Global Trend

Chapter One
Understanding International
Relations

1
 1.1. Conceptualizing Nationalism, Nations and States

• Nationalism is the most influential force in international

affairs. It has caused the outbreak of revolutions and wars
across the globe. A factor for the collapse of age old
empires, marker for new borders, a powerful component for
the emergence (appearance) of new states and it is used to
reshape (reform) and reinforce (strengthen) regimes in
history.
• Nationalism’s triumph (achievements) is the coming of the
nation-state as key actors in world politics-accepted as
ultimate, legitimate and the most basic form of political
entity. Heywood (2014), nationalism is the doctrine that
asserts (emphasizes) the nation as the basic political unit in
organizing society. 2
• According to Heywood, ‘nations are historical
entities that evolve(develop)
organically(gradually) out (obtainable) of more
similar ethnic communities and they reveal
themselves in myths, legends, and songs
(2014).
• A nation constitutes a community of people
joined (united) by a shared identity and by
common social practices.
3
• The nation added an interior life to the
state-the nation was a soul added to the
body of the early modern state
machinery(apparatus).
• The revolutions that took place in Britain’s
North American colonies in 1776, and in
France in 1789, provided models
(simulations) for other nationalists to
follow.
4
• In France, the king was officially the only
legitimate political actor and the people as a
whole were excluded from politics.
• In the revolution of 1789, the old regime was
overthrown and with it the entire social
order.
• The French nation was from now on to be
governed by the people in accordance with
the principles of– liberty, equality and
brotherhood. 5
• The Congress of Vienna of 1815, where a settlement was
reached at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, was supposed to
have returned Europe to its pre-revolutionary ways.
• Yet, nationalist sentiments were growing across the continent
and they constantly threatened to undermine the settlement.
• All over Europe national communities demanded to be
included into the politics of their respective countries.
– Nationalism in the first part of the 19 th c was a liberal sentiment
concerning self-determination – the right of a people to determine its
own fate. s
• This programme had far-reaching (extensive) implications for
the way politics was organized domestically, but it also had
profound ramsifications for international politics.
6
• The idea of self-determination undermined the
political legitimacy of Europe’s empires-the
map of Europe would have to be radically
redrawn(change the borders).
• In 1848 this prospect seemed to become a
reality as nationalist uprisings quickly spread
across the continent.
• Everywhere the people demanded the right to
rule themselves.
7
• prosperous middle-class demanded inclusion in the political
system and their demands were increasingly expressed through
the language of nationalism.
• The Finns wanted an independent Finland; the Bulgarians an
independent Bulgaria; the Serbs an independent Serbia, and so
on.
• In 1861 Italy too – long divided into separate city-states and
dominated by the Church – became a unified country and an
independent nation.
• The conclusion(end) of the First World War in 1918 that self-
determination was acknowledged as a right.
• After the First World War most people in Europe formed their
own nation-states.
8
 1.2. Understanding International
Relations
• IRs is an integral(essential) aspect(part) of our
everyday lives.
• We now live in a world where it is impossible to
isolate our experiences and transactions from an
international dimension.
• Originally, the study of IRs first used by Jeremy
Bentham in 1798 was seen largely as a branch of
the study of law, philosophy or history.
• there is no one accepted way of defining or
understanding IRs.
9
• Subsequently, the first university chair of
international relations was founded at the
University of Wales in 1919.

10
• Today, IRs could be used to describe a range
of interactions between people, groups, firms,
associations, parties, nations or states or
between these and (non) governmental
international organizations.

11
• These interactions usually take place
between entities that exist in different parts
of the world – in different territories, nations
or states.
• More obviously, events such as international
conflict, inter-national conferences on global
warming and international crime play a
fundamental part in the study of IRs.

12
• Participation in international relations or
politics is also inescapable (inevitable).
• No individual, people, nation or state can exist
in splendid isolation or be master (controlling)
of its own fate.
• None can maintain or enhance their rate(level)
of social or economic progress or keep people
alive without the contributions of foreigners or
foreign states.
13
• On the other hand, there are legal, political and social
differences between domestic and international politics.
• Domestic law is generally obeyed, and if not, the police
and courts enforce (apply) sanctions.
• International law rests on competing legal systems, and
there is no common enforcement.
• Domestically a government has a monopoly on the
legitimate use of force.
• In international politics no one has a monopoly of force,
and therefore international politics has often been
interpreted as the realm of self-help (mutual support).
• It is also accepted that some states are stronger than 14
• Scholars and practitioners in IRs use concepts and
theories to make their study more manageable.
• However the philosophical disputes about the
fundamental nature (feature) of IRs: the Hobbesian
versus the Lockean state of nature in the 17thc; and the
Realist versus Idealist debate (argument) of the first
part of the 20thc.
• Hobbes, writing in 1651, interpreted the state of society
to be: ‘continual fear, and danger of violent death; and
the life of man solitary (private), poor, nasty (horrible),
brutish (cruel), and short’.
15
• Whereas, Locke took a more optimistic
view and suggested that sociability was the
strongest bond between men–men were
equal, sociable and free-governed by the
laws of nature.
• He was clear that nature did not arm
(support) man against man.

16
• International politics is preeminently
concerned with the art of achieving group
ends(purpose) against the opposition of other
groups.
• International politics is also about
maintaining international order.
• The arena (field) of international relations
and politics seems (looks) to be continually
expanding-the multiplication(increase) of
independent states. 17
• When the UNs Charter was signed in October 1945,
51 states signed it.
• In the first decade of twenty-first century the UN
grew between 189 and 192 member states.
• Interdependence implies that people, businesses and
organizations rely on each other (and their rivals) in
different places for ideas, goods and services.
• IRs and politics are necessary for all states, but
political power is not centralized and unequal. That
is why power, coercion and bargaining still hold
sway (dominance).
18
 1.3. The Nature and Evolution of International Relations

• In medieval Europe there were two institutions

over the continent as a whole – the (Catholic)
Church and the Empire.
• The Church was the spiritual authority, with its
centere in Rome-all Europeans were Christian.
• the Church occupied a crucial role in the cultural
and intellectual (academic) life of the Middle
Ages.

19
• The Empire – known as the Holy Roman Empire – was
established in the 10thc in central, predominantly
German-speaking, Europe.
• It also included parts of Italy, France and today’s
Netherlands and Belgium.
• The Holy Roman Empire is best compared to a loosely
(insecurely) structured federation of many hundreds of
separate political units.
• The political system of medieval Europe was thus a
curious (intricate) combination of the local and the
universal.

20
• Yet, from the 14th c onward the state emerged as a political entity
located at an intermediate level between the local and the universal.
• The new states set themselves in opposition to popes and emperors on
the universal level, and to feudal lords, peasants and
assorted(arranged) other rulers on the local level.
• The process started in Italy where northern city-states such as
Florence, Venice, Ravenna and Milan began playing the pope against
the emperor, eventually making themselves independent of both.
• In Germany, the pope struggled with the emperor over the issue of
who of the two should have the right to appoint bishops.
• The kings of France and England began acting more independently,
defying the pope’s orders.

21
• the self-assertive states were not only picking fights with universal
institutions but also with local ones-the kings rejected the
traditional claims of all local authorities.
• This led to extended wars in next to all European countries.
• Peasants rose up in protest against taxes and the burdens imposed
by repeated wars.
• There were massive peasant revolts in Germany in the 1520s with
hundreds of thousands of participants and almost as many victims.
• In the 16th c , there were major peasant uprisings in Sweden,
Croatia, England and Switzerland.
• In France, in the middle of the 17th c, the nobility rose up in
defense of its traditional rights and in rebellion against the
encroachments of the king.
22
• From the 16th c onwards the states established the
rudiments (essentials) of an administrative system and
raised armies, both in order to fight their own peasants
and in order to defend themselves against other states.
• The European states emerged in the midst of struggle and
strife, and struggle and strife have continued to
characterize their existence.

23
• The Thirty Years’ War, 1618–1648, was the
bloodiest and most protracted military confrontation
of the era.
• As a result of the war, Germany’s population was
reduced by around a third. the Swedish troops
destroyed.
• Many of the people who did not die on the
battlefield died of the plague.
• The Thirty Years’ War is often called a religious
conflict since Catholic states confronted Protestants.
24
• the war concerned which state should have
hegemony (or dominance) over Europe.
• The main protagonists(leading role) were two
Catholic states, France and Austria, but Sweden –
a Protestant country – intervened on France’s side
and in the end no dominant power emerged.
• The Treaty of Westphalia, 1648, which concluded
the 30 years of warfare, has come to symbolize
the new way of organizing international politics.
25
• From this point onwards, international politics was a
matter of relations between states.
• All states were sovereign, meaning that they laid claims
to the exclusive(private) right to rule their own
territories and to act, in relation to other states.
• All states were formally equal and they had the same
rights and obligations. Taken together, the states
interacted with each other in a system in which there
was no overarching(supreme) power.
• Sovereignty and formal equality led to the problem of
anarchy. 26
• Once these states had made themselves independent different
rulers began dispatching ambassadors to each other’s courts-in
order to avoid misunderstandings and unnecessary conflicts.
• This diplomatic network provided a means of gathering
information, of spying, but also a way of keeping in touch with
one another, of carrying out negotiations and concluding deals.
• The practices of diplomacy soon expanded to include a
number of mutually advantageous provisions: the embassies
were given extraterritorial rights and legal immunity,
• But Diplomatic practices were never powerful enough to
prevent war, indeed wars continued to be common, but they
did provide Europeans with a sense of a common identity.
• A European state was, more than anything, a state that
participated in the system of shared diplomatic practices.
27
• In the 19th c that relations between Europe and the rest of
the world were irrevocably(permanently) transformed.
• The reason is economic changes taking place in Europe
itself.
• At the end of 19 c, new ways of manufacturing goods were
invented which made use of machines powered by steam,
and later by electricity, which made it possible to engage in
large-scale factory production.
• so called ‘industrial revolution’, the Europeans could
produce many more things and do it far more efficiently.
• As cheap, mass-produced goods flooded European
markets, the Europeans began looking for new markets
overseas.
28
• Colonial possessions became a symbol of ‘great
power’ status, and the new European nation-states
often proved themselves to be very aggressive
colonizers.
• France added West Africa and Indochina to its
growing empire, and the Germans and Italians also
joined the race once their respective countries were
unified.
• By the time of the WWI in 1914, most parts of the
world were in European hands.
• There were some exceptions to this rule – China,
Japan, Siam, Persia, Ethiopia and Nepal, among others
29
• the European states and the European way of organizing
international relations came to spread to the rest of the
world, at least not directly.
• After all, a colonized country is the very opposite of a
sovereign state; the colonized peoples had no nation-states
and enjoyed no self-determination.
• It was instead through the process of liberating
themselves from the colonizers that the European models
were copied.
• Since the Europeans only would grant sovereignty to
states that were similar to their own, the only way to
become independent was to become independent on
European terms. 30
• Once they finally made themselves independent
in the decades after the WWII, as an international
climate of decolonization took hold, all new states
had a familiar form.
• They had their respective territories and fortified
borders; their own capitals, armies, foreign
ministries, flags, national anthems and all the
other paraphernalia of European statehood.

31
 1.4. Actors in International Relations

• 1.4.1. State Actors

• International Relations (IR) traditionally
focused on interactions between states.
• However, this conventional view has been
broadened over the years t- include relationships
between all sorts of political entities (‘polities’),
including international organizations,
multinational corporations, societies and
citizens.
32
• IR captures(represent) a vast array of themes
ranging from the growing interconnectedness
of people to old and new forms of security,
dialogue and conflict between visions, beliefs
and ideologies, the environment, space, the
global economy, poverty and climate change.
• The sheer number of actors and issues that are
relevant to IR can be overwhelming.

33
• There are a lot of states in the world – in fact, according
to the latest count there are no fewer than 195 of them.
• All states have their own capitals, armies, foreign
ministries, flags and national anthems.
• All states call themselves ‘sovereign’, meaning that
they claim the exclusive right to govern their respective
territories in their own fashion.
• But states are also sovereign in relation to each other:
they act in relation to other states, declaring war,
concluding a peace, negotiating a treaty, and many other
things.
34
• 1.4.2. Non-State Actors
• Are global firms, international governmental
institutions, and non-governmental
organizations.
• Multinational corporations (MNCs) – often
with headquarters in one state and operational
capability in a range of others – contribute
significantly to international relations.

35
• despite all the challenges and many new theories of
international politics/relations the state remains, for
many, the primary actor in international politics.
• The traditionalist realist view of international relations
and foreign policy/relations, which focuses on the
physical security and protection of the territory of the
state and its people, one needs to look wider.
• Furthermore, are the relations between states governed
by mutual cooperation and interdependence.

36
 1.5. Levels of Analysis in International
Relations
• In the early days of IR – say, from 1919 until after the Second
World War – a lot of what could be called traditional. From the
1950s onwards, more and more IR scholars endeavored to
specify the focus of their analysis more clearly.
• The most prominent example was Kenneth Waltz’s Man, the
State and War: A Theoretical Analysis (1959) which introduced
an analytical framework for the study of IR that distinguished
between what he referred to as different ‘images’ of an issue:
the individual, the state and the international system.
• Waltz’s contributions to the discipline generated interest in
analyzing the international system as a place of interactions
between states. 37
 1.5.1. The individual level

• International relations can be analyzed from

the perspective of individuals.
• Here we would look at the behaviors,
motivations, beliefs and orientation of the
individual in affecting a particular
international phenomenon.

38
• If looking at the actions of individuals, we would likely also need
to engage with the implications of human nature.
• This can be seen in the psychology and emotions behind people’s
actions and decisions, their fears and their visions as well as their
access to information and capacity to make a difference.
Psychological factors do not only matter at the level of individual
members of society or of a group.
• They are also an important factor in the analysis of foreign policy,
whenever particular mindsets and perceptions of political leaders
and key actors might influence their decisions and behavior.
• For example, a Prime Minister, encountering the leader of another
state to negotiate an important financial agreement, the head of a
large corporation adopting a policy to rescue their business
39
• Focusing on the individual level and, say,
particular actions of specific personalities in
the public realm –be they politicians,
diplomats or bankers – would lead us to
drawing different conclusions again about the
causes and consequences that phenomenon.
• In short, being aware and acknowledging the
potential gaps in our observation.

40
 1.5.2. The group level

• A group level analysis would try and break the analysis down into certain kinds
of groups, how they relate to the state level and where they position themselves
with respect to the global dimension of the issues they are dealing with.
• An example of this can be seen in the work of Engelen et al. (2012), who
discuss the global financial crisis as the ‘misrule of experts’, pointing at the
politicized role of technocratic circles and the relative lack of democratic
control over the boards of large banks and corporations.
• A group-level analysis focusing on foreign policy would look, for example, at
the role of lobbying groups and the way they influence national decision-
making on an issue.
• In this sense, a group-level analysis would be more interested in the actions of
groups of individuals, such as all voters of a country and the way they express
their views in the general election, political parties picking up on the issue in
their campaigns.
• A group-level analysis could be interested in activist/pressure groups like
‘Anonymous’ that seek to influence the global debate about the winners and
losers of globalization and capitalism, and so forth. 41
 1.5.3. The state level

• the main focus remains on the state as the dominant unit of analysis.
• This enduring focus on the state, and therefore, on the state level of
analysis, is referred to as the relative ‘state-centrism’ of the
discipline.
• This means that IR scholars would generally not only regard states
as the central unit of analysis as such, they also conceive of the state
as a point of reference for other types of actors.
• From this perspective, the state acts as the arena in which state
officials, politicians and decision-makers operate.
• The state is seen as the framework that encapsulates society and as
the main point of reference for the individual.
• It was an era in which much of international affairs appeared to be
run via state channels and in line with particular state interests.

42
• Although the Cold War has long since passed, a lot of today’s
political life remains managed in the state framework, based on
issues like national security, domestic cohesion or internal
stability.
• States form the primary kind of actor in major international
organizations such as the United Nations, they feature prominently
in the global discourse on most of the major challenges of our
time, and states still hold what famous German sociologist Max
Weber called the monopoly on violence – the exclusive right to the
legitimate use of physical force.
• States continue to matter and thus have to be part of our
considerations about what happens in the world and why.
• The state as a unit of analysis and frame of reference will certainly
not go away any time soon, nor will the interactions of states as a
key level of analysis in IR. 43
• A state level analysis might be interested to look at any
one of the following: it can consider states as actors in
their own right as if they were clearly defined entities
that have certain preferences, and accordingly, look at
their actions and decisions to find an answer to our
analytical questions; it may look at how states interact
with each other to deal with the crisis – in other words,
their foreign policy; how they build off each other’s
suggestions and react to international developments
and trends; how they cooperate, say, in the framework
of international organizations.
44
• A state-level study would also require careful consideration
of what kinds of states we are looking at (how they are
ordered politically), their geographical position, their
historical ties and experiences and their economic standing.
• It would likely also look at the foreign policy of states,
meaning their approach to and practice of interacting with
other states.
• Key indicators of the foreign policy of states would be the
policies proposed and decided by governments, statements
of top-level politicians but also the role and behavior of
diplomats and their adjoining bureaucratic structures.

45
 1.5.4. The system level

• The system level perspective would like to

conceive the global system as the structure or
context within which states cooperate,
compete and confront each other over issues of
national interest.

46
• You might visualize it as a level above the state.
• Particularly important in that context is the distribution of power
amongst states, meaning, whether there is one main concentration
of power (unipolarity), two (bipolarity) or several (multipolarity).
• In this perspective, global circumstances are seen to condition the
ability and opportunity of individual states and groups of states to
pursue their interests in cooperative or competitive ways.
• The view of states being embedded in a global context traditionally
comes with the assumption that our international system is
‘anarchic’.
• An anarchic system is one that lacks a central government (or
international sovereign) that regulates and controls what happens
to states in their dealings with each other.
47
• The international system can be conceived of
as made up of states, groups of states,
organizations, societies.

48
• A system-level study would need to consider global linkages that
go beyond single interactions between states.
• It would need to look at such things as the balance of power
between states and how that determines what happens in global
politics.
• This could include developments that are even outside the
immediate control of any particular state or group of states, such
as the global economy, transnational terrorism or the internet.
• A global level would give us the big picture and help us to grasp
wide ranging dynamics that emerge from the global economic
‘system’ to affect its various components, states, national
economies, societies, and individuals.
49
 1.6. The Structure of International System

• International Relations scholars maintain that political

power is usually distributed into three main types of
systems namely:
• (i) uni-polar system,
• (ii) bipolar system and,
• (iii) multipolar system.
• These three different systems reflect the number of
powerful states competing for power and their hierarchical
relationship.
• In a uni-polar international system, there is one state with
the greatest political, economic, cultural and military
power and hence the ability to totally control other states.
50
• in both bipolar and multipolar systems there is no one
single state with a preponderant power and hence ability to
control other states-the states in such systems are forced to
balance each other’s power.
• The bipolar system-there are two dominant states (super
powers) and the less powerful states join either sides
through alliance and counter alliance formations.
• bipolar system is vulnerable for zero-sum game politics
because when one superpower gains the other would
inevitably lose-the world was under bipolar system is the
cold war period.

51
• Multipolar system is the most common throughout history.
• During the period around World War I it was a typical world
system-various equally powerful states competing for power.
• Power
• is the currency of international politics.
• As money is for economics, power is for international
relations (politics).
• In the international system, power determines the relative
influence of actors and it shapes the structure of the
international system.

52
• Hans Morgenthau, a famous thinker of realism
theory in IR, argues that International politics,
like all other politics, is a struggle for power-
power is the blood line of international
relations.
• Power can be defined in terms of both
relations and material (capability) aspects.

53
• Anarchy
• Anarchy is a situation where there is absence of authority
(government) be it in national or international/global level
systems.
• Within a country ‘anarchy’ refers to a breakdown of law
and order, but in relations between states it refers to a
system where power is decentralized and there are no
shared institutions with the right to enforce common rules.
• An anarchical world is a world where everyone looks after
themselves and no one looks after the system as a whole.
• Instead, states had to rely on their own resources.
54
• Sovereignty
• Sovereignty is another basic concept in international
relations and it can be defined as an expression of: (i) a
state’s ultimate authority within its territorial entity
(internal sovereignty) and, (ii) the state’s involvement
in the international community (external sovereignty).
• In short, sovereignty denotes double claim of states
from the international system, i.e., autonomy in foreign
policy and independence/freedom in its domestic
affairs.
55
1.7. Theories of International Relations

• Theories of international relations allow us to

understand and try to make sense of the world
around us through various lenses, each of
which represents a different theoretical
perspective.

56
• Liberalism depicts optimism by arguing that human beings are
good, cooperation is possible and conflict can be resolved
peacefully
• Realism depicts pessimism by arguing that human beings are
bad, conflict is inevitable and war is the most prominent
instrument of resolving conflict
• Structuralism/Marxism focused on the structure of dependency
and exploitation caused by the international division of labor
• Constructivism/Critical Theories challenge the foundations of
the dominant perspectives and argue for the marginalized and
the voiceless

57
 1.7.1. Idealism/Liberalism

• Liberalism in IR was referred to as a ‘utopian’

theory/ideal/ultimate
• Its proponents view human beings as innately
good and believe peace and harmony between
nations is not only achievable, but desirable.
• Immanuel Kant developed the idea in the late
18thc that states that shared liberal values
should have no reason for going to war against
one another.
58
• In Kant’s eyes, the more liberal states there were
in the world, the more peaceful it would become,
since liberal states are ruled by their citizens and
citizens are rarely disposed to desire war.
• liberals have faith in the idea that the permanent
cessation of war is an attainable goal.

59
• Taking liberal ideas into practice, US President Woodrow
Wilson addressed his famous ‘Fourteen Points’ to the US
Congress in January 1918 during the final year of the First
World War.
• As he presented his ideas for a rebuilt world beyond the
war, the last of his points was to create a general association
of nations, which became the League of Nations.
• Dating back to 1920, the League of Nations was created
largely for the purpose of overseeing affairs between states
and implementing, as well as maintaining, international
peace.
60
• In the early years, from 1919 to the 1930s, the
discipline was dominated by what is conventionally
referred to as liberal internationalism.
• The primary concern of this approach was that
conditions which had led to the outbreak of the First
World War and the devastation which followed should
not be allowed to occur in the future.
• The driving force was therefore normative in
orientation and the underlying assumption was that the
academic study of IRs had the potential to contribute
to the prevention of war and the establishment of
peace. 61
• The two interrelated ideas and formative pillars of
liberal internationalism, democracy and free trade,
required the establishment of international relations
which would promote collectivist aspirations in place
of the conflictual relations which formed the basis of
balance-of-power thinking.
• A system of ‘collective security’ was advocated to
replace antagonistic alliance systems with an
international order based on the rule of law and
collective responsibility.
• The domestic analogy of a social contract was
deemed to be transferable for the international level.
62
• The creation of the League of Nations after the end of the First World
War was the culmination of the liberal ideal of international relations.
• The League would function as the guarantor of international order
and would be the organ through which states could settle their
differences through arbitration.
• Any deviance from international law would be dealt with collectively
in the name of a commonly held interest in the maintenance of peace
and security.
• However, when the League collapsed due to the outbreak of the
WWII in 1939, its failure became difficult for liberals to comprehend,
as events seemed to contradict their theories.
• Therefore, despite the efforts of prominent liberal scholars and
politicians such as Kant and Wilson, liberalism failed to retain a
strong hold and a new theory emerged to explain the continuing
presence of war.
63
• Liberals also argue that international law offers a
mechanism by which cooperation among states is made
possible.
• International law refers to the body of customary and
conventional rules which are binding on civilized states in
their intercourse with each other-states are the subjects of
international law in the sense that they are in principle
obliged to implement the decisions of international
tribunals or courts.
• Essentially, international law provides the normative
framework for political discourse among members of the
international system. 64
• International law performs two different functions.
• One is to provide mechanisms for cross-border interactions, and
the other is to shape the values and goals these interactions are
pursuing.
• The first set of functions are called the ‘‘operating system’’ of
international law, and the second set of functions are the
‘‘normative system.”
• In short, the purpose of international law is thus to regulate the
conducts of governments and the behaviors of individuals within
states.
• Liberals share an optimistic view of IR, believing that world order
can be improved, with peace and progress gradually replacing war.
65
 1.7.2. Realism

• Realists argue that values are context bound, that morality is

determined by interest, and that the conditions of the present
are determined by historical processes.
• The formative assumptions of realism as a school of thought
centre on the view that the international system is ‘anarchic’, in
the sense that it is devoid of an all-encompassing authority.
• Where domestic society is ruled by a single system of
government, the international system of states lacks such a
basis and renders international law non-binding and ultimately
ineffectual in the regulation of relations between states.
• Conflict is hence an inevitable/expectable and continual feature
of international relations. 66
• realism locates its roots further back, citing
Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes as its
founding voices.
• Thucydides and his account of the Peloponnesian
War is read as the formative paradigmatic text in
that it covers themes such as power, intrigue,
conquest, alliance-building and the intricacies of
bargaining.

67
• Thomas Hobbes mentioned in discussions of
realism due to his description of the brutality of
life during the English Civil War of 1642–1651.
• Hobbes described human beings as living in an
order-less ‘state of nature’ that he perceived as a
war of all against all.
• To remedy this, he proposed that a ‘social
contract’ was required between a ruler and the
people of a state to maintain relative order.
68
• Realists claim individuals act in their own self-
interests.
• For realists, people are selfish and behave according
to their own needs without necessarily taking into
account the needs of others.
• Realists believe conflict is unavoidable and perpetual
and so war is common and inherent to humankind.
• Hans Morgenthau, a prominent realist, is known for
his famous statement ‘all politics is a struggle for
power’ (Morgenthau 1948).
69
 x
• Kenneth Waltz’s ‘Man, the State and War’ (1959) and his
later ‘Theory of International Politics’ (1979) define a
neo-realist agenda and absolutely dominated the
discipline and some would argue do so to the present day.
• Where Morgenthau’s realism concentrates on the
attributes and behavior of states within the international
system, Waltz focuses on the international system itself
and seeks to provide a structuralist account of its
dynamics and the constraints it imposes on state behavior.
• The international system is, for Waltz, anarchical and
hence perpetually threatening and conflictual. 70
• This demonstrates the typical realist view that politics is
primarily about domination as opposed to cooperation
between states.
• realists tend to dismiss optimism as a form of misplaced
idealism and instead they arrive at a more pessimistic view.
• This is due to their focus on the centrality of the state and
its need for security and survival in an anarchical system
where it can only truly rely on itself.
• As a result, realists reach an array of accounts that describe
IR as a system where war and conflict is common and
periods of peace are merely times when states are preparing
for future conflict.
71
• Both liberalism and realism consider the state to be
the dominant actor in IR, although liberalism does
add a role for non-state actors such as international
organizations.
• Nevertheless, within both theories states themselves
are typically regarded as possessing ultimate power.
• This includes the capacity to enforce decisions,
such as declaring war on another nation, or
conversely treaties that may bind states to certain
agreements
72
 1.7.3. Structuralism/Marxism

• Marxism is an ideology that argues that a capitalist

society is divided into two contradictory classes –
the business class (the bourgeoisie) and the
working class (the proletariat).
• The proletariats are at the mercy of the
bourgeoisie who control their wages and therefore
their standard of living.
• Marx hoped for an eventual end to the class
society and overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the
proletariat.
73
• Economic and financial relations, development,
social issues and regional integration seemed to
challenge the primacy of the state as sole unit of
analysis and power as the ultimate determinant
of relations between states.

74
• This third perspective or paradigm which emerged as a
critique of both realism and pluralism concentrated on the
inequalities that exist within the international system,
inequalities of wealth between the rich ‘North’ or the ‘First
World’ and the poor ‘South’ or the ‘Third World’.
• Inspired by the writings of Marx and Lenin, scholars within
what came to be known as the structuralist paradigm focused
on dependency, exploitation and the international division of
labor which relegated (downgraded) the vast majority of the
global population to the extremes of poverty, often with the
complicities (involvements) of elite groups within these
societies.
75
• Imperialism generated by the vigor of free enterprise
capitalism in the West and by state capitalism in the
socialist bloc imposed unequal exchange of every kind
upon the Third World (Banks, 1984).
• The basis of such manifest inequality was the capitalist
structure of the international system which accrued benefits
to some while causing, through unequal exchange
relations, the impoverishment of the vast majority of
others.
• The class system that pre-dominated internally within
capitalist societies had its parallel globally, producing
centre–periphery relations that permeated every aspect of
international social, economic and political life. 76
• Thus, where pluralism and its liberal
associations had viewed networks of economic
interdependence as a basis of increasing
international cooperation founded on trade and
financial interactions, neo-Marxist
structuralism viewed these processes as the
basis of inequality, the debt burden, violence
and instability.

77
 1.7.4. Constructivism

• Constructivism is another theory commonly viewed as a

middle ground, but this time between mainstream theories
and the critical theories that we will explore later.
• constructivists highlight the importance of values and shared
interests between individuals who interact on the global
stage.
• Alexander Wendt, a prominent constructivist, described the
relationship between agents (individuals) and structures
(such as the state) as one in which structures not only
constrain agents but also construct their identities and
interests.
78
• His famous phrase ‘anarchy is what states make of it’.
• Another way to explain this, and to explain the core of
constructivism, is that the essence of international
relations exists in the interactions between people.
• After all, states do not interact; it is agents of those
states, such as politicians and diplomats, who interact.
• As those interacting on the world stage have accepted
international anarchy as the defining principle, it has
become part of our reality.

79
• To understand constructivism is to understand
that ideas, or ‘norms’ as they are often called,
have power.
• IR is, then, a never-ending journey of change
chronicling the accumulation of the accepted
norms of the past and the emerging norms of
the future.
• As such, constructivists seek to study this
process.
80
• Critical approaches refer to a wide spectrum of theories that have
been established in response to mainstream approaches in the field,
mainly liberalism and realism.
• critical theorists share one particular trait – they oppose commonly
held assumptions in the field of IR that have been central since its
establishment.
• Thus, altered circumstances call for new approaches that are better
suited to understand, as well as question, the world we find
ourselves in. s
• Critical theories are valuable because they identify positions that
have typically been ignored or overlooked within IR.
• also provide a voice to individuals who have frequently been
marginalized, particularly women and those from the Global South.
81
 Chapter Two

Understanding Foreign Policy and

Diplomacy

82
 Foreign policy
• of a state is the actions, decisions and goals that
states pursue(follow) towards the outside world.
• It is shaped by external/systemic and internal
factors.
• International regimes, international
organizations, the prevalence of great powers at
international level are some of systemic factors
that impinges/imposes on the foreign policy of
a state.
83
• Internally, the economic, technological and
military capabilities of states heavily affect
foreign policy.
• States adopt(implement) foreign policy to
achieve and promote their national interests.

84
 2.1. Defining National Interest

• is the reason of state to justify its actions and

policy towards other states at international level.
• refers to set of values, orientation, goals and
objectives a given country would like to achieve
in its international relations.
• the ambition of governments, that aspire(seek)
to fulfill (achieve) in its future interaction with
others.

85
• Holisti also underlined on the means that
states employ to realize their future
ambitions.
• Power or the ability to influence the
behaviors of other states is underscored
as the primary instrument to implement
national interest.

86
• Colmbis has provided a multiplicity of criteria used in
defining national interest, including
• “operational philosophy,
• moral and legal criteria,
• Pragmatic/logical criteria,
• ideological criteria,
• professional advancement,
• partisan criteria,
• bureaucratic-interest criteria,
• ethnic/racial criteria,
• class-status criteria and
• foreign –dependency criteria” (1984: 82-87).
87
 Operational Philosophy

• two major style of operation. 1st, act in a bold and sweeping fashion-introduce
major new practices, policies, and institutions and discontinue others.
• This style is often referred to as synoptic (sharing view) in the decision making
literature.
• The decision maker with synoptic orientation assumes that he/she has enough
information about an important issue to develop a major policy with some
confidence that its consequence can be predicted or controlled.
• The 2nd major style of operation is to act in caution, probing, and experimental
fashion, following the trial and error (trying different alternatives) approach.
• This style is called incremental in the decision making literature.
• The decision maker in an incremental orientation assumes that political and
economic problems are too complex to proceed with bold initiative without
worrying about their consequence.
• Thus the incrementalist usually seeks to perfect existing legislations, policies,
institutions and practices.
88
• Ideological Criteria:
• governments employ ideological criteria and establish
their relations on the basis of that criteria. They may
identify their friends or enemies countries using the
litmus test of ideology.
• During cold war, the ideology of communism and
capitalism had been often used to establish cooperation
or conflict with countries.
• Hence, national interest may be shaped by
underlying(basic) ideological orientations of the regime
in power.
89
 Moral and Legal Criteria:

• moral behavior, in international politics involves keeping

your promise –treaties, living and letting others live (the
poor and the disadvantaged), avoiding exploitation and
uneven development between the developing countries and
the developed ones; and generally standing up for the
principles to which you are morally committed and that are
widely accepted in your culture.
• Acting legally means, abiding by the rules of international
law to the extent that such rules are identified and accepted.
• If there are lacunas(gaps), areas where no international
regimes have been developed, then you act in a general sprit
of equity and justice.
90
 Pragmatic Criteria:

• You look at issues and events around you and the world
with sense of prudence (farsightedness) and with sort of
rationality.
• On the basis of the scientific analysis of cost(loss) and
benefit or merit and demerit to your country interest, you
may act.
• Here, your decisions are made without considering
normative issues, issues that involves judgment, be it bad
or good.
• So the practical utility of merit of your action will be
counted (calculated) other than morality and personal
sentiments. 91
 Professional Advancement Criteria:

• your action may be manipulated and adjusted in

consideration of your professional survival and
growth, in short your personal success.
• Quite often, in large bureaucracies that lack good
governance the trick to success is to “play the
game” and “not to rock the boat.”
• This attitude has been referred to cynically as the
“go along to get along” effect.

92
 Partisan Criteria:

• Here you tend to equate the survival and the success

of your political party, or ethnic or religious origin
with the survival and success of your country.
• In similar fashion, you may use bureaucratic criteria
to prioritize the policy issues.
• You may tend to equate the interest of your
organization (the army, the foreign office, and so
forth) with the national interest.
• Given limited budgetary resources, battles among
different offices for more budget allocation might be
waged. 93
 Foreign Dependency Criteria:

• These criteria usually applies to less developing countries, who had

fallen under the yoke of colonialism, and now, even after political
independence, kept the colonial ties with their ex-masters intact.
• These countries are still dependent on their ex-colonial states for
technical aid, expertise and technology, sometimes even for their
security.
• Governments in these countries are therefore heavily dependent on
the support of the outside powers, sometimes, for their survival.
• As a result of this state of dependency, the less developing countries
face difficulties to defend and promote their national interest.
• Looking at these conflicting criteria, one can conclude that national
interest is not a purely scientific endeavor that results in optimal
advantage for states.

94
• Realist scholars, particularly, Hans Morgenthau advised leaders to prioritize
pragmatic criteria when defining national interest and employing foreign
policy.
• Morgenthau defines national interest in terms of pursuits of power.
• And power is about establishing control or influencing the behaviors of
others, either diplomatically or use of coercion.
• In anarchical international system, power for him is a means for achieving
and promoting the interest of state.
• International politics is a struggle among states and thus the prime interest of
state is survival and security among other things.
• So, national interest in the competitive and anarchical international
environment should be objectively defined in terms of ensuring survival and
security of a state, than talking about justice and morality.
• Morgenthau emphatically argues that pragmatism and practical necessity
should be the guiding principle, than any legal, ideological or moral criteria,
of foreign policy of state.
95
• Morgenthau also warns leaders of states to be cautious enough
in calculating the range and scope of their countries national
interest.
• The scope of national interest and their foreign policy should
be proportional to their capabilities.
• So, prudence should be the virtue of leaders, if there is virtue
and morality; otherwise miscalculations and moral and
ideological visions might lead to chaos and destruction.
• A good diplomat according to Morgenthau is a rational
diplomat and a rational diplomat is a prudent diplomat.
• Prudence is the ability to assess one’s needs and aspirations
while carefully balancing them against the needs and
aspirations of others. 96
• idealists have strong belief in the relevance of legal, ideological and
moral elements which realists fail to recognize as the constituting
elements of national interest.
• They don’t see legal and moral factors apart from the so called
“reality”.
• According to this view, specific actions and objective of foreign
policy have often been derived from general moral and legal
guidelines and principles.
• Even such policies as the formation of alliance, declaration of war,
covert foreign intervention, humanitarian intervention, foreign aid
and others have always been justified on moral and legal grounds.
• So, national interest reflects the marriage of different criteria that
include legal and moral criteria, ideological criteria and prudence or
pragmatism-practical necessities on the ground. 97
• Realists, however, fail to recognize and prescribe solutions for
addressing global problems because of the exclusive emphasis
given to state and national interest.
• Idealists believe on the prevalence of common problems of
human beings as, environmental pollution, ecological imbalance,
depletion of resource, population growth, poverty, war, arms race,
uneven development and the north-south gap…etc. Cognizant of
such cross-cutting issues, idealists call for global solutions than
local (national) solutions.
• The establishment of new institutions with global orientation may
play vital role in addressing global problems, instead of the state-
centric particularism.
• States could no longer be viable actors in addressing cross-cutting
problems by themselves. 98
 2.2. Understanding Foreign Policy and Foreign
Policy Behaviors

• refers to the sets of objectives and instruments

that a state adopts to guide its relation with the
outside world.
• The objectives of foreign policy which a state
wants to achieve are in one way or another
related to national interest.
• So, national interest is often considered as the
objectives of foreign policy of a state.
• And these objectives can be classified as long
range, middle range and short range. 99
 2. 2.1. Defining Foreign Policy

• is something that a state would like to achieve in

its external relations with others.
• It involves the general purposes and specific
strategies a state employs to achieve or promote
its national interest.
• According to Rochester, foreign policy refers to
“the set of priorities and percepts established by
national leaders to serve as guidelines for
choosing among various courses of action in
specific situations in international affairs” (p111).
100
• It involves general purposes, priority of goals to
be realized and achieved.
• It also encompasses specific strategies and
instruments, economic and diplomatic tools that
states employ to achieve their objectives.
• These objectives, visions and goals state aspire to
achieve is commonly referred as national interest.
• Morgenthau suggests that the minimum goal a
state would like to achieve is survival.
101
• Every state should protect their physical, political,
and cultural identities against any encroachment by
other states.
• preservation of physical identity is equated with the
maintenance of the territorial integrity of a state.
• Preservation of political identity is equated with the
preservation of existing politico-economic systems.
• preservation of cultural identity is equated with
ethnic, religious, and linguistic and historical norms
of the peoples residing in the state (Columbis: 78).
102
• Foreign policy also involves specific instruments and tactics that must
be employed to realize those objectives and goals.
• The most widely employed instruments include,
 diplomatic bargaining,
 economic instruments,
 propaganda,
 terrorism (sabotage), and
 use of force (war). Each instrument is used to affect the behaviors of
other states, and has an element of power.
• In diplomacy, states attempt to affect the behavior of others through
bargaining (make a deal) that involves less element of power as
compared to other instruments.
• Yet states may manipulate carrot and stick methods such as reward or
threats so as to induce agreement whenever there appears to be
incompatible goals and objectives. 103
 2.2.2. Foreign Policy Objectives

• Security and survival of a state, has always been considered

as the first priority, among various foreign policy objectives,
which a state aspires to achieve in the short run.
• In this regard. K. J. Holisti (138-160) categorizes the foreign
policy objectives of states into three such as short term,
middle term and long term goals.
• Such classifications of foreign policy objectives is based on
the combination of the three criteria:
• (1) the value placed on the objective;
• (2) the time element placed on its achievement; and
• (3) the kind of demands the objective imposes on other
states in international system.
104
• Based on these criteria, the objectives can be classified as:
 core values and interests, to which states commit their
very existence and that must be preserved or extended at
all time;
 middle range goals, which normally impose demands on
several others states (commitments to their achievement
are serious and time limit is also attached to them); and
 universal long range goals-which seldom have definite
time limits.
• In practice leaders rarely place the highest value on long
range goals and it’s very much dependent on the capability
and ideology of the state.
105
 Core Interests and Values (Short Range Objectives)

• described as those kinds of goals for which most people are

willing to make ultimate sacrifices.
• stated in the form of basic principles of foreign policy and
become article of faith that society accepts without any
questioning it.
• So core interests are sacrosanct by entire peoples residing in
the state.
 Core interests and values are most frequently related to the
self-preservation of political and economic systems, the
people and its culture, and the territorial integrity of a state.
• others goals cannot be realized if the existence of the state
and its political units are not ensured.
106
 Middle Range Objectives
• the middle range objectives drastically varies across states.
• The variation is obviously due to the difference in the level of
economic and technological progress, as well as the military
capability, the middle range objectives of states.
• include the attempts of government to meet economic-betterment
demands and Social welfare needs through international action.
• Social welfare and economic development cannot be achieved
through self-help, as most states have only limited resources,
administrative services, and technical skills.
• Interdependence means that to satisfy domestic needs and
aspirations, states would have to interact with others.
• Trade, foreign aid, access to communication facilities, sources of
supply, and foreign market are for most states necessary for
increasing social welfare.
107
 Long- Range Objectives

• are those plans, dreams, and visions concerning the ultimate political
or ideological organization of the international system, and rules
governing relations in that system.
• The difference between middle-range and long range goals relates not
only to different time elements inherent in them; there is also a
significant difference in scope.
• In pressing for middle range goals, states make particular demands
against particular interest; in pursuing long range goals, states
normally make universal demands, for their purpose is no less than to
reconstruct an entire international system according to a universally
applicable plan or vision.
• Every country has its own visions and ambition proportional to its
relative strength and capabilities to be realized in the long run.

108
 2.2.3. Foreign Policy Behavior: Patterns and
Trends

• refers to the actions states take towards each other.

• It is important to note that these actions usually are not
as ends in themselves, but are tied in some way with
larger purposes, from long range objectives to short term
objectives that leaders hope to achieve in their dealings
with other countries.
• The nature of foreign policy is such that one can expect
to find double standards and inconsistencies in the
records of all countries.
• It is not easy to label countries as simply peace loving or
war-like or to use other such categorizations.
109
• Arnold Wolfers, a famous specialist in the field of
International Relations, suggested that all foreign
policy behavior ultimately boils down(depict) to
three possible patterns:
 (1) self-preservation (maintaining the status quo);
 (2) self-extension (revising the status quo in one’s
own favor);
 self- abnegation (revising the status quo in some
else’s favor).
110
• the foreign policy patterns of countries such as
United States can be categorized as self-
preservation.
• United States, following second world emerged
as one of the strongest actor, super power in
international relations.
• with no doubt, that the international institutions
(IMF, World Bank, GATT/WTO) that were
established following Second World War have
been strongly shaped by United States. 111
• Even the United Nations has been serving the interest of United State
as the country has key position in the Security Council as one of Veto
power among the few.
• Cognizance of all the advantages that accrue from the existing
international system and international economic order, U.S has
become the staunch (loyal) supporter of the international order.
• These days U.S has become the sole defender of the international
system and the liberal economic-political order after the collapse of
USSR and decline of communist ideology.
• On the other hand newly emerging powers such as China, India,
Brazil, Germany and others are competing to restructure the
international institutions and different regimes so as to create
enabling environment to promote their national interest.
• Such policy trend can be equated with Wolfers’ model of self-
extension. 112
• The third model, i.e. self-abnegation reflects the
foreign policy trends that are being displayed in
Less Developing Countries (LDC).
• This can be seen in the weak states of the world
which fail to defend and promote their national
interests in their external relations.
• States that are weak and very much dependent
on foreign aid are profoundly caught with many
problems in order to pursue an autonomous
policy. 113
2.2.4. Foreign Policy Dimensions

• The analysis of foreign policy behavior can

also be done along a number of specific
dimensions, keeping in mind that behavior can
change over time and with different style of
leaderships and circumstances.
• These dimensions include alignment, scope
and modus operandi.

114
Alignment
 national leaders choose to ally with certain
countries or to remain neutral.
• A country’s alignment behavior can vary from
time to time during its history in response to
changing circumstances and policy decisions.
• Yet one can identify the alignment tendencies
such as alliance, neutrality and non-alignment.

115
• Alliances are formal agreements to provide
mutual military assistance; as such, they carry
legal weight and certain benefits as well as risks.
• Allied countries can pool their military resources,
acquire access to foreign bases and stake out
territories that enemies are on notice will be
denied them by force if necessary.
• Yet an alliance state also risks interference by
allies in its domestic affairs, the possibility being
dragged.
116
• Neutrality is a stance of formal non-partisanship in world affairs.
• By keeping a low profile, neutrals may avoid some of the problems associated
with alliances, particularly the generating of potential enemies and counter
alliances.
• However neutrals must also be aware that if war clouds gather, there may be no
one committed to providing a protective military umbrella. Switzerland is one
country that has carried neutrality to an extreme case in refusing membership to
United Nations till 2002.
• While the term alignment as used above refers to formal agreement on alliances
or neutrality, it can also describe the general affective orientation of a country,
i.e., which state or states tend to side with on key issues, countries can tilt
towards one side or another in some strategic issues without necessarily
becoming part of formal alliance.
• For example, Israel, which is not a formal ally of U.S, has sided with the United
States on many issues.

117
• Nonalignment has been the foreign policy pattern
of most developing state during cold war.
• Most developing countries had a movement-Non
Alignment Movement (NAM) in which they
called for a new foreign policy path/choice/ to be
followed disregarding the both the West and East
bloc politics and alliances.
• Although that was practically impossible, NAM
had noble agenda that called for the South-south
cooperation.

118
• Scope -A second foreign policy dimension is the scope of a
country’s activities and interests.
• Some countries have extensive, far-reaching international
contacts, while other countries have more limited activities
abroad.
• A country’s scope of contact can affect the outcome of
disputes and crises.
• With regards to the scope of activities a state has in
international relations, one can identify at least three
patterns of foreign policy behaviors.
• Some actors act in Global terms, others as Regional terms,
and those that follow policy of Isolationism. 119
• Major Powers in international relations have
historically been those that have defined their
interest in global terms, interacting regularly
with countries in nearly every region of the
world.
• A country such as U.S.A has often defined its
national interest in global terms, and the
capability to influence world events.

120
• Most countries in the world are essentially regional actors, interacting
primarily with neighboring states in the same geographical area except
for contacts, frequently concerning economic issues such as trade; with
major actors like United States and China outside their region.
• For example, South Africa is a regional actor in Africa in general and
in Southern Africa in Particular.
• It is the most important actor in regional organizations such as
SADDIC and AU.
• India can also be considered as the most important actor in South
Asian region, so is China in entire Asia.
• China’s activities is not limited to Asia only, the country presence is
well felt in every region of the world, and China is the best candidate
to assume global responsibility and leadership.
121
 Mode of Operation/ “Modus Opernadi’
• the method of operation. Some countries often rely on multilateral
institutions to address different issues.
• Still others very much rely on unilateral means.
• They may choose to solve the problems by themselves.
• The more multilateralist a state is, the greater its tendency to seek
solutions to problems through diplomatic forums in which several
states participate, such as the United Nations, rather than utilizing
purely bilateral, country to country approaches.
• Most developing countries used the multilateral approaches to address
many issues of concern.
• The multilateral forum would enhance collective bargaining power of
these countries vis-à-vis other developed countries.
• In addition, establishing bilateral relations (establishing Embassies
and assigning diplomatic staffs) are often found to be costly.
122
• Regardless of the power and capability question, countries may opt to use
multilateral frameworks as the best strategy to address issues with the spirit
of cooperation and peace.
• Germany, though it is an economic power, is known to be multi-lateralist in
its external relation.
• Most of Scandinavian countries fall under this category.
• Whereas countries may opt to rely on unilateral means of settling different
issues with other countries that have strong economic and military muscles
they would prefer this approach to settle problems.
• They play the carrot and stick diplomacy to affect the outcomes of events.
• Intervention, threat of use of force and some time, use of force…are some
of the tactics that will be employed to influence the behaviors of others.
• The more unilateral a state is the more likely to initiate actions in
international relations or to resist initiatives taken by others (Rochester;
p118).
123
 2.2.5. Instruments of Foreign Policy

• Diplomacy
• Diplomacy can be defined as a process between
actors (diplomats, usually representing a state)
who exist within a system (international relations)
and engage in private and public dialogue
(diplomacy) to pursue their objectives in a
peaceful manner.
• diplomacy can promote exchanges that enhance
trade, culture, wealth and knowledge.
124
• Diplomacy is not foreign policy.
• It is part of foreign policy. When a nation-state makes foreign
policy it does so for its own national interests.
• a state’s foreign policy has two key ingredients; its actions and
its strategies for achieving its goals.
• The interaction one state has with another is considered the act of
its foreign policy. This act typically takes place via interactions
between government personnel through diplomacy.
• To interact without diplomacy would typically limit a state’s
foreign policy actions to conflict (usually war, but also via
economic sanctions) or espionage.
• In that sense, diplomacy is an essential tool required to operate
successfully in today’s international system.
125
• Bargaining can be defined as a means of settling differences over
priorities between contestants through an exchange of proposals for
mutually acceptable solutions.
• There must be conflict over priority in order for bargaining to take
place, for if there is total agreement there would be nothing to bargain.
• Diplomatic bargaining is used primarily to reach agreements,
compromises, and settlements where governments objectives conflict.
• It involves, whether in private meeting or publicized conferences, the
attempt to change the policies, actions, attitudes and objectives of
other government and their diplomats by persuasion, offering rewards,
exchange concessions, or making threats.
• Thus, like any foreign policy instruments, diplomatic bargaining also
espouses an element of power or influence.

126
 Rules of Effective Diplomacy

• the basic rules that diplomats have employed with

greater effectiveness
• Be realistic: It is important to have goals that much
your ability to achieve them
• Be careful about what you say: The experienced
diplomats plans out and weighs words carefully.
• Seek common ground: Dispute begins negotiations;
finds common ground ends them successfully.
Almost any negotiation will involve some
concession, so it is important to maintain a degree of
flexibility. 127
• Be patient: it is also important to bide your
time. Being overly anxious can lead to
concessions that are unwise and may convey
weakness to an opponent.
• Leave avenues of retreat open: it is axiomatic
that even a rat will fight if trapped in a corner.
• Call it honor, saving face, or prestige; it is
important to leave yourself and your opponent
an “out”.
128
• In general, states make considerable use of what
are known to be “carrot and stick” approaches
when they rely on such diplomatic tactics such as
threats, punishment, promise, and rewards.
• Threats and punishment represent the stick
approach.
• promise and reward represent the carrot approach.

129
 Economic Instruments of Foreign Policy

• states often uses their economic muscle to

influence the behavior (action, perception and
role) of others.
• Economic instruments can be used to achieve
the foreign policy of objective of a state. States
may reward or punish states through the
manipulation of economic policies.
• Some of these economic instruments are: tariffs,
quotas, boycotts, embargos, and aid.
130
• Holisti (245) states that economic, particularly trade
instruments of foreign policy are normally used for three
purposes:
• (1) to achieve any foreign policy objective by exploiting need
and dependence and offering economic rewards, or threat,
ending or imposing economic punishments; (2) to increase a
state’s capability or deprive a potential enemy’s
capabilities ;and
• (3) to create economic satellites (guaranteed markets and
resources of supply) or help maintain political obedience in
satellites by creating a relationship of economic dependence.

131
• Tariff: Almost all foreign made products coming into
a country are taxed for the purpose of raising
revenue, protecting domestic producers from foreign
competition, or other domestic economic reasons.
• Quota: To control imports of some commodities,
governments may establish quotas rather than
tariffs. Under such arrangement, the supplier usually
sends his goods into the country at a favorable price,
but is allowed to sell only a certain amount in a given
time period.
132
• Boycott: A trade boycott organized by a government eliminates
the import of either a specific commodity or the total range of
export products sold by the country against which the boycott is
organized.
• Embargo: A government that seeks to deprive another country
of goods prohibits its own business men from concluding its
transactions with commercial organization in the country against.
• An embargo may be enforced either on specific category of
goods, such as strategic materials, or on the total range of goods
that private businessmen normally send to the country being
punished.

133
• Loans, Credits and Currency Manipulations:
Rewards may include favorable tariff rates and
quotas, granting loans (favorable reward
offered by the major powers to developing
countries) or extending credits.
• The manipulation of currency rates is also
used to create more or less favorable terms of
trade between countries.

134
• Foreign Aid: The transfer of money, goods, or
technical advice from donor to recipient-is an
instrument of policy that has been in international
relation.
• There are main type of aid program including,
military aid, technical assistance, grants and
commodity import program, and development loans.
• Military Aid: probably the oldest type of aid which
had been used for buttressing alliances.

135
• Since World War II, the United States and the Soviet
Union have spent more resources on military aid than on
their foreign aid programs-and the objective has been the
traditional one of safeguarding their own security by
strengthening the military capabilities of allies.
• By helping recipients build up modern forces, the donors
hope to obtain some immediate political or security
objective.
• In short, military aid is used to create local power
balances or preponderances, thus reducing the likelihood
that the donor will have to station troops abroad or
intervene militarily to protect its interests.
136
• Foreign aid is often used for achieving political
and economic objectives of the donors.
• Most aid programs are obviously not undertaken
solely for humanitarian purpose, for a vast portion
of the aid goes to a few countries-and sometimes
not the countries with the most pressing needs.
• India, Pakistan, Israel and Egypt, for instance, are
large recipients because of their strategic and
symbolic importance in world politics.
137
 2.3. Overview of Foreign Policy of Ethiopia

• 2.3.1. Foreign Policy during Tewodros II (1855-

1868)
• the Ethiopian state traces its history back to more than
3000 years, the modern imperial state did not begin to
emerge until the middle of 19th century.
• Ras Kassa emerged as one of the eminent kings
defeating all minor kings fighting for the control of the
throne, during the chaotic Era of Princes, the King was
predominantly concerned with establishing control
over the fragmented parts of the Empire.
138
• Throughout his reign Tewodros tried to develop a
dynamic foreign policy that reached out beyond the
Horn Region.
• He sought the Western Christian world to recognize
his country and help him to modernize his country.
• Moreover, as Keller has put it “he appealed
specifically to Britain, France and Russia as Christian
nations to assist him in whatever ways possible in his
fight against the Turks, Egyptians and Islam”.

139
• The emperor attempted to establish his
diplomatic relations to fight his immediate
enemies claiming Christianity as instrument of
foreign policy.
• However, the emperor’s passionate demand for
modern technology and skilled man power
from Britain was not concluded to his
satisfaction as the latter sent religious
missionaries.
140
 2.3.2. Foreign Policy during Yohannes IV (1872-1889)

• Yohannes considered Islam as a threat to the territorial

integrity of the polity.
• Indeed Egypt tried to put a serious security threat in its
continued attempt to invade the country under many pretexts,
yet its motive was to control the source of Blue Nile.
• These, however, were not successful as Egypt faced
subsequent defeat both in 1875 and 1876 at the Battle of
Gundet and Gura respectively (Keller).
• In addition to Muslim threat, the emperor saw European
expansionism as greater threat to the survival of the country.

141
• In fact his calculation of threat has turned out to be real as
Italy got a foot hold at the port of Massawa in 1885.
• This colonial ambition of Italy was reflected by the Foreign
Minister speech “The Red Sea is the key to the
Mediterranean” implicating the strategic importance of
Ethiopia (Novati).
• However, the emperor died fighting with the “Mahadists”.
• The Sudanese resistance groups against British rule
happened to invade Western Ethiopia because of their
presumption that Yohannes IV was collaborating with the
British.
142
 2.3.3. Foreign Policy during Menelik II (1889-93)

• Menlik II of Showa has assumed to the throne. Menelik was the

King of Shoa region before his coronation as the Kings of Kings
of Ethiopia.
• He had expanded his sphere of influence towards the far South
and East incorporating new areas and communities peacefully or
otherwise.
• According to many Ethiopian historians, the southward
expansionism policy of the King was mainly targeted to have
access to Sea Port, Zeila.
• Minelik was aware of the strategic importance of outlet to the sea
for the country as he felt that the country’s access to the sea in the
North had fallen under Italy’s influence since the mid 1890s.
143
• Before the death of Yohannes Italy had good
diplomatic relation with Menelik with the
objective of weakening its immediate enemy in
the North, Yohannes.
• Menilik comfortably exploited the opportunity to
consolidate his power, perhaps to deter Yohannes
and bolster its expansionist policy to the south.
• Menelik’s relation with Italy had disappointed
Yohannes as witnessed by the absence of Menelik
from participation in the war against Mahadists
144
• Italy continued to be the main challenge in the North.
• Italy expanded towards the hinterland of Ethiopia from its first hold of Bogess,
later named Eritrea, and Missawa port crossing Tekeze river.
• Menelik was cautiously following such colonial expansionism of Italy.
• The emperor followed double track diplomacy to contain or reverse Italy’s
expansion and maintain the territorial integrity of his country.
• On the one hand, he entered many treaties and agreements to solve the challenge
amicably.
• One of the remarkable treaties was the ‘Wuchalle’ friendship and peace treaty
where the parties agreed to avoid war and solve the problem peacefully.
• On the other hand the emperor was preparing himself by accumulating military
ammunitions to defend the aggression from any side of colonial powers, British,
French and of course Italy.
145
• the emperor’s diplomatic endeavor with Italy failed to result in
peace due to Italy’s misinterpretation of the controversial
article 17 of the ‘Wuchalle’ treaty.
• The treaty did contain different meanings and interpretations
in the respective languages of the parties.
• According to the Italian version, Ethiopia failed under the
protectorate of the former which then led to the abrogation of
the ‘Wuchale’ treaty by Ethiopia in 1893.
• As a result, Italy prepared for war and started its systematic
penetration of the country from the north. Menelik was
prepared to reverse this aggression raising his traditional
Army till only 1896.
146
• After a severe battle, Menelik and his people managed to defeat the colonial
power.
• This happened at the bloody Battle of Adwa where Ethiopian forces made a
record of history by defeating a powerful European colonial power.
• The significance of the Adowa victory is loud and clear as many European
powers recognized Ethiopia as an independent African state on similar
footing with the Europeans. Indeed Britain, France, Russia and the
vanquished Italy came to Menelik’s Palace to arrange formal exchange of
Ambassadors.
• Moreover, these powers signed formal boundary treaties with the emperor.
• In fact the present boundary of Ethiopia vis -a-vis its neighbors had been
defined at least on paper. With the exception of Sudan and of course present
day Eritrea (being ex-colony of Italy) the boundary of the country with
French Somaliland-Djibouti, Kenya (former British colony), and present
Somali (Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland) had been defined on
paper, yet were not demarcated. 147
• Ethiopia’s foreign policy of the forth coming
rulers has significantly been informed by the
notion of territorial integrity of the country.
• And the issue of outlet to the sea remained the
burning question determining its policy and
role in the region.

148
 2.3.4. Foreign Policy during Emperor Haile Selassie I
(1916-1974)

• He was dedicated to the creation of a stronger, centralized

and bureaucratic empire with unquestioned respect by the
international community.
• Teferi Mekonen, facilitated Ethiopia’s entry to the League
of Nations in 1923.
• Ethiopia’s membership in the League of Nations was
clearly instigated by the ever present danger of invasion by
Italians.
• When the Italian Fascists finally invade Ethiopia between
1936 and 1941, the Emperor fled to London and established
a government in exile.
149
• he journeyed to Geneva, Switzerland, to make a plea before
the League of Nations for aid in defense to the country.
• the League ultimately failed to take any substantive measure
against Italy and the plea of the King was ignored.
• the King continued to believe in the ultimate value of
effective diplomacy.
• He also recognized Ethiopia’s need for a powerful external
patron until he could restore the independence of his country.
• His diplomatic skills and Britain’s own strategic necessities
in the area enabled him to elicit the aid of the British in
securing the liberation of Ethiopia.

150
• In the immediate post-war period, Ethiopia was
extremely dependent on British military,
economic and technical aid.
• the British wanted to solidify its presence in
the Horn; and the United States wanted to
establish a new presence in the region as an
emerging power, U.S was willing to heed
emperors plead to strengthen diplomatic
relations.
151
• British Military Aid was withdrawn in 1952,
and the King moved quickly to firm up
relations with the United States. Since the
early 1940s, the United States had coveted a
base in Eritrea where it could set up a radio
tracking station.
• Two agreements were concluded in 1953 to
formulize this new relationship.

152
• In addition to the military aid Ethiopia received from the United
States over the next 23 years, its armed forces also benefited from
the presence of a Military Assistance Advisory Group, which was
established in 1954.
• This group provided training for the Ethiopian forces. By 1975,
the total U.S. military assistance to Ethiopia amounted to almost
$ 280 million.
• In addition, between 1953 and 1976, 3978 Ethiopian soldiers
were trained in the United States.
• The military aid was decisive for the Emperor to ensure his
survival at home and maintain the territorial integrity of the
country.
• He effectively used military action against those riots and
rebellions both in rural and urban places. 153
• On more consistent basis, the United States
contributed to the expansion of Ethiopian
military as a hedge a against the Somalia
threats.
• It also provided counterinsurgency training
and on the ground advisors to help to suppress
Eritrean Nationalism.

154
• Ethiopia also played significant role in Africa in fighting for
African independence and to end colonialism and apartheid.
• In this manner, the emperor can be considered as one of the
founding fathers of African Unification.
• The establishment of the organization of African Unity in the
capital of Ethiopia witnessed the prominent role of the emperor in
African affairs.
• There was a time when the emperor resolved the perennial conflict
in Sudan through His Good Offices.
• Ethiopia also played a significant role in maintaining international
peace and security by commit ting its troops for peacekeeping
operations in Korea in 1951 and the Congo in 1961.

155
 2.3.5. Foreign Policy during the Military
Government (1974—1991)

• The military regime that took control of state power in 1974

adopted a foreign policy largely oriented to socialist ideology.
• The primary objectives of the foreign policy were survival of
the regime and maintaining the territorial integrity of the country.
• restructuring the society along socialist lines was also considered
as the foundation for the foreign policy motives at home.
• The major strategy to achieve the stated objectives heavily
focused on building the military capability of the country.
• And force had been employed as the best strategy to silence
dissent at home and deter the perceived external enemies of the
country.
156
 Chapter Three

International Political Economy (IPE)

157
 3.1. Meaning and Nature of International
Political Economy (IPE)

• International Political Economy “is the study of the tension

between the market, where individuals engage in self-interested
activities, and the state, where those same individuals undertake
collective action”.
• This definition is based on several important, but un-clear
assumptions. First, it suggests that there are only two significant
subjects of International Political Economy: (a) markets, which
are composed of self-interested individuals (and the firms that
they operate), and (b) states, which are the primary political
institutions of the modern international system. Furthermore, it
suggests that a clear-cut distinction exists between economic or
market-based activities and political or state-centered ones.

158
• Second, this definition tells us that the most important
aspect of the relationship between markets and states is
based on tension, which is “a strained state or condition
resulting from forces acting in opposition to each other”.
In other words, the definition assumes that states and
markets relate to one another in fundamentally
adversarial ways. Indeed, such definition has big truth in
it because states and markets are obviously the two key
actors in the discussion of IPE and also the relationship
between the two is often antagonistic.

159
• Yet, the definition misses other important side of
the story. For instance, political society is not
solely represented by the state in (especially
today’s) global/world politics. We have also
equally or even more powerful (than states) non-
state actors in global politics such as Transnational
Corporations/Multinational Corporations
(TNCs/MNCs). The definition that excludes these
important actors in IPE thus becomes misleading.

160
• Similarly, unlike what the definition suggests, state-market
relation in IPE could be (and is often the case)
reciprocal/cooperative or even mutually constitutive one
making the definition useless.
• Such problems have thus forced many to develop two
contending definitions of IPE.
• One is state-centered definition of IPE and the other Marxist
definition of IPE which focuses on social class based definition
of IPE because the state for Marxists is an appendage
(nothing more than the instrument of the dominant class)
and hence it is not considered as relevant in the definition.

161
• There is also other significant limitation in defining the concept of IPE.
• It stems from the use of the term International in the concept.
• International applies only to relations between and among sovereign states.
The term also implies a clear distinction between the national and the
international—between what goes on inside states and what goes on outside
states.
• It is clear though that a great deal of economic activity that occurs in the
world today is conducted—and sometimes controlled—by non-state actors in
ways that transcend national boundaries. E.g., that large corporations engage
in all sorts of economic transactions and activities that cut across borders:
from buying, selling, and trading products and services, to building and
investing in global chains of production (whereby a single product is
designed, manufactured, assembled, distributed, and marketed in various
locations throughout the world), to forging strategic alliances with other
corporations based in a range of different countries. These types of firms are
named as Transnational Corporations (TNCs).
162
• Due to this trend in today’s political economy,
IPE’s definition is getting ever widened and
deepened in content and even the name of
the field is changing from IPE to GPE (Global
Political Economy).

163
• a broader definition of IPE is adopted because a market economy
cannot exist and operate without some kind of political order (the
state). This is not a new observation, nor is it one that many
(political) economists, even neoclassical economists, would disagree
though there is a great deal of disagreement over exactly what kind
of political order is needed. Some take a minimalist view: the best
political order is one in which the state only provides the legal-
institutional framework for enforcing contracts and protecting
private property (this is a view with which most neoclassical
economists would agree). Others are convinced that the most
appropriate political order is one in which the state plays an active
and direct role in a much wider range of economic activity. What
then can this broader definition be?

164
• IPE is a field of inquiry that studies the ever-changing (shifting) relationships
between governments, businesses, and social forces across history and in
different geographical areas.
• Defined this way, the field thus consists of two central dimensions namely: the
political and economic dimension.
• A political dimension accounts for the use of power by a variety of actors,
including individuals, domestic groups, states (acting as single units),
International organizations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and
Transnational corporations (TNCs).
• All these actors make decisions about the distribution of tangible things such
as money and products or intangible things such as security and innovation. In
almost all cases, politics involves the making of rules pertaining to how states
and societies achieve their goals. Another aspect of politics is the kind of public
and private institutions that have the authority to pursue different goals.

165
• The economic dimension, on the other hand, deals with how
scarce resources are distributed among individuals, groups,
and nation-states.
• Today, a market is not just a place where people go to buy or
exchange something face to face with the product’s maker.
• The market can also be thought of as a driving force that
shapes human behavior.
• When consumers buy things, when investors purchase
stocks, and when banks lend money, their depersonalized
(unfriendly) transactions constitute a vast, sophisticated web
of relationships that coordinate economic activities all over
the world.
166
 3.2. Theoretical perspectives of International
Political Economy
• There are three major theoretical (often ideological)
perspectives regarding the nature and functioning of the
International Political economy: liberalism, Marxism, and
nationalism (mercantilism).
• Mercantilism is the oldest of the three, dating back as early as
the 16th century (perhaps even earlier)-Friedrich List(1789–
1846) as the intellectual father of the mercantilist thought and
it is a thought in response to classical economics and, more
specifically, to Adam Smith’s (1723–1790) liberal perspective.
• Marxism, is the youngest of the three and is advanced by Karl
Marx who also emerged as a critique of classical economics.

167
• Since the mid-1980s, the relevance of the three
perspectives has changed dramatically. With the end of
both communism and the “import-substitution” strategies
of many less developed countries (LDCs), the relevance of
Marxism greatly declined, and
• liberalism has experienced a relatively considerable
growth in influence. Around the world, more and more
(gradually) countries are accepting liberal principles as
they open their economies to imports and foreign
investment, scale down the role of the state in the
economy, and shift to export-led growth strategies.

168
• Marxism as a doctrine of how to manage an
economy has been discredited but as an
analytic tool and ideological critique of
capitalism it survives and will continue to
survive as long as thosse flaws of the capitalist
system remain-e.g. widespread poverty side
by side with great wealth, and the intense
rivalries of capitalist economies over market
share.
169
• Mercantilism/nationalism: is a theoretical and ideological
perspective which defends a strong and pervasive role of the state in
the economy – both in domestic and international trade, investment
and finance.
• In arena of international trade, for instance, mercantilism emphasizes
the importance of balance-of-payment surpluses in trade with other
countries and to this end it often promotes an extreme policy of
autarky to promote national economic self-sufficiency.
• Mercantilism (or neo-mercantilism) defended even a much more
sophisticated and interventionist role of the state in the economy-for
example, the role of identifying and developing strategic and targeted
industries (i.e. industries considered vital to long-term economic
growth) through a variety of means, including tax policy,
subsidization, banking regulation, labor control, and interest-rate
management. 170
• According to mercantilists, states should also play a
disciplinary role in the economy to ensure adequate levels of
competition.
• The proof of the relevance of mercantilist thought in the
contemporary international political economy is found in the
recent experience of the Japanese, South Korean, Taiwanese
and Chinese national political economies whose states
fulfilled the above stated roles almost perfectly.
• Instead of the term mercantilism, however, these states the
East Asian economies (especially Japan, South Korea, and
Taiwan) used the term ‘developmental state approach’ (a less
politically laden term) to describe the nature of their national
political economy system. 171
• Liberalism: is defends the idea of free market system (i.e
free trade/trade liberalization and free financial and
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows).
• Accordingly, removing impediments (barriers) to the free
flow of goods and services among countries is the
foundational value and principle of liberalism.
• The consensus among advocates of free trade is that it
reduces prices, raises the standard of living for more
people, makes a wider variety of products available, and
contributes to improvements in the quality of goods and
services.

172
• liberal political economists believe that by removing
barriers to the free movement of goods and services
among countries, as well as within them, countries
would be encouraged to specialize in producing certain
goods, thereby contributing to the optimum utilization
of resources such as land, labor, capital, and
entrepreneurial ability worldwide.
• If countries focused on what they do best and freely
trade their goods with each other, all of them would
benefit. The concept that captures this idea is also
known as comparative advantage. 173
• Marxism: is certainly true that central planning in
command economies (which was what existed in Soviet
Union and other so called socialist/communist states.
• Global and national income inequality, for example,
remains extreme: the richest 20 percent of the world’s
population controlled 83 percent of the world’s income,
while the poorest 20 percent controlled just 1.0 percent;
Exploitation of labor shows no sign of lessening; the
problem of child labor and even child slave labor has
become endemic and so on and so forth.

174
• Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST): is a hybrid theory containing elements of
mercantilism, liberalism, and even Marxism.
• Its closest association is with mercantilism.
• The basic argument of HST is simple: the root cause of the economic troubles
that bedeviled Europe and much of the world in the Great Depression of the
1920s and 1930s was the absence of a benevolent hegemon—that is, a
dominant state willing and able to take responsibility (in the sense of acting
as an international lender of last resort as well as a consumer of last resort)
for the smooth operation of the International (economic) system as a whole.
• In this regard, what then happened during the Great depression period was
the old hegemon, Great Britain, had lost the capacity to stabilize the
international system, while the new (latent) hegemon, the United States, did
not yet understand the need to take on that role—or the benefits of doing
so-hence global economic instability.

175
• Structuralism: is a variant of the Marxist
perspective and starts analysis from a practical
diagnosis of the specific structural problems of
the international liberal capitalist economic
system whose main feature is centre-
periphery (dependency) relationship between
the Global North and the Global South which
permanently resulted in an “unequal (trade
and investment) exchange.”
176
• Developmental State Approach: Realizing the failure of neo-
liberal development paradigm (in the 1980’s) in solving economic
problems in developing countries, various writers suggested the
developmental state development paradigm as an alternative
development paradigm.
• The concept of the developmental state is a variant of
mercantilism and it advocates for the robust role of the state in
the process of structural transformation.
• The term developmental state thus refers to a state that
intervenes and guides the direction and pace of economic
development.
• Some of the core features of developmental state include;

177
• Strong interventionism: Intervention here does not imply heavy use of public
ownership enterprise or resources but state’s willingness and ability to use a
set of instruments such as tax credits, subsidies, import controls, export
promotion, and targeted and direct financial and credit policies instruments
that belong to the realm of industrial, trade, and financial policy.
• Existence of bureaucratic apparatus to efficiently and effectively implement
the planned process of development.
• Existence of active participation and response of the private sector to state
intervention
• Regime legitimacy built on development results that ensured the benefits of
development are equitably shared and consequently the population is
actively engaged in the process of formulating and executing common
national project of development....etc.

178