WHAT IS FOREIGN POLICY AND WHY STATES MUST HAVE FOREIGN POLICY

Program : Master of Public Policy, International Centre for
Public Policy and Management (INPUMA), University
Of Malaya Kuala Lumpur
Course Title : Foreign Policy
Course Code : ZIGP 6309
Student’s Name : Mohd Hasim Ujang
Student ID : ZGA110011
Prepared For : Prof. Jatswan Singh Sidhu (Supervisor)
ABSRACT
What is foreign policy and why do states need a foreign policy? This is the
fundamental question that the study seeks to answer. Thus the main body of this
study consists of two major parts. First part seeks to build a critical understanding of
what foreign policy is all about, while the second part seeks to build a credible
explanation on why foreign policy is an integral part of a country’s governance and
social policy.
FOREIGN POLICY TERM PAPER

INTRODUCTION
Background for Foreign Policy – A Brief Literature Review on the History and
Study of International Relations
In order to get a good grasp of what foreign policy is all about, it is important to have
a look at how this policy came about in the first place. Foreign policy is a direct result
from various interactions among state and non-state actors whereby the states are
compelled to formulate a certain set of principles and strategies to serve as a guide
in managing these relations. To explain foreign policies’ dynamics and behaviours of
states, various theories in the field of International Relations (IR) has been put
forward and debated. Although foreign policy makers and practitioners seldom refer
to these theories in their formulation and implementation process, the theories are
still useful to fathom the reasons and explanations behind the dynamics of states’
actions and to understand why different states choose to have different foreign
policies over a period of time or in different situations.
Historically, Barry Buzan and Richard Little (2000)1
has identified that the first fully-
fledged international systems dates back to around year 3,500 B.C. when ancient
Sumerian city-states began to flourish and desire to conquer started to emerge
among them. However, the dedicated academic study in IR only began in 1918 when
the first Chair of International Relations, the Woodrow Wilson Chair was founded in
Aberystwyth University, United Kingdom immediately after World War 12
.
Nonetheless, throughout the interval, numerous philosophical and social ideas were
expounded by scholars such as Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx from which the basis
of modern IR theories are developed.

The Woodrow Wilson Chair in Aberystwyth University (and presumably, the various
Chairs and Faculties of IR everywhere as well) was founded to help humankind to
better understand the reasons and motives behind various conflicts and war in the
world history2
. International studies also seek to investigate how states behave in
international arena and why they behave in ways they do. Such understanding is
always needed to help states establish mutual cooperation for a stable and peaceful
world order that is relatively free from conflicts.
1) Barry Buzan, Richard Little: International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of
International Relations. Published 2000.
2) Official website of the Department of International Politics, Aberyswyth University:
http://www.aber.ac.uk/en/interpol/ retrieved on 25th
April 2012.
In doing so, different schools of thoughts under the study of IR have emerged and
they provide some meaningful insights to help people understand the intricacies of
international systems. In order to get a clearer understanding of how international
relations affects foreign policy of a state, it is necessary to have a cursory
examination on what are the prevailing schools of thought in studies of IR and what
views that each of them are adhering to. Although different states might be
influenced in different ways by any of these strands of international relations analysis
depending on a state’s inherent characteristics, each strand holds a consistent idea
on what constitutes a state and the principles that are espoused by each strand are
useful to explain the behaviour of states in the international system.
Theories of Realism

Stephen Martin Walt (1998)3
argued that realism is the most prominent and the
‘most compelling general framework for understanding international relations’ until
today. This school of thought is further sub-divided into two categories; classical
realism and neo-realism. Both streams of ideas assert that power is the single
deciding factor for the behaviour of states. They both assert that states are in
continuous pursuit for power and influence and they always compete to attain power
and to keep rivals’ powers in check.
3) Stephen Martin Walt, International Relations: One World, Many Theories, published 1998 p43.
Classical realism is basing its explanation on human nature, in the sense that
humans are inherently greedy, insecure and always have desire to dominate others.
Since these are the nature of human beings, states also share the same attributes
and desires because states are essentially comprised of human individuals. On the
other hand, neo-realism tries to explain the competitive behaviour of states by stating
that the current Westphalian system of nation-states is based on anarchy (i.e: no
higher authority to govern the behaviour of states).
As such, states must always be wary of each other because stronger states can
impose their will on weaker states with very little prospect for counter-balance. In
such anarchic system, states must do whatever they can to consolidate their power
(political, military and economy) and to deter outside domination. Thus, war and
conflict is always imminent in such a setting. Realism was the prevailing ideology in
international relations throughout the Cold War and it is still upheld by a considerable
number of IR scholars in academia today.

Theories of Liberalism
In contrast to realism, Andrew Moravcsik (1997)4
explained that states behave and
interact with each other based on their respective national interests, the most
prominent of which is to ensure peace and prosperity within each territory and in
global context. Since states share the common obligation to safeguard their own
interests and prosperity, war and conflict is seen as a sure recipe for mutual assured
destruction,5
especially since the advent of the Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD) that could easily decimate cities and small countries plus effectively cripple
an entire nation. As such, wars must be avoided at all costs and states must
cooperate with each other to preserve hospitable world order and not seek ways to
instigate war or conflict. This strand of thought in international relations is known as
liberalism or idealism.
4) Andrew Morascvik, Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics.
Published 1997.
5) Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) - a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in
which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons of mass destruction by two opposing sides would
effectively result in the complete, utter and irrevocable annihilation of both the attacker and the
defender, becoming thus a war that has no victory nor any armistice but only effective reciprocal
destruction. From the works of Col. Alan J. Parrington, USAF, Mutually Assured Destruction
Revisited, Strategic Doctrine in Question, published in Airpower Journal, Winter 1997.
An extension of liberalism called institutionalism or neo-liberalism supports the
same arguments as the original idea of liberalism (commonly referred as classical
realism). The only difference is that instead of focusing on national interests of
states, it is focusing on ways whereby international institutions (such as United
Nations) can influence the behaviour of states by spreading constructive values or
creating rule-based behaviour. This concept was first mooted by Immanuel Kant
(1795) in his work titled Perpetual Peace6
. The main weakness of this ideology

however lies in the fact that international institutions can only facilitate inter-state
cooperation through ideas and consensus, but they cannot force any state to behave
contrary to its own selfish interests7
.
6) Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher who lived from 1724 to 1804 and a very influential figure
in the school of liberalism. Information retrieved on 25th
April 2012 at
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/
7) Stephen Martin Walt, International Relations: One World, Many Theories (1998), page 40.
Another offshoot of liberalism known as economic liberalism also supports the
main idea of inter-state cooperation for mutual prosperity. However, it further argues
that the new phenomena characterized by ‘globalization of world markets, the rise of
transnational networks and NGOs, and the rapid spread of global communications
technology are seriously ‘undermining the power of states’8
. These phenomena have
also shifted states’ international agenda away from ‘military security’9
and activism
towards international and domestic democracy, economics and ‘social welfare’10
. In
this setting, states are compelled to develop more interconnection and
interdependency to achieve and maintain socioeconomic prosperity and this situation
has greatly multiplied the social and security risks commonly associated with wars
and conflicts. As such, this strand of liberalism has gained wide influence and
acceptance amongst various IR scholars and foreign policy researchers.
8) Ibid, p40.
9) Ibid, p40
Theories of Socialism
In contrast to realism and liberalism, Marxism or structuralism views the
divergence of interests and the resulting clashes between the minority ruling class
and the majority common population (the ‘ruled’) as the single underlying factor that

shapes domestic and international systems. In this maxim, the ‘international ruling
class’ refers to the few powerful and dominant states (known among IR scholars as
the core) while the ‘international common population’ refers to the majority smaller
and weaker nations who are prone to oppression and exploitation (known as the
periphery). Thus, structuralism sees international system as an enduring struggle
between ‘the core’ (to maintain hegemony) and ‘the periphery’ (to resist oppression
and exploitation). This concept was best illustrated by Vladimir Lenin’s explanation
on the 1800 – 1945 era of imperialism when it was argued that European capitalist
governments subdued weaker nations before they heavily manipulated and exploited
human and natural resources in their colonies for their selfish interests (Joshua S.
Goldstein & Jon C. Prevehouse, 2012).
Although imperialism has ended after World War 2 and Cold War, this idea still
characterize a major part of international systems where many non-state actors,
mainly multi-national corporations who act as proxy to major superpowers impose
‘economic colonization’ upon third-world countries whose economies are too weak to
resist external exploitation. In these countries, natural resources and manufacturing
products are extracted and produced daily at massive scale while major portions of
the returns are taken up wholly by the proxy companies instead of being distributed
evenly to the local population. All these are happening while the local population who
works in industries operated by these proxy companies are paid relatively meagre
salaries. Such a gross exploitation and imbalance in trans-national relations is very
much the embodiment of Marxism and it is still prevalent in many regions, especially
in the African continent and to a lesser extent, in many developing countries in Asian
region (Immanuel Wallerstein, 1989)10
. Due to the persistence of this situation, the
theory still commands a sizeable adherence among a number of IR scholars.

10) Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World System Vol.3, published in 1989.
Constructivism and Cognitive Theories
This brings us to the theory of constructivism that examines how states behave
based on the unique characteristics of each state. This idea suggests that all states
have unique characteristics that shape their respective foreign policy. These
characteristics are in turn derived mainly from social interactions among states and
social characteristic of each state’s population. In contrast to realism and liberalism,
constructivism emphasizes that states foreign policy are not just influenced by power
and national interest alone, but it is also shaped by other social elements such as
historical and cultural legacies as well as demography and public opinion of each
state, be it their own or that of their close neighbours and allies. Thus, this strand of
IR theory provides very good alternative points of view compared to the over-
simplistic explanation offered by realism, liberalism or structuralism.
Lastly, a new and emerging strand of IR brain wave called cognitive theories11
(J.M. Goldgeier & P.E. Tetlock, circa 2001) explores the dynamics in states’ foreign
policy behaviour that are mainly attributed to psychological process such as
perception, misperception, belief conditioning, bounded rationality as well as direct or
indirect indoctrination among population and foreign policy makers. This theory’s
outlook covers individual, organization and state level analysis, depending on
whether the research is focusing on psychological dynamics of a state decision
maker, or the shared perceptions of an organization, or shared belief system of a
nation. This theory is somewhat new, therefore academic discussions and research

in IR and foreign policy within this theory has not yet expanded beyond the academia
of Europe and United States. As such, there is a limited amount of academic
literature available on this subject and global scale application of this theory to
debate state actions and international systems is still pending.
11) J.M. Goldgeier & P.E. Tetlock, Psychology and International Relations Theory, published in 2001.
Bill Newman, A Brief Introduction to Theories on International Relations and Foreign Policy,
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~wnewmann/468theory.htm retrieved on 30th March 2012.
Academic Definition for Foreign Policy
Encyclopaedia Britannica12
defines Foreign Policy as ‘general objectives that guide
the activities and relationships of one state in its interactions with other states’.
Whereas an International Relations text book published by Pearson (10th
edition,
ISBN: 0205177271, p146) defines Foreign Policy as ‘the strategies governments use
to guide their actions in the international arena’. Both of these definitions are too
academic and too general to be understood and applied in practical governance of
states and international systems. Thus, more ideas need to be explored and a more
comprehensive elaboration must be made to achieve a clearer understanding about
the subject and application of foreign policy in the context of national governance.
12) Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/213380/foreign-
policy, retrieved on 20th
April 2012.
Foreign Policy: The General Idea
PART 1: WHAT IS FOREIGN POLICY?

Foreign Policy is one of the government’s important instruments for national
governance and administration whose main objective is to safeguard national
interests and protect national sovereignty in all international dealings. It serves as a
guide and a general framework for governments to conduct all international affairs.
As such, it must contain appropriate set of strategies that are anchored to certain set
of principles that reflects the state’s shared values and national identity. These
parameters are themselves varied from one nation to another, but the term ‘national
interest’ (the basic aim of foreign policy) is somewhat generic. It consists of state’s
sovereignty, general prosperity and international recognition that must be
safeguarded at all cost.
On the other hand, different states may have different set of principles that serves as
the backbone for its foreign policy. For example, Malaysia’s foreign policy13
is heavily
characterized by the principles of sovereign equality, mutual respect for territorial
integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs,
peaceful settlement of disputes as well as mutual benefit in relations and peaceful
co-existence regardless of ideology or political system. Whereas the United
States’ foreign policy is marked by international policing, as well as the spreading
and preservation of global democracy, free market economy and universal human
rights. This comparative statement shows that Malaysia’s foreign policy heavily
reflects non-violent values of global equality and neutrality, whereas US’ foreign
policy reflects the desire to impose dominance and hierarchical structure upon the
global system. However they also point to some common denominators in the sense
that they reflect national aspirations and shared values of each particular state.
13) Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ website, http://www.kln.gov.my/web/guest/formulation retrieved
on 22nd April 2012

Based on these explanations and examples, foreign policy can be summarized as
follows:
A set of principles and strategies that guides government’s actions and
decisions pertaining trans-national and international relations whose main
objective is to steer the country towards achieving national aspirations and
spreading shared values; and
An instrument of governance and administration for policy makers and policy
administrators in managing national affairs at trans-national and international
level to align government’s actions and decisions towards national goals.
Foreign Policy: The Process
The evolution of foreign policy study and formulation from ancient times until today is
very much intriguing, but quite difficult to summarize in few paragraphs or even in a
single paper. A whole book would be the minimum requirement to carry out an
accurate explanation. However, as complex as foreign policies’ evolutions have
been, the academic obligation to undertake such an description in this paper should
not be avoided. As such, the description should begin from ancient times to the
middle ages when states are commonly ruled by single unitary authority (a
monarch) who made national decisions without any democratic participation,
including foreign policy decisions.
There were plenty of examples from ancient and middle ages’ empires to support
this explanation; the Akkadian Empire (2334 – 2154 BC), the Babylonian Empire

(circa 1792 – 539 BC), the Ancient Egypt (3150 – 343 BC), the Roman Empire (27
BC – 1453 AD), and the British Empire (1497 – 1997), just to name a few examples.
In these periods of classical sovereignty, national identity and sovereignty is vested
in the ruler instead of the citizens or territory. Therefore, foreign policymaking and
decisions were exercised exclusively by these monarchs, although some of
them had a senate or a royal council to advise rulers in state matters (such in the
case of Roman Empire and British Empire before the formalization of Magna Carta in
1297).
The period between Renaissance (circa 1500 CE) and early 20th
century saw
widespread burgeoning of the intellects and the middle class, who were mainly not
associated with nobility and aristocrats at that time. These people began to
considerably influence political and social order, including state’s decisions in
international relations. However, their influences were indirect and mostly
permeated through ideas and general discussions. These ideas and discussions
more often covered broad social subjects with relatively little specific reference to
states’ foreign policies. In essence, there was none or very little consultation
involving people’s representatives and the ruling class for state’s matters and foreign
policy decisions were very much still handled exclusively by the rulers, the
aristocrats and in the case of European imperialists, their appointed diplomats.
The situation shifted dramatically after World War 2 when independent scholars
and political observers started to give specific attention to the study about
formulation and implementation of foreign policy. The shift was also concurrent with
the emergence of democracy and socialism as major doctrines for national
governance which replaced the ancient world order whereby the sovereignty of a

state is vested upon the territory instead of the ruler. With these transitions,
international relations and diplomacy became a subject of public debate and
scrutiny and no longer an exclusive domain of the elites and the ruling classes.
Nowadays countries are no longer governed singlehandedly by an absolute authority
(with the exceptions of few absolute monarchies such as Brunei and Saudi Arabia).
Elected officials who represent state’s citizens govern the country and together with
national bureaucracies, they make state’s decision on behalf of the electorate,
including foreign policy decisions. Further to that, non-state entities who hold
major socio-economic stake in modern societies also began to influence state’s
foreign policy decisions for one reason or another via direct and indirect channels.
Thus, the questions that need to be explored are to understand modern foreign
policy decision-making processes are:
What are the internal and external factors that influence a state’s foreign policy?
How do groups of decision makers and non-state actors interact and collaborate
to shape foreign policy and dictate its directions?
How does individual entity in these groups form his or her opinions and ideas to
influence foreign policy decision-making?
What are the channels involved in foreign policy processes and deliberations in
modern society?

To facilitate answers for the above questions, it is useful to explore foreign policy
decision-making process through different levels of analysis14
, starting from
individual level decision-making process, to small group decision-making process
and finally to the bureaucracy and organizational process. The making of modern
foreign policies often involves deliberations within these layers, but some layers
are more dominant than the others, depending upon various factors including the
characteristic of national leadership and individuals, the strength of bureaucracy plus
the level of academic and social activism in a particular nation-state.
First, in individual and group decision-making process, national leaders and
policymakers gather and deliberate inputs from the bureaucracy which consists of
administrative bodies (such as Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Defence Ministry,
Finance Ministry, Immigration Department, etc), think-tank groups (career
diplomats, military intelligence, professional analysts, research bodies, etc) and
media department (public relations officials, agents of public opinion’s poll, etc).
Legislatures are not directly involved, however their contribution is significant
particularly in deliberations pertaining military actions and international legal
instruments such as international treaties, trade agreements or international
declarations and conventions. State actions or decisions are discussed and
premeditated across these groups and each individual’s response and behaviours in
each group are dictated by certain psychological and intellectual factors that vary
across individuals.
14) Valerie M. Hudson & Christopher S. Vore, Foreign Policy Analysis Yesterday, Today and
Tomorrow, published 1995.

Most central of these individuals are national leaders who often are the ultimate
decision makers in national foreign policies. As such, the study of individual
characters among national leaders to explain foreign policy behaviours has become
a new way of exploring foreign policy decision-making process (example: Margaret
Hermann, 1999, 2002). Each national leader deliberate inputs and feedbacks from
bureaucracy and think-tank group, however his/her ‘individual values and beliefs’
still hold sway in foreign policy decision-making process15
. This observation is
reflected in the case of Malaysia’s foreign policy which went through notable
shifts of emphasize and orientation under different prime ministers (Ministry of
Foreign Affairs: ‘Evolution of Malaysia’s Foreign Policy, 1957 – 2012)16
.
Under the first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia’s foreign policy was
markedly pro-Western and anti-Communist with close links to the Commonwealth.
The second Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak introduced the concept of Muslim
Nation with greater emphasize on principles of non-alignment, neutrality and
peaceful co-existence. The period of the third Prime Minister Tun Hussein Onn saw
a consolidation of the Malaysia’s neutral and non-belligerent foreign policy with more
emphasize on regional alliance (ASEAN) to counter-balance the political effects of
Cold War. Finally, the dramatic shift in Malaysia’s Foreign Policy occurred under the
premiership of Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammad who propelled Malaysia into
international activism especially in multi-lateral platforms, namely the UN, the East
Asian Economic Caucus (EAEC), the South-South Co-operation, OIC and ASEAN,
just to name a few.
15) Joshua S. Goldstein & Jon C. Prevehouse, 2012 ‘rational actor model’, p129.
16) Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ website, http://www.kln.gov.my/web/guest/evolution retrieved on
23rd April 2012.

Mahathir’s charismatic leadership and vocal outlook in international arena earned
international respect for Malaysia amongst developing countries who began to
regard Malaysia as the spokesperson for developing countries. His Islamic values
and beliefs also played an important part in introducing stronger Islamic stance in the
country’s foreign policy during and after his era. The ensuing prime ministership
under Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi saw consistency in fundamental principles of
Malaysia’ foreign policy but the hitherto blunt and vocal outlook was replaced by
more amiable approach in international forums. Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul
Razak carried on with the same legacy and approach, but his idea of Global
Movement of Moderates is seen as an attempt to counter the wave of Islamic
radicalism and extremism that has lately been commonly associated with Islamic
countries and communities.
Next, apart from top national leaders, the personality and idealism of second tier
policymakers such as heads of ministries and bureaucracies also contribute
significantly to foreign policy formulation and decision-making. For example, again in
Malaysia’s case Johan Saravanamuttu (2010)17
identified that people like Tun Dr.
Ismail Abdul Rahman and Tun Ghazali Shafie (King Ghaz)18
were instrumental
personalities behind the country’s foreign policy evolution. Tun Dr. Ismail was
Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister from 1970 to 1973 whereas Tun Ghazali was
Malaysian Foreign Minister from 1981 to 1984.
17) Johan Saravanamutt, Malaysia’s Foreign Policy Over The First 50 Years, published in 2010.
18) Paul Gabriel, The Long and Illustrious Road of a No-Nonsense Minister
(http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/1/25/nation/5539677&sec=nation), published in
2010, retrieved on 27th
April 2012.

Other than personality factors, domestic influences such as bureaucracy’s
advices, issues in legislature, military intelligence and public opinion are also
pivotal in foreign policy decision-making process. Streams of ideas and counsels
from these spheres of influences compete and collaborate to provide foreign policy
solutions that represent the aggregated interest of these groups. People in these
groups use their individual values, belief and perception about the observable socio-
economic circumstances at domestic and international level in order to come up with
recommendations and suggestions that are finally accounted and aggregated into a
full-fledge foreign policies or actions.
It is difficult to determine which one of these groups that are most dominant, however
based on empirical observation, it can be said that compared to other interest
groups, the bureaucracy is the most influential quarter in most cases of foreign
policy decision-making process. This inference is valid for following reasons:
The bureaucracy is officially mandated to advise top decision makers in national
affairs including foreign policy decisions, by virtue of their appointment into
officialdom as government advisors and administrators. They hold key access to
the government’s institutional memory and produce various memoranda on a
daily basis to recommend foreign policy actions and solutions to top national
leaders. Therefore, in most cases their recommendations are accepted either
promptly in its entirety, or accepted eventually after necessary amendments and
deliberations.

The bureaucracy exclusively holds the official channel to communicate with top
decision makers in foreign policy. In this era of e-Government, they can reach
presidents and prime ministers within seconds for purposes of foreign policy
decision-making process as explained above.
The bureaucracy carries out national governance and important administrative
duties that directly affect foreign policy decisions and actions. Such duties are
formulating and regulating budgetary decisions, financial expenditures, security
mobilization, immigration policies, international trade treaties, press freedom and
so forth. Although these are not the exclusive domain of bureaucracy (they are
required to work with legislature in these respects), they still wield very strong
influence by virtue of their positions as the main drafters, planners and advisors
for the government in these areas.
The legislature is not directly involved in foreign policies’ formulation and decision-
making process. For example, they do not decide whether a country should attack
another country or launch peacekeeping missions overseas – these are the jobs for
the government of the day. However the legislature does have the capacity to
impose certain limits and constrains to control government’s actions and decisions
relating to foreign policy. For instance, the decision of legislature to impose austerity
measures or to cap military expenditures will restrict the viability, the scope and the
choice for international military actions that the government wants to make.
Another example would be the legislature’s decisions and amendments to tax and
trade laws. These decisions and amendments bears a bearing on tariff and non-tariff
barriers on certain international trades which potentially affect trade relations and in

some cases, even become the bone of contention among trading nations.
Furthermore, the legislature’s decisions pertaining laws of immigration, citizenship,
political asylum and international extradition directly affect inflow and outflow of
foreign citizens through national borders, regardless of whether they are innocent
visitors or suspect characters such as potential terrorists or potential members of
international crime syndicates. These profoundly affect countries’ images, foreign
relations and ultimately its national interest in both positive and negative ways.
Lastly, in the course of foreign policy formulation and premeditation of actions, the
bureaucracy and legislative continuously scan for domestic and international inputs
from public opinion, which are mainly derived from mass media plus the perception
of realities amongst individuals within the groups which are shaped by their individual
knowledge (internal factor) and information that are presented to them (external
factors). They also consider inputs from interest groups which mainly consist of
representative views from non-state actors. These inputs are later assimilated and
aggregated by the bureaucracy to form recommendations for foreign policy actions
and decisions. Just like the bureaucracy, the legislature also considers inputs from
public opinion and perceived realities when making legislative opinions and
decisions that affect foreign policy. The diagram in the following page summarizes
the whole process of foreign policy formulation that can be used as a general
template to understand foreign policy decision-making process.
[This space is intentionally left blank]

Input 1: Perception of Realities
Contents: Public Issues and Opinions, Representative
Views from Interest Groups
Sources: Mass Media/Direct or Indirect
Communications
Input 2: Individual Values and Beliefs
Characters: National Leaders, Members of Bureaucracy,
Legislature, Interest Groups and the Population.
Sources: Accumulated Knowledge, Cultural Legacy, Belief
System
THE BUREAUCRACY
Produces recommendations and
conveys through official channels
Follows up on deliberations and
amendments, execute decisions
THE LEGISLATURE
Debates Bills and decides on
Legislations
Incorporate inputs in the course of
debate
Merging of ideas and
interconnections of
thoughts
Conflicts, Bargaining and
Reconciliations
THE CABINET/GOVERNMENT
Make foreign policy actions and
decisions.
Propose Bills and Acts to legitimize
actions and decisions where necessary.
Bounded by legislations and the World
Systems.
WORLD SYSTEM
United Nations: outlines international laws with
inputs from member states and independent panels
Use of international laws and instruments to regulate
states’ actions.
INGOs and other non-state actors: influence state
actions through representative views or business
instruments.
Monitoring and
Re-evaluations

Foreign Policy: The Requirements
In relation to the discussions in the previous sections, any foreign policy of a state
must be able to meet the following requirements:
The foreign policy must be consistent in national principles but adaptive enough
to be responsive to changes corresponding to international environment.
The foreign policy must be aligned with national values, shared beliefs and
identity.
The foreign policy must be able to reflect popular aspirations of the citizens.
The foreign policy must be conceived with national interest as prime
consideration.
Foreign Policy: The Constraints
Information Overload: In the process of formulating and deliberating foreign policy
actions and decisions, the bureaucracy is often heavily bombarded with reports and
situation analysis from various sources. These information and analysis often
signifies contradicting trends or inconsistency in terms of indicative directions that
could be used to guide foreign policy actions and decisions. For example, in the
1962 Cuban Missile Crisis (more information about this is annexed in the Appendix
Section), the top military leaders and government officials seemed to be at
loggerheads with each other with one faction strongly advocated direct military

intervention while the other faction (led by President John. F. Kennedy himself)
favoured diplomatic negotiations and rallying support from the international
community and US’s citizens to resolve the crisis over military aggression.
Multiple reporting is also an issue whereby the same incident or analysis is reported
repeatedly or the same report is reproduced repeatedly by numerous sources, with a
certain degree of variation. Thus, the bureaucracy needs time to sift and select
useful materials out of these cocktails of information before recommending any
actions or decisions. They must also able to finalize and suggest the most favourable
and the least damaging course of action to safeguard the legitimacy of government
actions and preserve national interest.
Uncertainty/Unpredictability/Lack of generalizable solutions or scenario: Each issue
in foreign policy is unique even though it may be a mere repetition of past issues,
and it must be tackled carefully to achieve the most effective solution with very
minimum cost in terms of resource or international compromise. For example, US
have for several times proposed to establish a military presence in the Malacca Strait
which is traditionally controlled by Malaysia and Indonesia. However, due to local
sentiments, both of these countries understandably cannot allow this to happen,
otherwise the respective governments will risk losing their citizens’ support. Thus
every time US repeats the same proposal, both countries cannot use the same kind
of counter-proposal to reject the idea politely. Doing so will irk the major superpower
with whom they have substantial trade relation and economic dependency. Hence, in
this issue, both countries must play smart to balance between citizens’ interests and
the need to accommodate the wishes of a major superpower.

Competition in bureaucracy and interest groups: Various government agencies,
national departments and interest groups do not always share the same viewpoint
and sentiments regarding a certain international issue. For example, in the issue of
international procurement for government agencies, the Finance Ministry and the
Ministry of International Trade might prefer to open up major tenders and projects for
multinational conglomerates to make local industry more competitive. However, the
Ministry of Domestic Trade and various associations representing the local industry
strongly object to this idea for fear of losing out to the more capable and more
competitive international industrialists. Thus, agents of foreign policy must be very
careful when discussing an idea of this nature so that foreign policy actions and
decisions are crafted and executed without excessively upsetting the interests of any
group.
Global Intricacies: Countries have become highly interdependent and interconnected
that any adverse action within or against any particular country would have an effect
across the country’s territorial borders, no matter how small the country may be. This
is clearly seen in issues pertaining to international security and international
economy. For example, news of one terrorist’s act in one particularly country can
easily send out ripples of safety and economic concerns (e.g. effects on tourism) to
its neighbours, or even beyond the region. Thus foreign policy actions and decisions
must always take into account such an intricacy to adapt to the increasingly volatile
environment.
Lastly, there are difficulties to bridge the gap between citizen’s perceptions of
realities and expectations with policymakers’ perceived realities in global scenario.
For example, in the issues of low-skilled migrant workers and economic refugees,

Malaysian citizens generally resent their presence and do not particularly like the
government’s seemingly tolerant behaviour against these groups. However, little do
they know that the government is also under pressure from international bodies such
as Human Rights Watch (HRW), UNHCR and UNICEF for what they term as
government’s ‘mistreatment’ against these people, especially their children who are
not allowed to receive education in national schools. As a response, the government
has discreetly allowed for these children to receive education under certain
circumstance, and this happens mainly in the state of Sabah where teachers
commonly related their experience of having to accept students into their classes
who possess neither identification documents nor nationality. (In Kota Kinabalu,
there is even a special school for children of Indonesian migrants).
The International Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) explicitly disallows
children of refugees and economic migrants from being excluded from education.
Thus, although the government is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, it still
need to comply to the provisions under CRC and this explains the government’s
seemingly tolerant behaviour on children of refugees and migrant workers (who still
need parental care). Based on this example, citizens need to be made to more
understand and more aware of the realities in the international systems so that they
will become more receptive to foreign policy actions and decisions concerning any
issue.
PART 2: WHY STATES NEED FOREIGN POLICY?
First and foremost, states need foreign policy to obtain and preserve mutual
diplomatic recognition. A country that is internationally recognized as a sovereign
state with UN’s membership has a voting power in the UN General Assembly

(UNGA). Thus, it can influence international declarations and resolution to its favour
or to accommodate its interests. It can also use the UNGA as a platform to air its
grievances, assert its stand over an international issue and propagate its ideals on
how international systems should be shaped to be just, fair and able to benefit
international community as a whole. Moreover, an internationally recognized country
also enjoys a certain degree of international protection against any form of territorial
invasion, interferences or encroachment into its internal affairs. For example, when
Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991, the UN issued a resolution to condemn the invasion
against a sovereign country and a form of military intervention was agreed upon that
saw the eventual liberation of Kuwait from its invader.
In relation to this, states also need to engage in foreign policy more importantly to
protect its national interests. As explained in the previous chapter, countries have
become highly interdependent and interconnected economically, socially and
politically. Thus in such an intertwined relationships, countries who fail to exploit
foreign policy to its advantage will lose out in the international competition. In this
respect, foreign policy is the main prerequisite to engage in diplomatic negotiations
where agreements, compromises and bargaining take place. More importantly,
modern history has shown that much of the international conflicts and disagreements
can be resolved through diplomatic means rather than military interventions per se. A
good example again was the 1962 Cuban Military Crisis whereby diplomatic
negotiations and bargaining finally ended in a compromise between US and USSR
without escalating into a full scale military conflict.
Thirdly, foreign policy is also a very important instrument to achieve and preserve
national economic prosperity. Landlocked countries essentially depend on their

neighbours to permit inflow and outflow of trade and goods, thus requires foreign
policy to engage its neighbours. Whereas countries that are not landlocked also
need foreign policy to venture into international trade and to obtain natural resources
such as oil and other minerals that are only abundant in a limited number of states.
For example, the oil rich Brunei, Saudi Arabia and much of the Middle East countries
need to foreign policy as a prerequisite to sell their oil to foreign purchasers and
thereby generate revenue while other countries need foreign policy as well to attract
foreign investment and trade its product with foreign countries and multinational
conglomerates.
Subsequently, such relations and interactions in foreign policy and international
dealings must be conducted in a manner that yields fair and just mutual benefits
between the initiator and the receiver. Countries who engage in international
dealings without an astute foreign policy will end up getting a lopsided deal that
benefits the other counterpart at the expense of its own national interest. Few
examples can be related in this respect such as in the case of Pulau Batu Puteh
when Malaysia did not do the right thing by establishing strong presence on the
island from the day Singapore was kicked out from Malaysia. Malaysia also did not
put enough effort to gather solid evidences and un-contestable testament during the
dispute of Pulau Batu Puteh at ICJ, which eventually saw Malaysia lost the island to
Singapore.
Malaysia’s defeat at international platform to a country much smaller in size is really
unacceptable considering the fact that the geographical location of the island is
much closer to Malaysia compared to Singapore and by right, under the UN
Convention on International Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) the island should fell under

Malaysia’s territory and not Singapore. Another example of a lop-sided international
agreement that was caused by the lack of wisdom in foreign policy actions and
decisions was Malaysia’s decision to allow the construction a rare earth mineral
processing plant at Gebeng, Pahang (a state within Malaysia) by Lynas Corporation,
an Australian firm which specializes in the processing of rare earth mineral17
.
Critics have pointed out that the potential harms associated with this decision far
outweigh its overall benefits. First, the proposal to construct this plant was rejected
by a number of countries including China, before Malaysia finally agrees to it.
Second, the government agreed to forgo a substantial amount of tax revenue by
giving Lynas Corporation 12 years of tax holiday throughout the construction and
operation of the rare earth processing plant. Such a decision lacks foresight
considering the possible dangers from harmful radiation and subsequent health
hazards that the plant poses to the nearby population. A foreign company’s intention
to run a harmful industry of this scale should be either not allowed, or taxed heavily
by the host country to prevent a lopsided deal from such a risky arrangement. Based
on the examples given, it clear that states need astute foreign policy to ensure a just
and fair international dealings that will produce mutual benefits for the host country
and its counterpart, whether it is another country or a non-state international actor.
17) Gholamreza Zandi1*, Mohamed Sulaiman & Najwa Anis Dzulkefli of International Islamic
University Malaysia (IIUM): Case Study 3 – Lynas Advanced Materials Plant. Source:
http://iiumgsm.com/journal/files/Vol2.2/Case%203%20Lynas(edSP)(RV)rev.pdf published on 2nd
December 2011, retrieved on 28th
April 2012.
Another reason that necessitates foreign policy amongst sovereign states is the
need to attain prestige and to establish a good international reputation. Getting
international recognition is of little use especially if the particular country is notorious

for its gross human rights violations or if the government is perceived as highly
corrupt by the international community. Thus, a credible state needs to propagate its
good governance and generate a positive perception amongst the international
community to pre-empt any bad propaganda that could be directed against it by
maligned international actors.
This is especially so for a country that is little known globally due to its isolated
location or a historically insignificant state. For example, among the average
international community, little is known about the country of Brunei other than the
extravagant lifestyle of its ruler. Thus, a Bruneian foreign policy agent might suggest
to the government to embark on an international public relations exercise to
counterbalance this image by showing the world that the country is prosperous as a
whole and the ruler does not bank on the poverty of its subjects to lead an
extravagant life.
Additionally, major superpowers such as the US heavily utilize foreign policy as a
means to spread shared values and maxims that are believed to be the source of
international peace and stability. The US believes that by globalizing democracy,
free market and universal human rights, the world will become peaceful and
prosperous. Other countries also formulate and implement their respective foreign
policy to influence and shape the world system in their favour. For example, if the
world system is seen as strongly unipolar or bipolar to the disadvantages of smaller
and weaker nations, the latter will regroup and establish strategic alliances to
counter-balance the effects of polarization in world system.
Whereas for superpowers especially during the Cold War, foreign policy was a
necessary tool to contain the influence of each other’s rival (example: US and USSR

competition for influence during Cold War). Moreover, states pursue foreign policy to
appease its electorates. For example, due to the overwhelming pressure from
citizens and domestic employers, Malaysia decided to allow huge influx of low-skilled
foreign labour into the local market and industry. Countries also pursue foreign policy
to protect the welfare of its citizens abroad. This is true in an age where trans-
migration and cross-boundary movements are the norms.
Another key reason that recently necessitated foreign policy is the need to galvanize
states’ cooperation to address issues of global concerns. Examples of such issues
are climate change, disasters of national or regional scale, terrorism, large scale
economic crisis, human trafficking, trans-migration, trans-national crime, trans-
national epidemic and so forth. Efforts to address issues of global concerns are
galvanized through UN and its sub-organization such as United Nations Science,
Education and Cultural Organizations (UNESCO), United Nations Security Council
(UNSC), World Bank, World Health Organization (WHO), Human Rights Watch
(HRW), United Nations Human Rights Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and
International Monetary Fund (IMF).
CONCLUSION
From what has been discussed so far, foreign policy is a holistic decision making
exercise that requires multidisciplinary input. A state must do ample deliberations
from the aspects of politics, economy, security, social and environment before
establishing a foreign policy stand or before deciding any international actions.
Failing to do so could cause great repercussions that would result in substantial
costs to the national interest.

Furthermore, although foreign policy decision-making process requires input from
various quarters within and outside a country’s administration, it is observed that the
bureaucracy plays a pivotal role as the de facto policy advisor while the policy-
makers are the ones who eventually decide on the country’s foreign policy. Hence it
is important for citizens and other stakeholders to bear this in mind to ensure that
their policy preferences and aspirations are taken into account in foreign policy
decision-making process.
It is also very important to note that foreign policy is an integral part of a country’s
governance and social policy that must be fully utilized for socioeconomic benefits of
the host country. Foreign policy is also a global instrument that is very important as a
galvanizing force to address issues of regional and global concerns. Finally, foreign
policy is a very important form of soft power that can be used to acquire pre-emptive
defence mechanisms especially for countries with little military might. Defence
treaties and military pacts are some examples of such pre-emptive defence
mechanisms that require foreign policy as a tool for states to acquire such
mechanisms. This inference is becoming more important by the day considering that
wars and direct military confrontations have become much more costly especially
since the advent of WMD that poses huge collateral damages and the ever-present
risk of mutual assured destruction.

WHAT IS FOREIGN POLICY AND WHY STATES MUST HAVE FOREIGN POLICY

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to WHAT IS FOREIGN POLICY AND WHY STATES MUST HAVE FOREIGN POLICY (20)

More from Mohd Hasim Ujang (13)

Recently uploaded (20)

WHAT IS FOREIGN POLICY AND WHY STATES MUST HAVE FOREIGN POLICY