on these undertakings on a quarterly basis Fiscal Stimulus Although there is no new fiscal stimulus, Gordon Brown said G20 countries are already implementing “the biggest macroeconomic stimulus the world has ever seen” – an injection of $5 trillion by the end of next year

With all these points stated in the communique of the London Summit, the main point in this concensus is that a large part of deal agreed by the world leaders is destined to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). However, this money is does not function for this leaders to direct use for the recession but it is to become loans which will be used to offer more loans. The big IMF member countries are offering to lend money to the IMF. The IMF will then have more resources available to help countries if they are hit by the crisis. The commitment for IMF include: 1) $500 billion for the IMF to lend to struggling economies. 2) $250 billion to boost world trade. 3) $250 billion for a new IMF “overdraft facility” countries can draw on 4) $100 billion that international development banks can lend to poorest countries. 5) IMF will raise $6 billion from selling gold reserves to increase lending for the poorest countries (Walker, 2009).

With this deal, ultimately question the intentions of the members of G20 and also how this will affect the function of IMF itself. One of the headline in the news even mentioned that would this deal be an attempt to create a new world economic order? Be that as it may, with this deal, IMF will play a bigger in the global economy. IMF will have bigger power such as the power to regulate foreign exchange rates. However, what is most disturbing in this turn of events is the change of policy between UK and Germany. The very fact that these two country opposed each other in their understanding of economy and their policy (both of which were more concerned on the domestic recovery of crisis), is very much surprising for many. At one point, before the summit is held, Angela Merkel along with Nicholas Sarkozy wanted to boycott the Summit (Chrissafis, 2009). [GER8] Knowing this it is a very problematique phenomenon when in the end, UK , Germany, and the other G-20 contries agreed to a global concensus at the London Summit.

The Change of Policy: UK and Germany

One of the ways to analyze the foreign policy of a state is to look at the changes of such policy. Changes can happen from the source of policy, the process of policy making or even the implementation of policy making (Dugis, 2008). Foreign policy analysis sees that these changes can be thoroughly seen by comparing the policy of one state as opposed to another state. United Kingdom and Germany, as the two major power in Europe, as mentioned previously, has also been affected by the crisis. Each government have put out policies in regard to containing the crisis and even to heal the domestic economy. When UK and Germany show a shift in their policy making, this become the basis of this research. Why did UK and Germany, which had very opposing policy previously, concluded to a consensus in the London Summit and agreed to the same policy?

1. 3. Research Methodology

3.1Level of Analysis

3.1.1 Individual

3.1.1.1  Gordon Brown

James Gordon Brown born on February 20^th, 1951 in Scotland. As the son of a Church of Scotland minister, Brown has many talked about what he called a moral compass. He becomes The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on June 2007 and the Leader of the Labor Party. In 1983 he gained a reputation as a serious politician with a powerful intellect and a passion for detail. In education world, he had been known as the rector of Edinburg University and in 1976 worked as a lecturer in politics at Glasgow College Technology. This is simply saying that he is acknowledgeable on technology matters. He has been experienced also as the chief secretary to the Treasury. Once he ever became as the trade and industry spokesman.

Due to Kirkaldy, Scotland where Brown once grew up, it makes Brown aware about the poverty and unemployment and it is hugely affect Gordon political beliefs (Pettinger, 2007). Kirkady was formerly known to have a long history of mining and heavy industry but as the young Gordon was growing up these industries were closing down, it had created a massive unemployment. And this perhaps had urged Gordon to join a Labor party. Graduated in University of Edinburg, he was the television journalist and has been a Member of Parliament since 1983. Perhaps ironically, Gordon Brown took a great interest in the early founders of the Labor party and their ideology. He wrote a book about James Maxton, one of the early founders of the Labor Party. His book “Values, visions and Voices” was an in depth look at the Socialist ideology of the first Labor MPs. In 1997, New Labor won a landslide victory creating a real sense of optimism and sense of change. Tony Blair, the charismatic figurehead, captured the imagination of the public and became the symbol of what New Labor stood for. Gordon Brown, on the other hand, took more of a background role. However, as chancellor of the exchequer he wielded tremendous influence over the economy of the UK.

On the problem of the global financial crisis, Mr Brown said the reality was that without working at an international level the recovery would be much slower (Crichton, 2009). The British prime minister is nothing if not ambitious and fervently believes great things can be achieved at the G20 summit in London. The prime minister is a long-standing enthusiast for beefed-up international regulation – a cause he promoted after the Asian financial crash – and global institutions. Completing the Doha world trade round is “an obsession” according to aides. In London Summit, Mr Brown has talked about the need for “a new Bretton Woods” and perhaps sees himself as a latter day John Maynard Keynes, the great British economist who helped to create the new post-war economic order.

Mr Brown has thrown himself into summit preparations with almost missionary zeal, last week taking his message on a 17,000 mile trip to the European parliament in Strasbourg, business leaders in New York, and to Sao Paulo and Santiago in South America.

Politically weakened at home and facing a general election by June 2010, he wants the British electorate to see him as he is sometimes perceived abroad. There are seceral international parameters restricts Brown’s ambition to be a hero in the summit of London and Washington.

Just before the London summit is held, Brown was travelling a lot between UK and US to invite US join the summit meeting. Facing the economic crisis by himself, he seems to be little bit frustrated because not everyone sees the urgent of G20 summit as he is seriously. During the meeting, Mr Brown will also have to contain tensions between western leaders and those from the developing world, who feel their views in the economic crisis have often been overlooked (ignored). President Lula of Brazil told Mr Brown: “This is a crisis that was caused by white people with blue eyes.” (ft.com, 2009).

But the prime minister knows the political risks if the summit is deemed a failure. Images of violent anti-capitalism demonstrations across the City while politicians frame empty communiqués behind the barbed wire would be a presentational disaster. Mr Brown may want to save the world, but he also wants to save his own job, as George Parker Says (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2bf18b92-1ade-11de-8aa3-0000779fd2ac.html, 2009)

3.1.1.2  Angela Merkel

On the contrary, Angela Merkel has won German’s highest position as a chancellor in 2005 and subsequently reelected. Her political party is largely shaped by  Christian Democratic Union in  which she begins her career as politician (BBC, 2009). Her political views are dominantly realistic. For example, Mrs. Merkel was outlining her new coalition government’s policies in a speech to parliament. She said her focus was on stimulating growth in Europe’s biggest economy, but added that “the problems will get bigger before things can get better (BBC News, 2009). She’s delivering courage in possibility for Germany that German jobless figures will rise despite her new government’s focus on tackling the financial downturn.

The German Chancellor’s personal popularity is said to comfortably exceed that of her party. Supporters wave posters that say simply “Angie.” This year Angela Merkel came top in Forbes list of the 100 most powerful women in the world for the fourth year running (Egan and Schoenberger, 2009). But she has a reputation for being uncharismatic, boring and dowdy to the point of frumpiness. However, discussion by Labor MP Gisela Stuart and journalist Anne McElvoy in BBC Radio for women, stated that in fact what many ordinary people called Angela as a boring personality, she implied that Angela has a strong character and suited with a growing statue as a chancellor (BBC Radio, 2009). She has very different style while making herself more appealing in front of public. She’s known as a conventional politician. Therefore, some critics directed to Angela say she’s really boring is quite different with the way she manages herself in front of public.

She’s very obvious to put a head of her country. The fact that she came from and her birth is on East Germany, she had been educated well in West Germany and travelled either for physical science purpose or politic between East and West Germany. Therefore, Labour MP, Gisela Stuart stated  that it didn’t play a huge matter on Angela political thought based on wherever she was originally came from (BBC Hall of Fame, 2009). Some other politician say that Angela is capable to make herself in the right may and the right place. According to majority of Germans assume her as the mother of national.

As Tony Barber says in Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fff92242-a7d8-11de-b0ee-00144feabdc0.html, 2009) the affect of her political background to her visions individually leads her to second term of German Chancellor. Social Democrats or, as she prefers, form a government with the liberal Free Democrats. The identity of the CDU’s coalition partner is important for economic policy, because the Free Democrats stand for tax reform and extended use of nuclear power in a way that distinguishes them from the SPD. On the other hand, a Merkel-led government of whatever complexion will redouble Germany’s commitment to fiscal discipline. It will also aim to strengthen the overleveraged banking system and to restore the nation’s traditional model of export-led economic growth .

3.1.2 State

Second level analysis is a state level analysis which focusses on internal factors. to the state as those that compel states to engage in certain foreign policy behaviors. Such analysis include the relationships between the executive and legislative branches of government; the organization of the government bureaucracy; whether a state is democracy; domestic consitutuencies (such as interest groups, ethnic groups or public opinion more generally); economic conditions, and also the state’s national history and culture. At this level of analysis, the emphasis is on how factors internal of the state influence the behavior of that state on the global stage. From a decision making perspective, these factors are often characterized as constraints that determine the parameters of the possible for the leaders. Of course the relationship between leaders and the domestic encironment is much more complicated than this simple characterization suggests (Breuning, 2005)

3.1.2.1  United Kingdom

As we know before US placed as the hegemonic state, UK was one of the most influence states in the world during the colonialism era. Since there were many territory was owned by UK, the language, culture, and political system could influence in every territory in the world. During that era, the foreign policy of UK was to enlarge the territory in order to improve their industry. It was because the Industrial Revolution just came up. After the America’s independence, their role as hegemon of the global world started to end. But, the influence of UK still remained. Since most of the people in the new world, United States came from the Britain, and also the next hegemon would be this states.

UK’s global posture and priorities in the global society are to stay close to the US; cautious linkage with Europe; rhetorical homage to multilateral institutions; a wariness towards Russia; ambivalence about Afghanistan; a polite increase in economic pressure on Iran; and general encomiums about development, democracy and human rights, and free trade. (Inboden, 2009). By this, we could examine since the Second World War, UK always stayed by the US side. Another things from the foreign policy making of UK is not always based on the party which dominante the House. That is why the direction of the policy tend to be the same.

In facing the global financial crisis, again, UK’ foreign policy is in line with US. The British economy shrank 0.4% in the third quarter, surprising forecasters and dashing hopes the country would follow France and Germany out of recession. The disappointing figure leaves Britain in the grip of the worst downturn since official records began in 1955. The British economy shrank 0.4% in the third quarter which  leaves Britain in the grip of the worst downturn since official records began in 1955 and piles pressure on Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government ahead of next year’s general election. Britain was hit particularly hard by the global credit crunch because of its huge financial sector, where the government was forced to carry out a multibillion pound bailout of major banks, and higher levels of personal debt among consumers. Like the U.S., it also faces a collapsed real estate bubble. Like many other forecasters, Capital Economics believes that Britain will struggle to reach growth in gross domestic product, which measures the total amount of goods and services produced by a country, of 1% next year (Wardell, 2009).

3.1.2.2  Germany

In the age of globalization, foreign policy is, more than ever before, the world’s domestic policy. States, societies and economic zones are all becoming networked. The end of the East-West conflict has opened up new opportunities for German foreign policy–both within Europe and worldwide. Germany has accepted the international responsibility that has evolved for the country in the wake of dramatic changes with regard to world politics, and, together with its European and transatlantic partners, is deeply committed to the causes of democracy, human rights and the dialog between cultures. The prime objective of Germany’s foreign policy is to maintain peace and safety in the world (Facts about Germany, 2009). One of the key features of Germany’s political culture has always been its focus on maintaining a broad consensus on foreign policy issues and on maintaining continuity in specific areas.

German foreign policy takes into account the far greater international responsibility which Germany now has at the request of the world community: In this context Germany is pushing for a comprehensive reform of the UN’s organizational structures, including a wish for a permanent seat in the Security Council.

By means of common policy, Germany has forged firm links to partners who are its neighbors and with Europe it has both once again achieved unification and also gained respect and a voice in the world. For the Germans, the peaceful balancing of interests with its neighbors and the world has thus become the recipe for success in European integration, the importance of which was re-emphasized by the German Presidency of the Council of the European Union in first-half 2007. Federal Chancellor Merkel and Foreign Minister Steinmeier skillfully used Germany’s respect and trust in Europe to solve the institutional crisis. The strength of German foreign policy has laid in ensuring Franco-German relations were firmly aligned to EU policy, on the one hand, and the close ties specifically to the smaller member states, on the other. Repeatedly, numerous hurdles to decisions have been overcome and key stages in the history of the EU have been successfully tackled as a result of Germany’s efforts and its willingness to compromise.

3.2Scope of Research

This research will analyze the events between the time frame of the second phase of the crisis on 23 October 2008 until the third phase on 2 April 2009.

1. 4. Theoritical Framework

4.1Economy as the main power of state

Post World War II trade system originated from the conflict between US and UK in the Bretton Woods conference in 1944. US wanted a free market and opening the foreign market as soon as possible. UK also committed to free market, however UK gave more attention to the dollar shortage. In 1948, US established General Agreement on Tarriffs and Trade (GATT) to introduce freer and fairer trade. The most important change, of course, has been the end of Cold War. The Cold War and its alliances structure provided the framework within which the world economy functioned. With the end of Cold War, US leadership and the close economic cooperation among the capitalist powers grew larger. Simultaneously, the market oriented world grew even more as formerly communist and Third World countries became more willing to participate in the market system, shown by the increasing number of less developed countries becoming member of the World Trade Organization (Gilpin, 2001).

This description gives a perspective of how deeply involved states are in the market.[GER9] This means that economy plays an important role in the livelyhood of state. Hegemonic capability theory sees that a hegemon’s capability rests upon the likes of a large, growing economy, dominance in a leading technological or economic sector, and political power backed up by projective military power. Economy becomes one of the main power of state in should be thoroughly considered as one of the main variable that affect the foreign policy of states especially regarding the eagerness of states to the dominant state in their region. UK and Germany, being the two major economy in Europe, certainly understands the importance of economy as their bargaining power in the international system. With this theoritical framework, an analysis of the relation between the economy of Germany and UK and the policy making will see to the arrangements of politics and economy especially as the main driving force for a foreign policy to be made, considered or implemented.

4.2Crisis situation factor in the foreign policy decision maker (Valerie Hudson)

In the individual level of decision maker, Hudson (2007) explained eight hypotheses to examine the leader characteristic. One of the hypotheses is about the crisis situation. During this condition, psychology of an individual decision maker could be examined by how he or she reacts to resolve the situation. Since, the leader matters the most in decision making process, how a leader handled a crisis situation is always becoming important factor. If the crisis is so extreme that that the country’s survival is stake, a leader may try to keep his or her psychological predispositions in check in order to avoid making unnecessary mistakes. (Hudson, 2007)

This paper would like to examine how both of Merkel and Brown’s decision making to face the global financial crisis during their administrations. Based on the facts and administration program from each personal, the similarities and the differences of each could be understood. Since the global financial crisis happened to be one of the crisis situation during their administration, the paper would analyze how Merkel and how Brown resolve and recover their states’ economic situation.

4.3State’s rationality in determining its foreign policy

The assumption of state rationality has a long history in the study of international relation. One of the main arguments of realism and neo-realism theories (as the mainstream theory in international relations) is the belief that state act rationality in their interaction in the anarchial world system. Game theory, as one of the product of neo-realism, tries to give logic to this thought by defining this rationality into a more concrete manner and by showing the predictability of this rationality.

Game theory is a decision-making approach based on the assumption of actor rationality in a situation of competition. Each actor (in this case Germany and United Kingdom) tries to maximize gains or minimize losses under conditions of uncertainty and incomplete information, which requires each actor to rank order preferences, estimate probabilities, and try to discern what the other actor is going to do  In a two-person zero-sum game, what one actor wins the other lose. In a two-person non-zero or variable sum game, gains and losses are not necessarily equal; it is possible that both sides may gain. This is sometimes referred to as a positive-sum game. In some games, both parties can lose, and by different amounts or to a different degree (Viotti, P. dan M. Kauppi, 1987).

Game theory has contributed to the development of models of deterrence and arms race spirals, but it is also the basis for work concerning the question of how collaboration among competitive states in an anarchic world can be achieved. With this model of rationality, it will become the basis of answering the problem of the change of policy by UK and Germany. The central problem is that the rational decision for UK and Germany may to taking a chance on collaboration with another state actor as opposed be to defect and go it alone (Viotti, P. dan M. Kauppi, 1987).

1. 5. Problem Analysis

Before we begin to analyze the problem, we need to give clear difference of the initial policy between Germany and UK. This is important because we need to see a clear shift of policy for the purpose of a thorough foreign policy analysis. Previous section have started the differences of the initial policy between Germany and UK. However, in this part, we will try to conceptualize the differences of these policies.

Firstly, at the second phase of the crisis, UK decided to follow US’s path through stimulus by cutting taxes to increase comsumption. This sort of policy is what we call as a short-term policy. How so? Because it has a short term goal which is to boost the market initial. On the other hand, Germany followed the path of France to regulate the market and impose tighter rules. This kind of policy is seen as a long-term policy. It is because this policy works at a mone higher goal; to create a safer market. These different approaches by UK and Germany sees that they have different goals in mind. However, it needs to be underlined that these goals (from UK and Germany) are strictly domestic and region based approaches.

After we have clarified the initial difference, the section below gives analysis of problem based on the three theories describe of the theoritical describe at the theoritical framework.

5.1 Economic Factor: Liberalism System and Dominancy

Basically economy is one of the the most powerful yet crucial instrument for a state for a mean of success in this global world. As in Europe, British and Germany can be taken  into account in representing the growth and advance of most developed country.

British has developed into the center of education, lifestyle, and fashion as well as Germany is broadly known as the center of technology and innovation. This progression never went far from the the economic history experienced by one another. British and German Economy have had a very long history from old imperialism and colonialism, 1933 great depression until a current 2008 financial global crisis. Thus has enabled British and Germany attain a firm economic growth. They confidently embrace a neoliberalism as their fundamental economic platform.

The fact that has brought about a 2008 financial crisis was one of the clash economic system between what British-US and Germany-France has brought up about. Previously their objective was economic within their border of European region. However, the fact that what global financial has caused and swept almost the significant world economic in the entire world had made them more aware that an opportunity to secure their economic system is to handle the impact of global financial crisis further than their region, so it won’t continously hit their economy and their economic system.

In doing so, their contribution is taken place within the London Summit meeting and Washington summit particularly disscussing regarding IMF matter. As one of the hegemon in Europe, they see no need to overlook within their region. This literally means that their economic region will only be secured whenever outter world is being taken into account. IMF as one on the international finance organization becomes a perfect tool to ensure the continuance of the free market system we are seeing right now.

They must secure their economical foundation by letting it ‘spread’ to other states. The key point is to allow another country see the benefit of neoliberalism as they do. Their primarily national interest have shifted which is for their economic system to not be seriously challenged by the presence of other economic paradigm such what has already emerged such as the presence of Chinese economic isolationism which is increasing stronger and firmer. The lure of this other paradigm to developing countries might caused a further crash on the current trade and finance neoliberalist system. To prevent the decrease of their dominancy in the international trade and finance, it is important for Germany and UK to ensure to existence of the very system that become the basis of their economy.

5.2Decision Making Brown and Merkel: Influence of Perception of Strength and Weakness

In crisis situation theory (Hudson, 2007) how a leader’s psychological aspect should be able to avoid making unnecessary mistake. This part of paper would analyze how both, Brown and Merkel individual traits and the policy which they made in order to bring their state to resolve the crisis. Both of them have different background and point of view during their administration. With their differences, we could also examine some similarities between them.

Brown, who came from the Labor Party, also continued from the preview prime minister, Tony Blair. From this background of politics, we could conclude that Brown tends to continue the US-centrism in decision making policy. This tendency also supported by the democratic ideology which brought by Brown’s party. It is because during the administration, most leader of the democratic party would focus better in international affairs. Then the domestic issue usually would not get very special attention. This could be seen from the role of two last leaders of UK, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Both of them tend to have the same characteristic with the US president from Democrat Party, such as Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama, which is both of them also, have good track in international relation and a conducive foreign policy. It is different from the era of Bush (senior and junior one) who tend to have a well-built in domestic policy than foreign one.

Also during the fight of global financial crisis, the decision making by Brown more less was influenced by the decision making in US. At the same time, the foreign policy which made by US’ administration was to give stimulus to the financial aspect and cut down the tax in order to increase the people’s economic capability to move the economic wheel as the framework. Economically, this action was based on a short term interest only. It could be because Brown’s economic focus is boosting the growth of the economy.

On the contrary, Angela Merkel who came from realist perspective gave more long term solution. Together with France, Merkel’s economic work is focusing on the macro economic development. Besides, during her second campaign to get her second chance to be Germany Prime Minister, her solution and focus economic was tackling the financial downturn. Especially, in this new coalition era during her second administration, she was on the track to stimulate the growth in Europe’s biggest economy.

Both of them might have a different background and different policy especially foreign policy, but at the end of phase two or after the London Summit both of the highest decision maker of UK and Germany started to join the agreement to make the regulation and new deal in global economic by IMF as a regulator and stabilizator .

5.3Rational Choice: Between Domestic Recovery and International Hegemony

Previously in London Summit and Washington Summit meeting; British and Germany both have different perspectives in managing global financial crisis. As before London summit meeting, British has come up with its short term in solving its financial crisis. Meanwhile Germany has presented its importance acquaintance and its role in Europe by bringing up the long term economic plan. Though their objectives are slightly clear, their thought basically rested on domestic competition because in which each of state tends to solve their own economic problem independently to secure their economic system.

British and US both arrange their short term economic plan by giving an economic stimulus and cutting taxes. While Germany chooses to arrange its long term economic plan onto set of regulations to prevent this crisis occurred in the future.

Separately from London summit, The Washington Summit meeting has come up with a new arrangement where British and Germany have agreed to provide an economic stimulus package embedded with expectations that global financial crisis will be managed well and fully by monetary interantional organization namely IMF. Some expertise called either in optimistic and pessimistic way towards this shifting agreement. However, the shifting is  no of concideration if it is occupied with rational economic excuses.

Certainly, this decision is taken without no excuses. Several countries that has develop into British and Germany big concern. Those countries are Argentina, Mexico, and Iceland which currently fall into crisis. As IMF will supposedly operate as an economic referee, a further economic plan within IMF proposal is to provide an economic aid for them, so those three countries won’t exercise foreign policy of isolationism as China does. German and British put the same concern regarding this matter, if those countries were not given an accessible economic funding and turned to isolationism, it would threat their neoliberalism.

Additionally, within a frame of British and Germany national interest which particularly then is conducted into their basic initial asumption to foreign policy making; both concidered the third world as the primary consumer of Germany export oriented. Therefore, Germany has encouraged other European industrial countries to make a similar agreement allowing third world out off global financial crisis larger impact as soon as possible. This germany effort has been interpreted into economic stimulus for IMF (International Monetary Fund) to make realized.

1. Conclusion

In the study of international relations, foreign policy is approached in many different ways. For states, as the main actor in international relations, it is crucial for them to define and construct what the states’ foreign policy will be. This is inherent with the fact that foreign policy is the manifest of states’ national interest at the world politics.  World politics itself, is ever changing due to the dynamics of the interaction in the international system. Therefore, to analyze the foreign policy of one state, it is important to look at the changes of the variable itself. These changes may occur in the form of the issues, the regime, the policy makers, the support, etc. In comparative foreign policy, one of the ways to analyze the foreign policy is by looking at these changes by comparing or contrasting them. Therefore, for this comparative foreign policy paper, it has been compared between the policies of Germany and Britain during the global financial crisis.

After we have spread out the problem and analyze the problem, we have come to a conclusion. On the problem of the changing policy of Germany and United Kingdom during the global financial crisis is basically due to the fact that both countries wanted to take the problem solving from region level into problem solving at the international level. The different opinions between Germany and United Kingdom were accomodated through the global deal at the London Summit. Germany, who wanted tighter regulations, achieved this goal by giving IMF a bigger role in international finance to regulate the comings and goings of money flow between states. United Kingdom, who wanted to boost the growth and consumption, achieved its goal by giving IMF more money to lend to developing countries, which in turn will boost confidence thus boosting the consumption.

Importantly noted here is the role of both Germany and United Kingdom leaders and especially, the foundations of the free trade system. Firstly, with both leaders, Merkel and Brown, having direct focus and the issues of economy, Germany and United Kingdom have been very present on the making and implementation of policy at the international level. Secondly, the foundations of free trade system is important for Germany and United Kingdom to keep strong. The economic dominance of Germany and United Kingdom relies heavily on the sustainance of the system. The weighing of rational choices in the face of economic prosperity become the main factor in the change of policy between United Kingdom and Germany.

In conclusion, the change of policy in United Kingdom and Germany  is highly driven by economic needs, leadership, and rationalization of choices and problems. This becomes the basis of change of foreign policy from a regional based policy into an international level policy making.

Bibliografi

Allen. 1999. Financial crises and Recession in the Global Economy. USA: Edward Elgar Publishing

BBC. 2009. Angela Merkel. Diakses di http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?uri=%2F2%2Fhi%2Feurope%2F3673102.stm&scope=all&go=toolbar&q=Angela+Merkel pada tanggal 20 November 2009

BBC News. 2009. At A Glance: G20 Agreement. Diakses di http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7979682.stm pada tanggal 22 November 2009.

BBC. 2009. Hall of Fame. Diakses di  http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/ps/sites/roughguide/hall_of_fame/pages/angela_merkel.shtml pada tanggal 20 November 2009

BBC News. 2009. One Minute Update. Diakses di www.news.bbc.co.uk pada tanggal 19 November 2009.

Breuning, Marijke. 2007. Foreign Policy Analysis: A Comparative Study. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dugis, Vincensio, 2008. Explaining Foreign Policy Change. Jurnal Masyarakat, Kebudayaan dan Politik. Surabaya: Universitas Airlangga.

China View. 2009. British PM Formally Invites World Le$aders to Attend G20 Summit in London. Diakses di  http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/21/content_10859595.htm pada tanggal 20 November 2009.

China View. 2009. Germany, France back tougher global financial regulations diakses di  http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-03/14/content_11008955.htm pada tanggal 22 November 2009.

Chrisafis, Angelique. 2009. G20 walkout threat from Nicolas Sarkozy. Diakses di

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/01/g20-sarkozy-walkout-threat pada tanggal 23 November 2009.

Crichton, Torcuil. 2009. Brown Unveils Economic Plan ‘For Recovery Within Months’. Scotland: Herald Scotland. Diakses di http://www.heraldscotland.com/brown-unveils-economic-plan-for-recovery-within-months-1.903081 pada tanggal 21 November 2009.

Egan, Mary Ellen dan Schoenberger, Chana R. 2009. The World’s 100 Most Powerful Women. Forbes Magazine. Diakses di http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/18/worlds-most-powerful-women-forbes-woman-power-women-09-angela-merkel_land.html pada tanggal 20 November 2009

Eghbal, Media. 2009. The Global Financial Crisis: Recession Bites into Western Europe. England: Euromonitor International. Diakses di http://www.euromonitor.com/The_global_financial_crisis_recession_bites_into_Western_Europe pada tanggal 20 November 2009

Facts about Germany. 2009. Foreign Policy. Diakses di http://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/en/foreign-policy.html pada tanggal 22 November 2009.

Fazal, M. A. 2009. How To Deal With Global Financial Crisis. Diakses di

http://www.angelfire.com/ok/mafazal/financialcrisis.html pada tanggal 20 November 2009.

Inboden, Will. 2009. How will the Tories run UK foreign policy? Diakses di http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/08/25/how_will_the_tories_run_uk_foreign_policy pada tanggal 23 November 2009.

International Monetary Fund. April 2009. Global Financial Stability Report: Responding to the Financial Crisis and Measuring Systemic Risks. Washington, DC : International Monetary Fund.

Nanto, Dick K. 2009. The Global Financial Crisis: Analysis and Policy Implications. Congressional Research Service.

Pettinger, T. 2007. Gordon Brown Biography. Diakses di http://www.biographyonline.net/politicians/gordon-brown.html pada tanggal 22 November 2009

Schirm, Stefan A. 2009. Varieties of Strategies: Braitain, Germany and the EU in the Global Economic Crisis. Germany: University of Bochum.

Sordo, Fernando Navarro. 2008. Financial Crisis, Lesson One: Be Gordon Brown.diakses di  http://www.cafebabel.co.uk/article/26794/britain-financial-crisis-gordon-brown-reaction.html pada tanggal 31 Oktober 2009.

Stuart, Gisela dan McElvoy, Anne. 2009. Women’s Hour: The Appeal of Angela Merkel. BBC Radio. Diakses di http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/03/2009_37_mon.shtml pada tanggal 19 November 2009.

Rasmussen, Poul Nyrup. 2009. How Europe can tackle the Financial Crisis. Diakses di http://www.social-europe.eu/2009/04/how-europe-can-tackle-the-financial-crisis/http://www.social-europe.eu/2009/04/how-europe-can-tackle-the-financial-crisis/ pada tanggal 21 November 2009.

Gilpin, Robert. 2001. Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order. United Kingdom: Princeton University Press.

Reynolds, Paul. Will Brown change UK foreign policy? Diakses di http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6234592.stm pada tanggal 23 November 2009.

Parker, George. 2009. Successful Summit is a must for Brown. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2bf18b92-1ade-11de-8aa3-0000779fd2ac.html diakses pada 13 Desember 2009.

The Financial Crisis Hits German Economy. Diakses di http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/oct2008/gb20081015_123628.htm pada tanggal 31 Oktober 2009.

UK Foreign Policy. Diakses di http://ukingeorgia.fco.gov.uk/en/working-with-georgia/4917569/ pada tanggal 23 November 2009.

Viotti, P. R. and M. V. Kauppi. 1987. International Relations Theories: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism. New York: Macmillan.

Wardell, Jane. 2009. British Economy Still Stuck in Recession. Diakses di  http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2009-10-23-britain-recession_N.htm pada tanggal 21 November 2009.

Walker, Andrew. 2009. What the $1tn Pledge Really Cost. BBC News. Diakses di  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7980453.stm pada tanggal 23 November 2009.

---

[GER1]

GFC PARTICULAR CAUSES

1. EXPORT SURPLUS BY CHINA
2. OIL-EXPORTING ARAB COUNTRIES INVESTEDIN WESTERN FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, MOSTLY IN US
3. THIS PROVIDES WEST COUNTRIES WITH LIMITLESS CREDIT
4. THE INTEREST RATES ARE KEPT LOW
5. PUBLIC BENEFITS FROM THIS CONDITION BY BORROW MONEY ABOVE THEIR CAPACITY
6. LIVING CAUSED, ARE HIGH
7. US FED

[GER2]It seems to make sense for it becomes the background reason why we decide to analyze Germany and UK

[GER3]

[GER4]

Does it then valuable to be called  PROTECTIONISM?

[GER5]SIMILARITIES SHARED BY BOTH WAS

1. BOTH ARE WORSTLY HIT BY CRISIS
2. A NEW DEAL (BOTH ENGAGED IN MULTILATERAL MEETING EITHER TO AVOID AND PREVENT THE FUTURE CRISIS)
3. STIMULUS PACKAGE

[GER6]

GERMANY AND FRANCE

ATTEMPT TO MAKE A NEW FORMAL REGULATION

BRITISH ARGUES THAT THE REGULATION AND COORDINATION OF ECONOMIC SECTOR WOULD DECREASE THE MARKET EFFICIENCY

[GER7]

I THINK IT’S A GOOD POINT WHERE THE GIANT COUNTRIES HAVE DIFFERENCES

[GER8]

COULD THIS MEAN THAT GERMANY AND FRANCE STILL OPPOSE THE SUMMIT RESULT?

WHICH THEN LEAD TO THE G20 SUMMIT MEETING IN THE PITTSBURG

[GER9]

THE NEO-REALIST PERSPECTIVES

Diplomasi and Foreign policy

DIPLOMASI DAN KEBIAKAN LUAR NEGERI

Pengertian diplomasi

Secara harfiah diplomasi berasal dari kata “diploma” (Yunani: sebuah kertas yang dilipat dua) yang didesain sebagai dokumen resmi Negara/ dokumen sejarah, sebuah sertifikat perundingan, kewenangan, dan semacamnya. Berdasarkan Bester’s New World Dictionary of the American Language (1996) diplomasi adalah:

1. Hubungan relasi antar bangsa, dalam membuat keputusan,
2. Keahlian dalam melakukannya,
3. Keahlian dealing with people.

Berikut adalah definisi diplomasi menurut beberapa ahli:

-          Ellis Briggs: diplomasi adalah sebuah kegiatan urusan official dengan cara mengirim seseorang untuk mewakili pemerintahan. Tujuan diplomasi adalah untuk menciptakan persetujuan dalam kacamata kebijakan (1968, p.202)

-          Geoffrey McDermott: diplomasi adalah pertimbangan dalam manajemen hubungan internasional. Masing-masing Negara, seberapapun kaliber dan ukurannya, selalu ingin memelihara/ mengembangkan posisinya dalam kancah internasional. Begitulah adanya, kendati faktanya, akan lebih baik jika lebih sedikit negara nationally minded di dunia ini. (1973, p.39)

-          Honore de Balzac: ilmu pengetahuan bagi mereka yang tidak berkuasa… suatu ilmu pengetahuan menyenangkan yang selalu demi memenuhi dirinya sendiri; suatu ilmu pengetahuan yang mengijinkan praktisinya untuk tidak mengatakan apapun dan berlindung di belakang anggukan kepala misterius; suatu ilmu pengetahuan yang mengatakan bahwa eksponen yang paling berhasil, pada akhirnya, adalah mereka yang mampu berenang bersama kepalanya di atas arus kejadian-kejadian yang pura-pura ia lakukan. (p.37)

DIPLOMASI DAN PERKEMBANGANNYA

Catatan historis pertama megenai pertukaran duta pemerintahan terorganisir terjadi di millennium ketiga sebelum masehi, yakni peradaban tulisan berbentuk paku Mesopotamia.

Diplomasi pernah dimarginalkan dalam kajian HI. Namun anehnya saat itu diplomasi mendapat perhatian dari sebagian kecil ilmuwan politis yang mengkhususkannya di dalam kajian ilmu hubungan internasional. Tentu saja, itu karena diplomasi bersifat “sangat menentang ke theory”. Seperti yang kita ketahui, sejarah diplomatik menimbun sangat banyak informasi tentang peristiwa dari jaman dahulu hingga ke depannya dan  sejarawan diplomatik pun gagal menempa mata rantai kuat dengan teori IR. Oleh karena itu, kendati diplomasi ” ada” di dalam teori internasional, ia jarang diteliti atau secara ekstensif diselidiki. Kekayaan konseptual literatur mengenai diplomasi sungguh terbatas dan sangat “terceraikan” dari perkembangan teori politik. Contohnya ketika  masa Perang Dingin terjadi, ancaman kekuatan lebih diunggulkan ketimbang diplomasi.

Namun beberapa tahun terakhir ini, studi diplomasi akademis nampaknya telah terevitalisasi. Contohnya Institut terkemuka Studi Diplomasi Universitas Georgetown yang menerbitkan The Diplomacy Record per tahunnya dan Pusat Studi Diplomasi di Universitas Leicester, yang menerbitkan Discussion Papers bulanan dan buku berseri, Studies in Diplomacy. Sebagai tambahan, International Studies Association ( ISA) dan British International Studies Association (BISA) mendirikan bagian studi diplomatik di tahun 1990an.

ESENSI DIPLOMASI

Sebagian besar ilmuwan politis membantah bahwa diplomasi ‘mengekspresikan sebuah human condition yang mendahului dan melebihi pengalaman selama tinggal dalam kedaulatan tersebut, Negara wilayah dalam beberapa ratus tahun yang lalu’ (Sharp, 1999: 51). Daripada membatasi konsep pada praktek dan aktor yang spesifik, mereka memahami diplomasi dalam kaitannya dengan konsep umum, seperti representation dan communication. Diplomasi juga dapat dipahami sebagai ‘suatu proses komunikasi yang diatur’ ( Constantinou, 1996: 25) atau ‘ sistem komunikasi masyarakat internasional’ (James, 1980: 942).

Disamping itu diplomasi berisi aspek-aspek penting, seperti: (1) sebuah akun sejarah dan prasejarah diplomasi, (2) mengenai fungsi, gaya, dan teknik berdiplomasi, (3) informasi mengenai kerangka syah diplomasi, (4) sebuah diskusi tentang permasalahan dan pengembangan kontemporer.

KEBIJAKAN LUAR NEGERI DAN KAITANNYA DENGAN DIPLOMASI

Penting untuk membedakan antara diplomasi dan Kebijakan luar negeri. Diplomasi mengacu pada pelaksanakan hubungan dengan seseorang, sedangkan FP mengacu pada ‘perihal’ tersebut, sebuah strategi/ rencana yang dikembangkan oleh decision maker untuk berhubungan dengan Negara lain , bertujuan untuk mencapai sebuah tujuan spesifik yang disebut dengan national interest. Harper dan Row (1973) berpendapat bahwa kebijakan luar negeri adalah sebagai poin yang memperlancar kebangkitan dalam sistem internasional ke dalam arena domestic dan di mana politik domestic bertransformasi ke dalam international behavior. Itulah mengapa kebijakan luar negeri menjadi kajian penting dalam ilmu hubungan internasional.

KESIMPULAN

Pada dasarnya diplomasi adalah kajian hubungan internasional dengan dasar teoritikal yang lemah. Namun beberapa tahun terakhir ini, studi diplomasi akademis nampaknya telah terevitalisasi. Hal ini dikarenakan diplomasi menekankan pada negosiasi. Berdasarkan kamus Oxford, diplomasi didefinisikan sebagai  ‘kegiatan hubungan internasional dalam bentuk negosiasi’. Adam Watson (1982: 33) juga tak jauh beda dari itu, ia berpendapat diplomasi sebagai ‘negosiasi antara perangkat politik yang keduanya indepen’.

Sementara itu FP merupakan sebuah strategi/ rencana yang dikembangkan oleh decision maker untuk berhubungan dengan Negara lain.

PENDAPAT

Secara ringkas saya berpendapat bahwa sementara diplomasi adalah taktik, FP adalah strategi. Keduanya saling berhubungan satu sama lain. Diplomasi akan turut berubah jika terjadi perubahan lingkungan yang memicu perubahan dalam FP. Saya juga sependapat dengan McDermott bahwa inti sebenarnya dari diplomasi adalah untuk mengintervensi Negara lain melalui persetujuan sebab tujuan utama dari diplomasi tak lain adalah untuk memenuhi national interest. Tak ada satu Negara pun di dunia ini yang menginginkan kedudukan negaranya dalam kancah internasional jauh lebih rendah ketimbang lainnya.

REVIEW FOR MID TERM EXAM: KEY POINTS

Perbandingan politik luar negeri (Foreign Policy—FP)

“CARA BELAJAR, ADA BEBERAPA KEY POINTS YANG MESTI DIHAPAL (METODE RENI) DAN DIPELAJARI, DIPAHAMI (METODE DEVA)”

1. Definisi PLN dan ruang lingkupnya (the Nature of Foreign Policy)
   1. Jack Plano, FP menghadirkan dan mencerminkan kepentingan nasional
      1. i.      KEY POINTS: FP dan kepentingan nasional
2. Henry Kissinger, FP dimulai ketika kepentingan domestik berakhir
   1. i.      KEY POINTS: FP dan domestik politik
3. Raymond Hopkins, FP merupakan “arising influence of international system cross into domestic arena”
   1. i.      KEY POINT: FP berwujud INFLUENCE (pengaruh)

Wujud FP adalah pengaruh. Pengaruh sistem internasional kepada arena domestik dan sebaliknya, yang ditransformasikan ke dalam perilaku internasional

1. Rosenau, FP merupakan

KEY POINTS

1. i.      “Bridging discipline” yang menghubungkan semua negara satu sama lain dalam ruang lingkup sistem internasional yang lebih luas
2. ii.      FP merupakan specific actions by government / staff
3. iii.      FP merupakan aksi otoritatif pemerintah
4. K.J. Holsti
   1. i.      FP: “perencanaan ide dan gagasan untuk solusi” permasalahan antarnegara, kebijakan, politik dan perilaku negara

Menganalisa FP menggunakan definisi yang digunakan oleh

1. Modelski:
   1. FP adalah sistem (kesatuan) aktivitas yang muncul oleh komunitas “negara2” dengan tujuan mengubah perilaku negara lain dan penyesuaian aktivitas mereka ke dalam sistem internasional
   2. Key poin
      1. i.      Input & output
      2. ii.      Capability (power)
      3. iii.      Context of FP
      4. iv.      Prinsip khusus FP sebagai panduan (guidance)
      5. v.      Konsep dasar FP
      6. Rosenau
         1. Specific action
         2. Aksi otoritatif pemerintah
         3. Bridging disiplin
         4. Key Point
            1. i.      Cluster (group) orientations
            2. ii.      Set of plans and commitments actions
            3. iii.      Foreign policy sebagai bagian dari “PERILAKU”

Orientasi yang dilengkapi dengan perencanaan dan komitmen, mempengaruhi PERILAKU NEGARA

1. Holsti:
   1. seperangkat ide terencana untuk solusi berkaitan permasalahan internasional
      1. i.      Orientasi FP
      2. ii.      Peranan nasional
      3. iii.      Objectives
      4. iv.      Actions

Tradisi FP

Menurut Hudson

Kerangka tradisi FP dibedakan menjadi dua

1. unit analysis : apa yang dijelaskan
2. unit of explanation : apa yang menjadi sumber penjelasan

dari keduany, Hudson, membuat klasifikasi perkembangan Studi FP, menegaskan letak FPA (Foreign policy analisis itu dimana)

klasifikasi yang dibuat

1. Groups Decision Making (unit analisis)
   1. Dinamika group kecil (sebagai unit eksplanasi)
      1. i.      Terdiri dari kelompok orang yang punya kedudukan tinggi—highest position in Government, sifat kelompok temporer (sementara), sewaktu-waktu dibutuhkan sewaktu-waktu tidak (inilah arti dari istilah “dinamika”)
      2. Comparative Foreign Policy—(unit analisis)
         1. i.      Events data (unit eksplanasi)
            1. FP dipelajari dengan metodologi yang sistematis, guna menjelaskan fenomena politik, khususnya berhubungan dengan FP.
               1. Membuat generalisasi empiris fenomena politik luar negeri
               2. ii.      Penjelasan terintegrasi (integrasi=menyatu)—unit eksplanasi
               3. Psychological & Societal Milieu (unit analisis)
                  1. i.      Individual Characteristic—mempertimbangkan faktor intern individu itu sendiri (unit eksplanasi)
                  2. ii.      National & Societal characteristic—mempertimbangkan faktor eksternal yang mempengaruhi gagasan individu tersebut
                  3. Klasifikasi oleh Walter Carlsnaes
                     1. Innenpolitik (INTERN)
                        1. i.      Policy—kebijakan, sebagai variabel utama dalam FPA
                        2. ii.      Kebijakan=didominasi faktor internal oleh studi terhadap kepentingan nasional, utamanya DOMESTIK
                        3. CFP=Comparative Foreign Policy, perbandingan politik luar negeri (EKSTERN)
                           1. i.      Policy—menitikberatkan pada studi behavioral, studi behavioral menggunakan generalisasi empiris
                           2. ii.      Mempertimbangkan faktor eksternal
                        4. FPA
                           1. i.      Fokus pada FPA
                           2. ii.      FPA yang menggabungkan INTERN dan EKSTERN

INDIVIDUAL DECISION MAKING

Kegley

1. Mengungkapkan bahwa kepemimpinan menjadi faktor dominan utama yang vital
2. Tingkat pengaruh pemimpin terhadap pengambilan keputusan FP
   1. Otoritas dan legitimasi
   2. Cermin diri (self image) baik di mata internasional maupun domestik
   3. Jumlah informasi yang tersedia
   4. Posisi pemimpin di kancah politik
   5. Situasi krisis nasional

Rosati

1. Belief & images
2. Kemampuan berpikir rasional
3. Keterbukaan (open minded) & ketertutupan (close-minded)
4. Psikologi politik

Hudson

1. Intern
   1. Minat thp FP
   2. Kapabilitas—kemampuan
   3. Style kepemimpinan
   4. Keahlian dalam FP
   5. Ekstern
      1. Situasi krisis
      2. Situasi tidakt terduga
      3. Tipe rezim yang sedang berkuasa
      4. Interaksi group yang ikut ambil bagian mempengaruhi keputusan

PUBLIC INFLUENCE AND ROLES OF MEDIA

PUBLIC INFLUENCE AND MEDIA’S ROLE

Public influence and media’s role in foreign policy making constitutes a vast range of features as they would be employed to influence. Previously we have talked about the internal factors regarding the decision maker either individual or groups and the entire system thoroughly. The more informations attained the more complete foreign policy become possibly and simply observable. Thus it is necessary then to combine both internal and external features to acquire the full and complete inquiry. However, this study is aimed not far from investigating the formulation and and conduct of foreign policy.

A broader scope of external power spring from different sources such as accounts provided by media[1], the mutual and global communications Eytan Gilboa earlier stated[2], public opinion and domestic structure in framing foreign policy[3] in describing foreign policy using a case study, CNN[4] This short essay essentially will address the above features questioning their role in formulating and directing foreign policy neither directly nor indirectly.

1. Media and foreign policy

The media involvement is explained by Glenn Snyder and his colleagues, he then promotes two models of how media will be incorporated namely input and output model of decision making process. His model takes into account two different aspects, internal setting and external setting.

Internal setting specifically dealing with human environment composed of cultural and demographic composition. This human environment depicted as the reflections of expectations, interpretations of various different members and groups of society and non-governmentals as well[5] in which media have simultaneously played significant tool in expressing and partially bringing them up on the surface so the government will acknowledge to satisfy their demands. This is suggesting that Glenn atempts to encompass media as the only single factor within input feature affecting decision making. Furthermore, Brecher argue that media has not only been seen as single factor acting alone, he proposes that international setting also put effort the same way in input[6]. Different inquiry made by these two different persons must not contribute to misleading, misconception and misunderstanding. Different perspective occupied by different knowledgbe basis, this must become our broad information following with certain tendency that may occur either in present or future. However, these two media environmental models is just a mere example to create how media is likely to be seen exist within decision making process. So far that we have known, decision maker must meet domestic and international views either portrayed by media nor other entity as one of their main source of information, partial reality for practical minded consideration. The second perspective available. It is media seen as the output environment. Later will be discussed below.

1.1  The Media as Environment

mass media as seen as environmental factor in a specific state is likely accomodated by six variables First, the political communication, regime in the state under consideration defines wheter media’s involvement is completely controllable, liberal nor restricticted[7]. Second, the communication policy adopted by the government of that state addressing whether communication regulations utilized by media is created under their favor; some features may be characterised different type of regime[8]. Third, the political economy setting of the mass media; whether media has been merged by large body of communication directed under certain political owners own hugely profitable unit on media business. Fourth, the various communication channels and technologies existing in that country will highly possibly allow the transfering information rapidly[9]. Fifth, the typical functions  performed by media channels will enable certain shifting in old tradition to a more acceptable, developed and broad function (from general into more specific function)[10]. And finally, news values, the criteria that lead media “gatekeepers” to include items and events in the news.

1.2. Media as an output environment

Slightly different form previously mentioned, media as an input in decision making saying that media intentionally or accidently makes effort affection decision makers. In output environmental perspective, how decision makers make some efforts to influence media for instance making some image, develop a campaign that will affect either international point of views or domestic’s. the basic understanding resting on decision makers perform in an environment which includes mediat to make political decisions[11]. The frame thoughts of this perspective will be covering questions regarding who is in charge managing media and bridging relationships between professional media and professional political, what methods are being used by those people in managing or setting a set of regulations upon media[12].

Review

Media remains as one of the powerful feature influencing foreign policy due to its consideration in representing its national and international aspects. Media helps to arrange foreign policy strongly and indirectly by visualizing images and motions that may be feasible reflect view points needed by decision maker. They provide huge amount of specific data, historical accounts, speeches etc. that will equip foreign decision maker effective and more sufficiently important in calculation what options, behaviors, and outcomes might be possible if certain decision would have been undertaken. Media hold two main core functions, media as seen as both input and output of foreign policy making; media is seen as influential factors, media seen as a instrument.

1. Global communication and foreign policy

Global communication has become a major consquence occurs throughout area with technology network, mainly. This makes Eytan Gilboa views global communication as another actor exist within foreign policy decision making[13]. The building understanding will maintain us to keep on the soft power existence in which technology with the flow of communication globally allows stream of influencing effort. The invention from communication technologies enable several global news channels existed, for instance BBC, CNN international, NBC etc. Their broadcasting network have covered a wide range of nations. This make them able to spread and possibly modify news to fill certain national interest, individual interest or small group interest. Once global communication hasn’t been acting independently, it will be hugely potential being a very useful instrument to frame global viewers as mentioned in CNN effect below.

1. Public opinion and domestic structure in framing foreign policy

This inquiry focused on liberal democratic states in which public policy have always been matter. Public opinion influence and shape a government’s foreign policy or governments influence and shape the form of public opinion on foreign policy issue. Both occur reciprocally. Public opinion is a political resources wielded by different actors (including the public itself) in different ways. Most of the scholars are arguing the question below. Since it can be one of them is true, but as the matter of fact, there are always two possibility which happened in most of the cases. Relationship between the public and foreign policy decision making is complicated.

There are two basic view to examine this relationship:

1. Strong impact.

In this view, the public opinion could influence directly and strongly to the foreign policy matters. Because it derives from the pluralist model of policy making. The model is usually ‘bottom-up’ type, which started from the grassroot opinion to the elites. This model also usually found in democracies or pluralistic countries.

1. Denies any real impact

From this view, we can examine that the influence of public opinion to foreign policy decision making is unseen. It is representing the conventional wisdom in the literature, because according to the popular concensus which is the function of elites concensus and elites cleavages would trickles down to mass public opinion. Or we could say as ‘top-down’ model. It could be found in non-democratic countries.

Besides, in this view, there are 3 different public:

1. mass public, who usually not interested in foreign policy matter
2. attentive public, known as interested in and informed about the world affair, but only influence by helped of the interest group.
3. the elite, which is a small section of public that interested, informed, and influencial in the shaping of public opinion.

According to Ole Holsti, there is no linkage between public opinion and policy formation, but the policy makers’ perception of public opinion would set the parameters for foreign policy behavior.

Difference between how public opinion influence the foreign policy decisionmaking in

1. Democracies states

Usually we called as “bottom-up” public opinion on foreign policy. Because it would matter more to the public. But the influence is indirect impact, or we could say that there is a long road to make the grassroot opinion to be implemented in the foreign policy directly, and usually got help by the interest group.

1. Non-democracies

Called as “top-down” effect, which usually came up from the elite to influence the mass opinion. If it became nonfactor in foreign policy decisionmaking, it would not effect the process at all. Or it would play at best an instrumental role for elites,  after it had been made which would influence the grassroot’s life directly. So the scholars argues that it would matter more than an elite-driven model would allow.

1. New Foreign policy in the power seeking within globalized era

In chapter 5 we discussed how the dominant Japanese pacifist political culture was being challenged by a nationalist subculture. This potential change in political culture had an impact on public opinion in China in 2005. That nationalist challenge in Japan resulted in the election of ardent nationalist leadership in the governing Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).

In the same time period that the history texts were revised, Japan was making its case internationally for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. The Security Council has five permanent seats (held by the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China) and ten rotating seats. Japan’s bid for a permanent seat rested largely on the strength

of its financial contributions to the United Nations. U.N. membership dues are calculated by the size of national economies. Japan makes the second-highest financial contribution to the United Nations after the United States. Japan’s view was clear: if it paid so much to maintain the U.N. system, it should have a voice commensurate with its contributions.

That voice meant permanent membership, since the real power of the United Nations lies there. Japan was pushing its candidacy in 2005 because of a World Summit scheduled for September that was to consider the issue of reforming the United Nations. Adding permanent member seats to the Security Council was one critical issue under debate. As the Japanese began their public relations campaign in early 2005, a different campaign opposed to Japan’s bid took form in China. Many popular Chinese websites began a petition campaign in February against the Japanese.

Many issues drove the problematic relations between the Chinese and Japanese in this period. These included Japanese claims to some islands and oil reserves in the South China Sea, the increased nationalism of Japanese leadership, the new textbooks already mentioned, and Japan’s bid for a permanent seat in the U.N. Security Council. At the same time, China had replaced the United States as Japan’s primary export market in 2004; and China’s economy had “helped pull the sluggish Japanese economy out of recession.” One of the most basic questions in the study of public opinion and foreign policy is: Does public opinion influence and shape a government’s foreign policy, or does the government influence and shape the form of public opinion on foreign policy issues?

The Chinese case suggests that the answer is a little bit of both—that the relationship between the public and foreign policy decision making is complicated. The Chinese case also demonstrates that public opinion matters to governments, even in nondemocratic systems.

4.1 Different Views On The Public

The relationship between public opinion and foreign policy making is complicated. Scholars and policy makers offer different views on this relationship, but not views that are always compatible. Some of the early foreign policy studies on public opinion focused on whether the public held a structured, coherent view on foreign policy matters. In a 1950

study, Gabriel Almond established one strong position in the scholarship by contending that American citizens were ignorant of foreign policy issues and that their opinions lacked structure and content. This left the public open to volatile mood changes. There are two basic views on the relationship between public opinion and policy making. The first suggests a strong impact, and the second denies any real impact. The first view derives from the pluralist model of policy making. This view is “a ‘bottom-up’ approach [which] assumes that the general public has a measurable and distinct impact on the foreign policy making process. The second view “representing the conventional wisdom in the literature suggests a ‘top-down’ process, according to which popular consensus is a function of the elite consensus and elite cleavages trickle down to mass public opinion.” This view is consistent with realism, as it envisions a persistent national interest pursued by elites and a passive, acquiescent, or inconsequential mass public.Public opinion should matter more in democratic states. Public opinion in nondemocracies, on the other hand, should be a nonfactor in foreign policy making, or should play at best an instrumental role for elites. The research, however, does not support these simple generalizations. Instead, public opinion is seen to have an indirect impact on policy making in democratic states, while public opinion in nondemocracies matters more than an elite-driven model would allow. This gray area is more understandable when we recall that policy makers’ perceptions of

public opinion are crucial.

1. A case study: define CNN effect towards foreign policy using perspective of global communication, public opinion and domestic structures

There exists in the minds of some observers and policy makers a phenomenon called the “CNN effect.” Political scientist and former U.S. assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs Joseph Nye explains the CNN effect in this way: The free flow of broadcast information in open societies has always had an impact on public opinion and the formation of foreign policy, but now the flows have increased and shortened news cycles have reduced the time for deliberation. By focusing on certain conflicts and human rights problems, broadcasts pressure politicians to respond to some foreign problems and not others. The so-called CNN effect makes it harder to keep some items off the top of the public agenda that might otherwise warrant a lower priority. Nye sees the CNN effect as real and potentially harmful to reasoned policy making. Because the news broadcasts “24/7,” the media sometimes force issues out into the open, issues policy makers would be happier to keep in the dark. This, in turn, lessens deliberation time and the search for the most reasonable policy response. Those who believe that the CNN effect is real propose that it makes use of public opinion. Once the media broadcast images of mass starvation, ethnic conflict, or some other sort of mass suffering, the images arouse strong emotions in the public. The public then turn to their elected officials and demand some strong and morally correct response. This suggests that the media play a powerful role in setting the public Agenda. Media, like other societal actors, can take control of a government’s policy only when that government loses control: If officials let others dominate the policy debate, if they do not closely monitor the progress and results of their own policies, if they fail to build and maintain popular and congressional support for a course of action, if they step beyond the bounds of their public mandate or fail to anticipate problems, they may suddenly seem driven by the news media and its agenda.

5.1  A COMPLICATED RELATIONSHIP: GOVERNMENT, ELITE, MEDIA, AND THE PUBLIC

Robert Entman offers an understanding of the complicated relationship between policy makers, opposition elites, the media, and the public that combines many of the elements of state-level foreign policy analysis discussed in these last three chapters. The basic set up is this: When a foreign policy problem arises, someone attempts to explain the problem and its solution. That someone might be the policy makers, or what Entman calls the governing elites, or the opposition elites, or even the media. The explaining of the problem and its solution is called “framing.” Framing is not so easy, and it is in the framing that governing elites may get behind on an issue, opening the door to competing frames from the opposition and/or the media. Framing is the act of “selecting and highlighting some facets of events and issues and making connections among them so as to promote a particular interpretation, evaluation and/or solution.” Frames that work best are those that have cultural resonance, that is, frames that evoke words and images that are “noticeable, understandable, memorable, and emotionally charged” in the dominant political culture. Such framing is necessary because all actors in the political context are cognitive misers and satisficers. Successful frames depend on the stimulus: when the foreign policy event is recognizable and congruent with the political culture, then the national response is based on habit. If the governing elite have successfully matched the event with a habitual schema, it requires “almost no cognitive effort [by the public] to make the connections promoted by the administration’s frame of the event.”

REVIEW

There is little scholarly agreement on the impact of public opinion on policy making other than that the impact is probably indirect. There is little scholarly and practitioner agreement on the “CNN effect,” but policy makers seem to believe the effect is real. Scholarship on the “CNN effect” shows that it has no impact on policy once decision makers have already agreed on a course of action. When a government stays in control of the “framing” of a foreign policy event, it generally can control the views of the opposition, media, and the public on that event. When a government lets others define and explain a foreign policy event, it stands to lose control of its own response to that event.

ANALYSIS

External features never loose an essential part within decision making process. Media as viewed as one of important key framing public opinion is seen within two perspectives, input and output environmental. It enable us to get a clarity of broader function of it. As well as globalization communication is hugely related with the invention and evolution of information technology. It suggests that as the world become global and interest becomes more intense, information can be feasible to modify to meet interest of certain small groups. As the CNN effect explains to us how this information available to allow certain public global viewer seeing international relations by new perspective. Decision maker cannot act alone, decision maker will continously rely on complementary sources outside their authority. However, different regime may contribute to different action how to perceive such intervenes. This will be our new knowledge gained from comparative analysis and thus enable us to make prediction of the possibility that decision makers somehow provided by constrainst exist in their own internal environment. They must play two-level game: satisfy international demand as well as to fulfill domestic demands.

additional updates

Social media alone, however, do not instigate revolutions. They are no more responsible for the recent unrest in Tunisia and Egypt than cassette-tape recordings of Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini speeches were responsible for the 1979 revolution in Iran. Social media are tools that allow revolutionary groups to lower the costs of participation, organization, recruitment and training. But like any tool, social media have inherent weaknesses and strengths, and their effectiveness depends on how effectively leaders use them and how accessible they are to people who know how to use them. (Read more: Social Media as a Tool for Protest | STRATFOR)

 

 

REFERENCE

Naveh, Chanan. 2002. The Role of Media in Foreign Policy decision-making: a theoretical framework. JSTOR.

Gilboa, Glbal communication and Foreing policy.

Risse-Kappen, Public Opinion, Domestic Structure, and Foreign Policy in Liberal Democracies. JSTOR.

Neack, Laura. 2008. The New Foreign Policy: Power seeking in the Globalized Era. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

---

[1] Naveh, The Role of Media in Foreign Policy decision-making: a theoretical framework. p.1-14.

[2] Gilboa, Glbal communication and Foreing policy.p.1-18.

[3] Risse-Kappen, Public Opinion, Domestic Structure, and Foreign Policy in Liberal Democracies. p.1-35.

[4] Neack, The New Foreign Policy: Power seeking in the Globalized Era.p.111-128.

[5] Naveh, The Role of Media in Foreign Policy decision-making: a theoretical framework. p.2.

[6] Brecher, 1972. p.10 in Naveh, The Role of Media in Foreign Policy Decision Making : a theoretical framework. p.3.

[7] McQuail, 1994.p.127-131. In Naveh, The Role of Media in Foreign Policy decision making: a theoretical framework. p. 5.

[8] Baldwin, 1996. p.301-352. in Naveh,  p.5.

[9] McQuail, 1994,p 12-21. In Naveh, The Role of Media in Foreign Policy decision making: a theoretical framework. p. 6.

[10] Laswell, 1971. p.85 in Naveh.

[11] Naveh, The Role of Media in Foreign Policy decision making: a theoretical framework. p. 8.

[12] Naveh, The Role of Media in Foreign Policy decision making: a theoretical framework. p. 9-14.

[13] Gilboa, Global Communication and foreign policy.p.1.

DOMESTIC VARIABLES IN FOREIGN POLICY

KEBIJAKAN LUAR NEGERI : VARIABEL DOMESTIK

Kebudayaan, Identitas Nasional, dan Politik Domestik serta Oposisi

INTRODUCTION

In the study of foreign policy analysis, we acknowledge the presence of two level analysis. It suggests that individual decision maker together must satisfy its foreign affairs as well as to satisfy its domestic demands. This key point leads us to the understanding that in analyzing foreign policy, we must look carefully the fundamentals idea building domestic demands.

Domestic demands contain chains of mutual elements. Those are included what we assume as a national identity and culture. The very inner of domestic demands rest domestic politic and opposition.

Furtther explanation about how these four elements are correlated each other, will be discussed below.

Culture and National Identity

Valerie provides a vast definitions regarding culture have been issued. However, it’s partially simply important to narrow our mind to the insights built by LeVine. LeVine addresses that culture is the matter of how organized people communicating. Kluckhohn states that culture refers ot pattern of thoughts, feel and reaction that symbolized in people manners and behaviors. Triandis assumes that culture is a component of human made of objective elements which shared common belief and habits. According to d’Andrade refers to adaptive form of behavior of its surrounding environment. While Geertz, refers culture as a symbolized meaning inherited historically.

There’s no need to memorize the vast scope of those definitions, what we shall have in mind is the simple thought that culture refers to adaptive behavior of its surrounding environment. While national identity lots of times are shaped by culture and building image of domestic motivation. Political beliefs is the implementation of a firm national identity created for long period of time.

The analyzing of culture entails

n  Culture as the organization of meaning

n  Culture as value preferences

n  Culture as templates for human strategy

The Interface

n  Shared systems of meaning in foreign policy and foreign policymaking

n  Differences in values and preferences in foreign policy and foreign policymaking

n  Prefabricated templates of action in foreign policy and foreign policymaking

Analisis kebudayaan dapat menggunakan metode-metode seperti:

n  Comparative analysis

n  Subnational analysis

n  Discourse analysis

n  Horizon analysis

n  Interaction analysis

Politik Domestik dan Oposisi

According to Dahl, the central critical point within political domestic was nature of the regime. Conversely, Milner addresses a distitinctive important term regarding domestic politic, it is players that matter and policy preferences, distributed information, and fashion of power distribution. The important players holding the role is potensial actors dan non-domestic actor.

Dimension of Organizing

n  Proximity to the foreign policy decisionmaking (FPDM) positions

n  Cohesive of fragmented each of the identified actor

n  The number of people represented by the actor in question

n  The degree of differece in viewpoint between domestic actor and the regime

n  Activeness of a particular actor has been on a given foreign policy issue

Vital security strategy to face oposition are:

n  Ignoring or refusing to engage the opposition

n  Direct tactics

n  Indirect tactics

n  Out-persuade the opposition

n  Form alliances with other groups

n  Deflect the attention of the nation away

n  Compromise

Conclusion

There is firm chains from culture, national identity, domestic demands and motivation, and domestic politic. Domestic politic is a collective image figured by image, stereotype, and beliefs that country citizens may share in common. There are critical points of political domestic. But those critical points may differ from one scholars to others regarding the context of history and events. However, the inclination may always be existed in order to make some predictions. Predictions are potentially used to arrange strategy. Security has become the complex problem troughout nations in most of part of the world. Therefore, exist some security strategy needed to coounter any opposition that exists within domestic politics.

Referensi:

Hudson, Valerie M. 2007. Foreign Policy Analysis Classic and Comtemporary Theory.

THE LEVEL OF NATIONAL ATTRIBUTES AND INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM: EFFECTS ON FOREIGN POLICY

The Level of National Attributes and International System: Effects on Foreign Policy

So far we have examined foreign policy through individual level and state level analysis encompass perspectives created by psychological factors, small and large group effects, culture and social discourse and domestics politics. Considering national attributes as important as psychological factors, small and large group and their consequence, we have come to take account to macro level approach to understanding FP. There we shift our perception from FP decision making (at micro level extent) to FP as a whole of macro level analysis. This outlook is simply using more conventional traditions of IR theory occupied by various variables which are fairly stable.

The analysis provide another point of views in the course of national attributes in the systemic international nature followed its effects broadly explaining different foreign policy. Regardless the objective to posit how change in these in FP direction but rather than to show how the particular value of these variables leads to probability distribution over certain type of FP choices, national attributes and foreign policy typically relative while considering the power of the state, which is including elements: natural resources, size, geography, demography, etc.

International system and foreign policy

International system is the highest level analysis in the international political study in which the level analysis has gradually developed into more conceptual definition in regard the state system nature. While the system theory has been ranging to various explication answering how its dynamic changing across the years, it conventionally address about type of system theory posit system permutation, but not necessarily address the issue of transition itself.

Concerning system attributes and its effect towards foreign policy, due to its process, it is highly feasible to take account to each attributes into effect hypothesis  and values to foreign policy.

Ways to hypothesize system attributes for foreign policy are beneficial, but it is increasingly important as well to comprehend for what it cannot tell us. Another approach introduced derives the foreign policy behavior. It is Kaplan classification involved real world and hypothesis system showing that the derivative from behavioral generalization of systemic level variable could be posted counterfactually. He addressed there are five reliable factors within the system :

1. Increase capabilities, but negotiate rather than fight
2. Fight rather than fail to increase capabilities
3. Stop fighting rather than eliminate an essential actor
4. Oppose any coalition or single actor that tends to assume a position of predominance within the system
5. Constrain actors who subscribe to supranational organizational principles
6. Permit defeated essential actors to reenter the system as acceptable role partners, or act to bring previously inessential actors within an essential actor classification, treat all essential actors as acceptable role partners.

Whenever regulation altered so is the system, there would be predisposition rise within the system.

How to connect international system with FP

A. Using system attributes

1. make typologies systems according to a number of attributes

numbers of actors in a system; the distribution of power across those actors; the number of major powers or poles within a system; the degree of adherence to these poles through formal or informal alliance mechanisms; the presence/absence of supranational organizations; the number of contested issues in the system; etc

1. create typology (like above) then derive general principles of FP behaviour from it

Morton Kaplan, tight bipolar, loose bipolar, the universal system, the hierarchical system and the unit veto system

B. Using concepts of system transition and transition’s effect on FP

The nature pattern of international system has been increasingly critical affecting different foreign policy.

1. Long Cycle Theory — George Modelski

posits a regular and cyclical set of system transition

1. Marxist theory

propounds more of a forward moving spiral movement of the international system culminating in an end state with no further transition

National attributes dealing with foreign policy within macro level analysis are:

1)      Size

State ranging from small to large state also promotes to direct foreign policy. Small state identically prone to the presence of its neighbor power. If the neighbor power is relatively stronger or growing stronger, it will be encouraged to build alliance with the opposite power of its neighboring state. This has been tendency for Europe international system in middle ages.

2)      Geography

Particulars of geography can drive foreign policy and geography itself plays a role in natural resources element.  First of all, access to ports, waterways, and strategically important land features, is an aspect of geography with great import for foreign affairs. Higlands may also be important.  For example: Afghanistan. Afghanistan has very little worth coveting but people keep invading it. Because Afghanistan have  a land pathway from the Middle East to Asia.

Access to the sea is another important facet of geopolitics. Many land-locked countries fall prey to their neighbors with coastline, who then may exert disproportionate influence over their economy.

The borders of a nation may also have foreign policy implications. Some scholars have argued that nations with more borders tend to be involved in more regional wars than nation with few borders, arguing that proximity may become the catalyst for conflict. Borders drawn with more reference to a map than to realities on the ground may also have profound foreign policy effects. Many borders drawn by colonial powers in Africa are similarly troublesome; tribes were divided by these borders; long-standing enemies were placed within the same borders; accessibility to ports was dependent on the outcome of struggles between colonial powers; borders crossed linguistic lines and so forth.

3)      Demographics

Characteristics of a nation’s population also have foreign policy repercussions. Nazli Choucri and Robert North developed the concept of “lateral pressure”, meaning that nations with high population growth rates become hard-pressed to satisfy the needs of their citizens without pressure to obtain these resources from abroad, through trade, migration, colonization, or conflict (1975). In the 21st century, one might also need to develop a theory concerning the inverse of lateral pressure; perhaps the “lateral vacuum”. Many of the richest nations of the world now have birthrates significantly below replacement levels. These nations are depopulating, particularly in Europe (including both eastern and western Europe) and Japan. Issues of migration from high growth rate poor countries to negative growth rate rich countries are now beginning to dominate the domestic politics of many developed nations, with clear foreign policy consequences.

However, there is more to population than simply rates of growth or decline. Other variables come including age distribution, gender distribution, wealth distribution within the population, ethnic/linguistic/religious fractionalization, and education and health. For  example: India and China.

Historically, the presence of a sizeable number of “bare branches” (young men, typically at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum who are surplus to the number of females in society) has led to severe domestic instability (Hudson and Den Boer, 2004). Governments do become aware of the problem and are tempted to co-opt these young men into the armed forces and send them away from population centers of their own country. Governments also may be forced into a more authoritarian mode to cope with the social disruption caused by the bare branches. In sum, abnormal gender distribution within a population may be an aggravating factor in international affairs and in contemporary times may have ramifications for conflicts. International migration flows and human trafficking also profoundly affect nations from which people come and go.

4)      Political System

The key of political system is “Democratic Peace” which means the democratic state usually does not fight with other democratic state. On the contrary, democracies fight no democracies as much as other non-democracies do. That is why the political system which a state used to maintain their national domestic politics would also give consequences for foreign policy. The transparency which increase empathy, the voting process which value the politician, and the high status of women make democratic peace phenomenon is chosen in order to prevent the emerge of conflict.

The example of this phenomenon could be seen in Iraq. During Saddam Hussein administration, Iraq known as a “pseudo-democratic” states. It made their foreign policy tend to avoid or against U.S. It is also became the reason why U.S fight against Hussein’s regime, in order to deliberate democracy government in Iraq.

5)      Military Capabilities

This national attributes which usually includes in the national power give huge impact on the foreign policy of a state. There are two reasons, why the military became important. First, it can often lead the foreign policy to a coercive diplomacy. And second, it can substitute for international support. That is why most of state which has a good military capabilities usually also known as a “super power” state. We could see the example clearly during the Cold War era, where there were only two “great power” in the international system, U.S and USSR who has good power in military.

There are also three kinds of mass destruction weapon which could make a state became powerful; chemical weapon, nuclear weapon, and biological weapon.

Reference

Marijke, Breuning. 2005. Foreign policy: a comparative introduction. London: Palgrave macmillan

EVOLUTION AND OVERVIEWS OF FOREIGN POLICY

FOREIGN POLICY: EVOLUTION AND OVERVIEWS

INTRODUCTION

The centre study and analysis of foreign policy in international relation is focused into two, namely, what the matter is will be explained and what will provide explanation in foreign policy analysis. Those matters encircle between human decision maker and decision. They will then explicate the motivation, interest, personalities on their perceptions, beliefs and values as the factors that explain foreign policy decisions (Breuning, 2007: 11). Decisions can be shaped from its evidence left in newspapers and chronologies, this is the term of “events” and data produced by accumulating them are so called “events data”. Thus human decision maker and decision develop into what to be explained and understood in order to analyze foreign policy. What will provide explanation in foreign policy analysis covers factors that influence foreign policy decision making and foreign policy decision makers. Even sometimes several intervening features may be concluded within hallmarks of FPA, those are multifactorial, multilevel, multiinterdisciplinary, integrative theoretical enterprice, agent oriented, and actor specificity (Hudson, 2007: 6). Above mentioned comes to conclusion that in order to build perceptives of foreign policy analysis it is beneficial to use more than one level of analysis. These level of analysis may be vary and thus complicated because it may differ from one writer analysis to another. However, as the first effort to complete our perceptives by using distinct approaches, we will overview the evolution following tradition of foreign policy analysis from its paradigmatic works in certain years between 1950s and early 1960s, study the classic FPA scholars (1954-1993), foreign policy from 1993 till present following the conclusion at the end.

FPA and the possible combinations in IR

It is important to highlight the study of FPA to IR by identifying point of determinations, that the actual actor within foreign policy analysis is not the state, but human decision makers (Hudson, 2007: 7). Yet it’s quite concerning while different writer may not use this approaches to really analyze foreign policy (Breuning, 2007: 11) because it seems inadequate to acquire this fundamental thoughts by only relying on one simple aspect. Foreign policy, it is a complex phenomenon. However, it doesn’t pronounce that FPA is impossible and hardly valuable to IR. To attain a firm foundation for analyzing, it’s rational to put our main concern mainly on the study of decision makers. As Hudson states, that adding human decision makers as the key theoretical intersection confers some advantages generally lacking in IR theory. In the study of FPA, it allows the conduct of two-level game saying that state must follow simultaneously concern on domestic politics and interest as equal as its foreign politic. It simply suggests that state must satisfy domestic policy and foreign policy altogether (Putnam, 1988). A complete and complex comprehension of FPA possibly be attained through various approaches, that implies multifactorial, considering various factors viewed by some levels of analysis (multilevel) which forms set of combinations of several disciplinaries (multiinterdisciplinaries) range from micro discipline up to the very macro disciplines. Those are integrated within a compressed variety of information of human knowledge. According to Hudson, the core agent of FPA is not state, but mainly human beings, thus entails human being (with its position as decision maker) as a true agent and so that clarifies why there is no theory about state-oriented within foreign policy frameworks. It is not actually fresh idea, this term has been previously suggested by Alexander George in 1993. For example it was not a state which had been engaging to war in Iraq, but Saddam Hussein who had decided to invade Kuwait. This proposes that it would have been different outcomes, if the president of Iraq at that time were somebody else. The outcome, would be less slightly different, but the history would have been totally unidentical. This finally lead to the final features in FPA studying is the presence of specific actor. That a state may possibly be interchangeable factor, but motivation, character personality, beliefs, and values shaping decision maker perceptions can’t be culturally altered.

Paradigmatic Works in 1950-1960

The early approaches of Foreign Policy analysis has been set up in the late 1950s and beginning 1960s. those approaches framed within three paradigmatic works are:

1. Decision Making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics by Richard Snyder, Henry Bruck, and Burton Sapin (1954).  In this work, Snyder and his colleagues inspired researchers to look below the nation-state level to the actual players involved.
2. 2. ‘Pre-theories and Theories of Foreign Policy’ by James Rosenau, in R. B. Farrell (ed.) Approaches in Comparative and International Politics (1966).  Rosenau encouraged the development of actor-specific theory, by underscoring the need to integrate information at several levels of analysis, from individual leaders to the international system, in order to understand foreign policy. It focuses on individual state level analysis.
3. Man-Milieu Relationship Hypotheses in the Context of International Politics by Margaret and Harold Sprout (1956).  The Sprouts argued that one needed to look at the ‘psycho-milieu’ of the individuals and groups making the foreign policy decision.  That is, the international and operational environment or context as it is perceived and interpreted by decision-makers. It focuses on the context of international politics where power matters, therefore it proposes system level analysis.

Classic FPA Scholarships 1954-1993

This period was a time of great intellectual effort and excitement, marked by path-breaking work in conceptualization, development of actor-specific theory at various levels of analysis, and methodological explanation.

A. Classic Foreign Policy Analysis Scholarship

a. Group Decision Making
The process and structure of groups making foreign policy decisions is analyzed.  The groups that were studied ranged in size from very small groups to large organizations and bureaucracies.

b. Small Group Dynamics

Social psychologists explored the unique dynamics of decision-making in small groups.  This research was carried into foreign policy analysis: it was discovered that the motivation to maintain group consensus and personal acceptance by the group could deteriorate decision-making quality.

c. Organizational Process and Bureaucratic Politics

Researchers began to study the influence of organization process and bureaucratic politics on foreign policy decision-making.  Organizations and bureaucracies put their own survival at the top of their list of priorities; the organization will jealously guard and seek to increase its turf (relative influence) and strength.  It was found that the ulterior objectives of foreign policy decision ‘players’ influenced their decision-making.

B. Comparative Foreign Policy

The sub-field of Comparative Foreign Policy developed as a response to James Rosenau’s challenge to build a cross-national and multi-level theory of foreign policy.  Foreign policy behavior, as disparate as a war, a treaty, or a state visit, could now be compared and aggregated.  Data was collected on a variety of possible explanatory factors to determine patterns by which these independent variables were correlated.  Researchers hoped to emerge with a grand unified theory of foreign policy behavior applicable to all nations and time periods.

a. Events Data
The collection of ‘events data’ was used to set up early warning systems that would alert policy makers to crises in the making around the world.  Computerized decision aids and analysis packages began to appear.

b. Integrated Explanations
Research aimed at integrated multilevel explanations.  Independent variables at several levels of analysis were linked by theoretical propositions to types of foreign policy behavior.

C. The Psychological and Societal Milieu of Foreign Policy Decision Making

Increasing attention was directed to the mind of the foreign policy decision-maker.  The societal context in which the decision-maker operates is shaped by several factors such as culture, history, geography, economics, political institutions, ideology, and demographics.  Within this societal context, the individual mind is unique in its own personal beliefs, attitudes, values, experiences, emotions, traits, style, memory, national, and self-conceptions.  To better understand foreign policy, researchers directed their attention to the socio-psychological context of the decision-maker.

a. Individual Characteristics

Political psychology was employed to understand the personal characteristics of the decision-maker.  Under certain stressful conditions these individual characteristics would become crucial in understanding foreign policy decisions.  Efforts were made to categorize decision-makers according to their foreign policy dispositions.

In addition, the role of perceptions and images in foreign policy was also an important research agenda during this time.  Misperception in foreign policy situations could have grave consequences, and was furnished by the rampant use of stereotypical images with reference to the ‘enemy’. Research was conducted on ‘cognitive constraints’, including cognitive bias, heuristic error, the motivation of leaders, cognitive maps, scripts, and schemas, cognitive style, and the life experience of decision makers.

b. National and Societal Characteristics

The decision-maker’s perception of its nation’s ‘role’ in the international arena began to be studied.  Once a ‘national role conception’ was perceived, decision-makers could make their decisions to fit according to the conceptual mould.

In addition, the study of culture as an independent variable affecting foreign policy came to the forefront; analysts considered that the very process of policymaking might be stamped by one’s cultural heritage and socialization

Foreign Policy Analysis 1993-present

The end of the Cold War brought with it a renewed interest in actor-specific theory.  An intuitive understanding of this event involves delving into the individual actors themselves: the personalities of the leaders, the activities of various actors, the struggle between domestic players, and so on. From the late 1980s to the present, foreign policy researchers have focused on developing the following themes outlined below.

A. Theory Development in Decision Making

a. Construction of Meaning and Framing of Situations by Human Agents in International Relations

Human agents interpret situations and problems differently, due to the various personal backgrounds, which influence reasoning.  Researchers have articulated a two-step decision process: in the first step, options that would translate into serious political loss are weeded out; in the second step, alternatives are analyzed against one another.

b. Persuasion and Diffusion Undertaken by Framing/Meaning Entrepreneurs within IR; Analysis of Interaction between Competing Entrepreneurs

Representations formed by human agents in foreign policy must first be diffused to others before collective action can follow.  The process by which individual representations are ‘diffused’ onto others has been under study.  Technology has been useful here, by providing simulation exercises to study how persuasion occurs.

c. Change and Learning by Human Agents in International Relations

Using cognitive mapping techniques, researchers have been able to detect new knowledge structures within the minds of decision-makers; this ‘social learning’ may enhance understanding between different actors and even facilitate successful negotiations between antagonists.

d. The Study of Human Agents as They Interact in Groups in International Relations

Decision-making in small and large groups remains the subject of ongoing research. Recent works on bureaucratic and organizational influences apply agent-orientated perspectives to explain institutional innovation or variations in foreign policy decisions.

B. Theory Development Regarding Leader Characteristics

a. Leader Assessment Frameworks

A more systematic tool has been constructed for assessing a leader’s foreign policy orientation.  Technology has allowed for a resurgence of operational code analysis: no longer an extremely laborious or time-consuming task, automated content analysis has enabled researchers to perform speedy and accurate analyses of leader characteristics.

b. New Frontiers: Neuroscience, Emotion, and Embodiment

Research in the field of neuroscience is slowly filtering into foreign policy analysis.  Neuroscience, with its discoveries on the workings of the human mind, is poised to contribute largely to our understanding of human decision-making.  The effect of emotions, pain, illness, the genetically determined ‘happiness set-point’ and other factors of the human body all have implications on decision-making, and therefore also for foreign policy analysis.

C. Theory Development Concerning Culture, Identity, and Social Groups

a. Construction of National Role Conception Identity by Human Agents within the Nation

Questions of national identity formation are still largely furnished by research on national role conception.  More recently, eclectic methods such as discourse analysis, process-tracing and computational modeling have helped to trace the origin and evolution of identities in conflict.

b. Horizon/Template Analysis

Distinctive patterns of horizon visualization have been discerned in different cultures, which suggests that an understanding of ‘who we are’ plays into the understanding of ‘what it is we do’.

c. The Influence of Societal Groups

The effect of various social groups on foreign policy behavior is under study.  Also explored has been the effect of media, and the manner in which media influences the domestic political context of foreign policy decision-making (eg. the so-called ‘CNN-effect’).

CONCLUSION

The centre of FPA is mainly about who decisions makers are. Foreign policy analysis remains complex instrument to define most worthy reason about state and decision makers behavior. It’s beneficial features that enable us to unlock more doors to close assessment, yet they remain vague and open to question. Separate IR thinkers argue in many diverse level of analysis. The problem of arranging available options to make a good assessment is never quite simple if we rely upon one single analysis. Therefore, broad and open analysis is needed. However, we cannot neglect considering several factors although they are partially important. The micro study contributes a huge meaning creating foreign policy options, behavior, and outcome, as well. We must remember, a simply distinctive factor altered may lead to either beneficial or disastrous outcome.

References:

Breuning, Marijke. 2007. Foreign Policy Analysis: A Comparative Study. London: Palgrave Macmillan

Christopher Hill. 2003. Foreign Policy. The Oxford Companion to the Politics of the World, 2e. Joel Krieger, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.

Hudson, Valerie. 2007. Overview and Evolution of Foreign Policy Analysis. Rowman and Littlefiled. pp. 3-33.

FOREIGN POLICY AS A COMPLEX PHENOMENON

FOREIGN POLICY: DEFINITIONS Foreign policy can be chategorized into two meaning: decision and action.

A COMPLEX PHENOMENON

INTRODUCTION

As one of the International Relation case of study, foreign policy has many definitions and there isn’t any precise interpretation from this terminology as it opens for multiple meaning and intrepretation. The problem is we must be familiar with one of the characteristic. First, it is conducted to regain national interest to another state. (Holsti, 1987). Regarding foreign policy serves and reflects national interests, we must understand that foreign policy is alao a continuation of domestic policy as Rosenau narrated. Second character of foreign policy is that only a state who remains as a main actor to foreign policy because of its sovereignty thus differentiates from non-actors including non-governemental entities. The literature that has burgeoned on foreign policy since 1960 provides us with the means to understand both the underlying forces which shape a country’s foreign policy, and the evolution of the phenomenon itself.

At the heart of the study of foreign policy is the desire to understand countries’ actions and behaviors towards other countries and the international environment generally. Foreign policy is defined as the totality of a country’s policies toward and interactions with the environment beyond its borders. This definition is quite broad and encompasses a variety of issue domains or issue areas, which are defined as a set of interrelated concerns in policy making that are, however, more loosely tied to other sets of interrelated concerns. Traditionally, the study of foreign policy has focused primarily on the quest to maintain and enhance a country’s power and security. It centered on questions of averting war when possible, deciding to fight if necessary, and—first and foremost— ensuring the integrity of the country’s borders. Increasingly, economic relations between countries have gained attention. Since the end of the Cold War, globalization has become an important process that highlights the interconnectedness of the world’s economies. This has had a greater impact on countries with economies that, in earlier eras, were less connected to the international economy. For those countries that traditionally have depended greatly on international trade, economic issues have had a higher priority on the foreign policy agenda much longer. The foreign policy agenda does not stop with security and economic issues: in recent decades, environmental issues have increasingly gained attention; so have issues such as human rights, population growth and migration, food and energy policies, as well as foreign aid, development, and the relations between richer and poorer countries. In addition to the increased diversity of issues on the foreign policy agenda, there is also an increasing variety in the actors who engage in foreign policy making.

Foreign Policy as a complex phenomenon

For modern observers, foreign policy is at once a phenomenon, a concept, and a major area of study. No definition can do full justice to all three of these aspects of the term, but it is still possible to establish a starting point from which the arguments about interpretation can develop. For there are almost as many views of foreign policy as there are different schools of thought on international relations, or types of political ideology in the world.

To claim that a particular foreign policy is in the national interest imparts a degree of authority and legitimacy to that policy. (Griffiths and O’Callaghan, 2005) Foreign policy becomes a complex phenomenon since it is also influenced by the national interest of a state. Beside, the national interest itself also a complex phenomenon because national interest consists of many element of a state life. In addion to Rosenau, foreign policy is a complex study because not only consists of the external aspect, but also internal aspect of a state. External aspect is important since the policy is implemented “across border”. As the matter of fact the internal aspect could give some choices to the policy maker to make and determine the policy. There is one statement states that foreign policy begins when domestic policy ends. (Kissinger, 1971) This suggests that the internal condition state will also give affects to the creation of foreign policy and thoughts to foreign policy decision maker. It is quite challenging to determine whether state foreign policy success in international relations. Furthermore, acccording Nicholas, foreign policy quality and success will not merely depend on the vague objective. But it will have to require the real diplomacy through various methods.

Who or what influences foreign policy? Although leaders are quick to take credit for foreign policy successes and the public is often quick to blame them for failures, leaders rarely make foreign policy alone. Advisory systems and government bureaucracies may be organized differently in different countries, but they always play some role in foreign policy decision making and implementation. Domestic constituencies may vary in influence, depending on the attentiveness of a public to foreign affairs or the structure of government in a specific country. Finally, the world beyond the borders affects the possibilities for foreign policy action. It may present opportunities, but it also presents constraints.

With so many factors affecting foreign policy, it’s quite essential how do we unravel the contributions each of these multiple factors make. First, we will not consider all these factors at once. Although foreign policy behavior is rarely caused by one person or one thing alone, it makes sense to investigate various factors separately before thinking about their interaction. It is simpler to focus on one explanatory factor at a time.After analyzing various factors separately, we can then assess their relative contributions to foreign policy behavior, taking into account also the possible interactions among these different explanatory factors. The strategy is to initially analyze different factors that influence foreign policy making in isolation and to subsequently attempt to integrate these into a comprehensive explanation, assuming that foreign policy is generally purposive or goal-directed behavior.

CONCLUSION

Generally speaking, foreign policy is actions by nation dedicated beyond its border. It combines set of principles, norms, behaviors, plans and strategy determining state engangement into such various international issues. It has also been a platform to conduct set of actions to attain the objectives each nation might pursue. The study of foreign policy includes more than merely leaders and decision making process. It’s a study of the quest to maintain and enhance power and security as well as a strategy to analyze different attempt to integrate those factors within broad explanation to define a nation foreign policy.

Reference:

James N. Rosenau, The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy, 2d ed. (London, 1980).

Yaacov Y. I. Vertzberger, The World in Their Minds: Information Processing, Cognition and Perception in Foreign Policy Decision Making (Stanford, Calif., 1990).

Alexander George, Bridging the Gap: Theory and Practice in Foreign Policy (Washington, D.C., 1993).

David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, rev. ed. (Minneapolis, 1998).

Christopher Hill “Foreign Policy” The Oxford Companion to the Politics of the World, 2e. Joel Krieger, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.