Foreign Policy

• The making of foreign policy has traditionally been regarded as one of the key features of international
politics.
• It reflects the importance of statecraft as an activity through which national governments manage their
relations with other states and international bodies.
• Indeed, foreign policy-making has sometimes been thought of as a noble activity, seen as ‘high’ politics
in that it deals with issues of sovereignty and security. realist -to the point talk, not globl, economic
• In fact, foreign policy is the very survival of the state – as opposed to the ‘low’ politics of economics
and other less important state activities. not exist, both should be good
• However, recent developments have called the concept of ‘foreign policy’ into question, certainly
casting doubt on the conventional notion of foreign policy as a discrete activity, engaged in at a senior
political level and involving formal diplomatic interactions between and amongst states.
• These pressures have come from various directions like the advance of Globalization.
Alliances
• Alliances play a central role in international relations because they are seen to be an integral part of
statecraft. 49-Nato ( 12)- control USSR Cummunism
• Alliances are formed between two or more countries to counter a common adversary.
now-QOUD- rule based intr ordr
• They have been an important research focus in the theory of international relations.
• This is understandable because one of the central foreign policy debates in every country centers on
the issue of which nation to ally with and for how long. now promote multilaterism
• Strong and weak nations alike feel the need to form alliances.
• Weak states enter into alliance when they need protection against strong states i.e., they enter into
alliances to defend themselves. sweeden , finland-nato involve now
• Strong states enter into alliances to counter other strong states i.e., they enter into alliance to maintain
balance of power.
• States expect their allies to help militarily and diplomatically during the time of conflict.
• The commitment entered into by the alliance may be formal or informal i.e., there may or may not be
treaties between them.
• Example NATO, AUKUS.
Anarchy chaos

• International anarchy has been the conventional model for understanding international politics, its
origins dating back to the emergence of the Westphalian state-system in the 17th century.
• It is also one of the core assumptions of Realist theory. From this perspective, the central feature of the
international system is the absence of a supranational authority capable of regulating the behaviour
of states.
 • States are thus sovereign entities, forced to rely on self-help for survival and security.
• The international system thus tends to be dynamic and prone to conflict, especially as a result of the
fear and uncertainty that derive from the security dilemma.
• However, international anarchy is not necessarily characterized by unending chaos and disorder.
• Rather, periods of peace and at least relative order may develop, particularly when a balance of power
emerges that discourages states from pursuing their aggressive ambitions.
• Moreover, the prospect of war is diminished to the extent that states seek to maximize security (the
avoidance of war) rather than to maximize power (gains made through conquest and expansion).
Arms Race require for balance of power
• An arms race is a concerted military buildup that occurs as two or more states acquire weapons or
increase their military capability in response to each other.
• Classic examples include the UK–German naval arms race that preceded WWI, and the US–Soviet
nuclear arms race during the Cold War.
• Arms races may be fuelled by defensive calculations or miscalculations (the security dilemma), or they
may occur as one or more states seek military advantage in order to pursue offensive policies.
• While arms races may increase the likelihood of war, by heightening fear and paranoia and
strengthening militarism and aggressive nationalism, they may also help to maintain an overall
balance of power and so ensure deterrence.
Mutually Assured Destruction
• Mutually Assured Destruction, or mutually assured deterrence (MAD), is a military theory that was
developed to deter the use of nuclear weapons.
• The theory is based on the fact that nuclear weaponry is so devastating that no government wants to
use them.
• Neither side will attack the other with their nuclear weapons because both sides are guaranteed to be
totally destroyed in the conflict.
• No one will go to all-out nuclear war because no side can win and no side can survive.
• To many, mutually assured destruction helped prevent the Cold War from turning hot; to others, it is
the most ludicrous theory humanity ever put into full-scale practice.
• The name and acronym of MAD come from physicist and polymath John von Neumann, a key member
of the Atomic Energy Commission and a man who helped the US develop nuclear devices.
• For long periods of the Cold War, MAD entailed a relative lack of missile defenses so as to guarantee
mutual destruction. Anti-ballistic missile systems were closely examined by the other side to see if they
changed the situation.
• Things changed when Ronald Reagan became president of the U.S. He decided the U.S. should attempt
to build a missile defense system which would prevent the country from being wiped out in a MAD
war.
• However, the U.S. was able to invest in the technology while the USSR, with an ailing infrastructure,
could not keep up.
• This is cited as one reason why Gorbachev decided to end the Cold War.
 • With the ending of that particular global tension, the specter of MAD faded from active policy to
background threat. secuirty of umberella- sk, jap, taiwan- us gives security gurantee
• However, the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent remains a controversial issue.

Balance of Power
• The term ‘balance of power’ has been used in a variety of ways.
• As a policy, it refers to a deliberate attempt to promote a power equilibrium, using diplomacy, or
possibly war, to prevent any state achieving a predominant position. BRICS- challenge unipolar-2010
• As a system, the balance of power refers to a condition in which no one state predominates over others,
tending to create general equilibrium and curb the hegemonic ambitions of all states.
• Although such a balance of power may simply be fortuitous (by chance), neorealists argue that the
international system tends naturally towards equilibrium because states are particularly fearful of a
would-be hegemon asian dev bank- counter world bank

• Balance of Power is not automatic; it has to be secured by the states following this policy. In fact,
there are several methods by which states try to secure and maintain balance of power.
• “Balance of Power is a game which is played by actors with the help of several devices.”
• Major Methods of Balance of Power:
o Compensation: It is also known as territorial compensation. It usually entails the annexation
or division of the territory of the state whose power is considered dangerous for the balance.
o In the 17th and 18th centuries this device was regularly used for maintaining a balance of power
which used to get disturbed by the territorial acquisitions of any nation. germany ww2
Alliances and Counter Alliances
• Alliance-making are regarded as a principal method of balance of power. (India Participating in
warsav pact to counter NATO
QUAD to counter China)
• Alliance is a device by which a combination of nations creates a favourable balance of power by
entering into military or security pacts aimed at augmenting their own strength vis-a-vis the power of
their opponents. (NATO)
• However, an alliance among a group of nations, almost always, leads to the establishment of a counter
alliance by the opponents. History is full of examples of such alliances and counter alliances. (Warsaw
pact) e.g. a b freind but a not c , b and c freind, so divide c in diff parts
Intervention and Non-intervention:
• “Intervention is a dictatorial interference in the internal affairs of another state/states with a view to
change or maintain a particular desired situation which is considered to be harmful or useful to the
competing opponents. china- inlfuences napal, maldv, slanka

• Some times during a war between two states no attempt is made by other states to intervene. This is
done for making the two warring states weaker. india has soft power
• Mostly it is used by a major power for regaining an old ally or for picking up a new ally or for
imposing a desired situation on other states.
 • The US intervention is Grenada, Nicaragua, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, and (Erstwhile) USSR’s
interventions in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Afghanistan can be quoted as examples of
interventions carried out by the big powers.

Divide and Rule

• The policy of divide and rule has also been a method of balance of power. It has been a time honored
policy of weakening the opponents.
• It is resorted to be all such nations who try to make or keep their competitors weak by keeping them
divided or by dividing them.
• The French policy towards Germany and the British policy towards the European continent can be
cited as the outstanding examples.
Buffer States or Zones set up nepal, bhutan are BS in two power- oBR- revive- 2020 galwan-
• Another method of balance of power is to set up a buffer state between two rivals or opponents.
• Buffers are areas which are weak, which possess considerable strategic importance to two or more
strong powers.
• Buffer is a small state created or maintained as a separating state i.e. as a buffer state for keeping two
competing states physically separate each stronger power then tries to bring the buffer within its
sphere of influence. china-play physlogical war chamcha -class-ye strong h
• The major function of a buffer is to keep the two powerful nations apart and thus minimise the
chances of clash and hence to help the maintenance of balance.”
Armaments and Disarmaments
• All nations, particularly very powerful nations, place great emphasis on armaments as the means for
maintaining or securing a favourable position in power relations in the world. It is also used as a means
to keep away a possible aggressor or enemy.
• However, armament race between two competitors or opponents can lead to a highly dangerous
situation which cans accidently cause a war.
• In this way armament race can act as a danger to world peace and security. Consequently, now-a-days,
Disarmaments and Arms Control are regarded as better devices for maintaining and strengthening
world peace and security.
• A comprehensive disarmament plan/exercise involving nuclear disarmament can go a long way in
strengthening the balance (peace) that exists in international relations.
Bandwagoning chamcha giri- usa and sA align with stong may he your enemy

• Bandwagoning in international relations occurs when a state aligns with a stronger,

adversarial power and concedes that the stronger adversary-turned-partner disproportionately gains
in the spoils they conquer together. japan, taiwan- focus industry but not military backhand by usa
• Bandwagoning, therefore, is a strategy employed by states that find themselves in a weak position.
• The logic stipulates that an outgunned, weaker state should align itself with a stronger adversary
because the latter can take what it wants by force anyway.
• Thucydides' famous dictum that "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"
captures the essence of bandwagoning.
 • Bandwagoning occurs when weaker states decide that the cost of opposing a stronger power exceeds
the benefits.
• The stronger power may offer incentives, such as the possibility of territorial gain, trade agreements,
or protection, to induce weaker states to join with it.
• Realism predicts that states will bandwagon only when there is no possibility of building a balancing
coalition or their geography makes balancing difficult (i.e. surrounded by enemies).
• Bandwagoning is considered to be dangerous because it allows a rival state to gain power.
• Bandwagoning is opposed to balancing, which calls for a state to prevent an aggressor from upsetting
the balance of power.
Geopolitics important is ocean, naval power
• Geopolitics is an approach to foreign policy analysis that understands the actions, relationships and
significance of states in terms of geographical factors, such as location, climate, natural resources,
physical terrain and population.
• The field of geopolitics was significantly shaped by Alfred Mahan (1840–1914), who argued that the
state that controls the seas would control world politics.
• Halford Mackinder (1861–1947), who suggested, by contrast, that control of the land mass between
Germany and central Siberia is the key to controlling world politics.
• Critics of geopolitics have usually objected to its geographical determinism, which appears to imply
that in international politics ‘geography is destiny’.
• The rise of globalization is sometimes seen to have made geopolitics obsolete.

Globalization
• Globalization is a complex, elusive and controversial term. It has been used to refer to a process, a
policy, a marketing strategy, a predicament or even an ideology.
• Globalization, regardless of its forms or impact, forges connections between previously unconnected
people, communities, institutions and societies.
• Held and McGrew (1999) thus defined globalization as ‘the widening, intensifying, speeding up, and
growing impact of world-wide interconnectedness’.
• Economic globalization is the process through which national economies have, to a greater or lesser
extent, been absorbed into a single global economy.
• Cultural globalization is the process whereby information, commodities and images that have been
produced in one part of the world enter into a global flow that tends to ‘flatten out’ cultural
differences between nations, regions and individuals.
• Political globalization is the process through which policymaking responsibilities have been passed
from national governments to international organizations.
Globalization and its implications
• Although globalization may be the buzz word of our time, there has been intense debate about its
impact and significance.
• The hyperglobalizers are the chief amongst ‘the believers’ in globalization.
• Hyperglobalism portrays globalization as a profound, even revolutionary set of economic, cultural,
technological and political shifts that have intensified since the 1980s.
• Particular emphasis, in this view, is placed on developments such as the digital revolution in
information and communications, the advent of an integrated global financial system and the
emergence of global commodities that are available almost anywhere in the world.
• Indeed, hyperglobalism is often based on a form of technological determinism, which suggests that
the forces creating a single global economy became irresistible once the technology that facilitates its
existence was available. ( Ex; Facebook)
• The chief image of hyperglobalism is captured in the notion of a ‘borderless world’ , which suggests
that national borders and, for that matter, states themselves have become irrelevant in a global order
increasingly dominated by transnational forces.
• Skeptics argue that Although states may increasingly operate in post-sovereign conditions, in a
context of interdependence and permeability, their role and significance has altered rather than
become irrelevant.
o States, for example, have become ‘entrepreneurial’ in trying to develop strategies for
improving their competitiveness in the global economy, notably by boosting education,
training and job-related skills. (Example; Ease of Doing Business)
o They are also more willing to ‘pool’ sovereignty by working in and through international
organizations such as regional training blocs and the WTO. (Ex; BRICS)
• Finally, the advent of global terrorism and intensifying concern about migration patterns has re-
emphasized the importance of the state in ensuring homeland security and in protecting national
borders.
• The sceptics, by contrast, have portrayed globalization as a fantasy and dismissed the idea of an
integrated global economy.
• They point out that the overwhelming bulk of economic activity still takes place within, not across,
national boundaries, and that there is nothing new about high levels of international trade and cross-
border capital flows (Hirst and Thompson 1999).
• Sceptics have, further, argued that globalization has been used as an ideological device by politicians
and theorists who wish to advance a market-orientated economic agenda.
Challenges to Globalization
• Ashutosh varshney has argued that globalization is challneged by rise of Nationalist politics . The
USA, Germany, France and UK has seen right wing populism. (Protectionist Policies)
• The rise of protectionism and exclusive blocks of trade by deligetimizing global institutions like WTO
represents challenges to globalization from migration of people.
 • Political crisis and Global level conflict: Even though countries are globally connected political crisis
and global level conflict have also increased.
• Economic exclusion: Economic opportunities will be uncertain, many may not have the skills needed
for the jobs of the future. If countries and communities are not fully prepared for Globalization,
problems may exacerbate.
• Income Inequality: Negative effects of globalization have a disproportionate impact on already
marginalized populations. Globalization may increase income inequality even if it can create more
wealth.
• Human Resource: Countries like India, if do not step up to meet the skill requirements of globalisation
4.0, may already be staring at demographic disaster, given it’s huge population and low employment
generation.
• Unintended consequences: Globalization in conjunction with Industry 4.0 will produce many
unintended consequences which may not be foreseeable for now and for which world is vastly
unprepared the ethical, legal, environmental concerns are yet to be seen for which no framework has
been laid out.
Hegemony
• Hegemony (from the Greek hegemonia, meaning ‘leader’) is, in its simplest sense, the leadership or
domination of one element of a system over others.
• Gramsci used the term to refer to the ideological leadership of the bourgeoisie over subordinate
classes. (Media)
• In global or international politics, a hegemon is the leading state within a collection of states.
• Hegemonic status is based on the possession of structural power, particularly the control of economic
and military resources, enabling the hegemon to shape the preferences and actions of other states,
typically by promoting willing consent rather than through the use of force. (Manufactured Consent)
• Following Gramsci, the term implies that international or global leadership operates, in part, through
ideational or ideological means.
• From a realist perspective, all global hegemons are destined to be malign, regardless of their political,
economic and ideological characters.
• As all states pursue their national interest by seeking to accumulate power, hegemons will simply be
able to do this in a more ruthless and determined fashion because they are unconstrained by serious
rivals.
Multilateralism
• Multilateralism is the coordinated diplomatic interaction between three or more stakeholders in
international politics, but can be interpreted differently by different stakeholders.
• Sometimes it is understood as not only a diplomatic approach, but one that is committed to certain
principles and set of values.
• The value basis of multilateral institutions such as the United Nations (UN) — where many nations
work towards a common goal to enable diversity and strengthen the weakened voice of the neglected
majority — has inevitably led to a tug of war between the true values of multilateralism and the
increasing use of multilateral networks for individual countries’ geostrategic purposes.
• This coupled with the rising criticism of the UN system’s inability to respond to the growing global
 governance challenges has led to the questioning of the need for such an institution.
• At the very core of multilateralism lies an interdependency that is key to the equilibrium needed to
maintain peaceful global governance that promotes collaboration and equity.
Realism
• Based on the experience of the manner in which conducted their foreign policies during interwar
period led to the rise of REALIST school.
• Realists suggests to look at the things as they are.
• They also suggest that history rather than philosophy is a guide to politics.
• EH Carr argued that for any foreign policy makers it would be detrimental, if we overlook the
historical world order i.e. the existing world order i.e. the Westphalian world order.
• It is also said that more the world change, more it remains the same.
• Realist school is a hegemonic school of International Politics. It is the dominant school of International
Politics.
• The status of other schools is like footnotes to realism.
Various strands of realism
• Classical realism: The six principles of Morgenthau (scientific principles of International Politics):
o Like all politics, international politics is also the reflection of human nature.
o Man is power-seeking animal (animus operandi). State is also the reflection of human nature.
So, states are also power-seeking.
o The prime motivation of all foreign policies is national interest.
o Power is the means to achieve the national interest. Since, no amount of power is enough,
power becomes an end in itself.
o This is called as dual character of power. Hence, even national interest can be defined as power.
o National Interest is the constant aim pursued by all states.
o However, national interest is a dynamic concept. It means national interest keeps on changing.
o Hence, there is no permanent friend and no permanent enemy and only national interest is
permanent.
o There is no role of ideology, values, morals in International politics. Ideologies are the masks
to hide the real intentions.
o Country should not bring its ideational values or should not try to impose its values on the
other.
o There are no universal moral principles in the field of international politics. The morality in
politics is situational. We should not care for what is right in universal context, we should
care for what is right in a given situation (Pragmatism).
o It means our actions should be politically correct rather than ethically correct.

o Politics is not ethics. It is also not law or economics. Politics is struggle for power. Politics is
 not inspiring.
• Neo realism: Kenneth Waltz is known as détente realist. Détente represent the relaxation of tensions
between the two superpowers.
• He tried to Shift the basis from the basis from the analysis of human nature to the structure of
international politics. Hence, shift from actor-level analysis to structure-level analysis.
• Actor-level analysis tries to find out the reasons for power struggle in human nature.
• Structure-level analysis will explain power politics on the basis of the structure of international
politics.
• International politics is not a society of states, rather system of states.
Feature of system of states
• It is a system of sovereign states. Since, it is a system of sovereign states, there is no institution over
and above the states. It means there is not world government to make laws and enforce. Hence, the
structure of international politics is anarchical
• Comparison with domestic politics: The structure of domestic politics is hierarchical. It means there
is a government over and above the individuals. Government has power not only to make laws, but
also to punish.
• Since, government has given guarantee to protect our life and liberty, we do not need to carry arms.
Hence, domestic politics is not power struggle (Social Contract Theory)
• In international politics there is no hierarchical actor, which can provide guarantee for security.
International law is not binding. There are no way nations can overcome their security dilemma.
• They have to depend on self help. In such situations, the only way to help itself is through power.
• Hence, it is the structure of international politics which compels nations to go for power struggle.
• Thus, there is a struggle for power in international politics, not because of the human nature. It is
because of the structure of international politics (Anarchy).
• There is no point studying the actors. Actors are not free to make the choices. There choices are
constrained by the structure. Hence, there is point studying the role of personalities.
Idealism
• Idealism (sometimes called ‘utopianism’) is an approach to international politics that stresses the
importance of moral values and ideals, rather than power and the pursuit of the national interest, as
a guide to foreign policy-making.
• Idealism is essentially a variant of liberal internationalism: It reflects a strong optimism about the
prospects for international peace, usually associated with a desire to reform the international system
by strengthening international law and embracing cosmopolitan ethics.
• However, Idealism is not co-extensive with liberalism: Idealism is broader and more nebulous than
liberalism, and modern liberal theorizing has often disconnected from the idealist impulse.
• Realists have used the term pejoratively to imply deluded moralizing and a lack of empirical rigour.

Security Dilemma
 • A security dilemma is a situation where the actions taken by a state to increase its own security cause
reactions from other states, which leads to a decrease rather than an increase in the state's security.
• Some scholars of international relations find that the security dilemma is the most important source of
conflict in international relations.
• They argue that in the international realm there is no legitimate monopoly of violence – i.e. there is
no world government-and as a consequence each state must take care of its own security and survival.
• For this reason the primary goal of states is to maximize their own security. Even if states focus solely
on this goal and have no intention of harming others, many of the actions taken by states to increase
their own security – e.g. weapons procurement and the development of new military technologies-will
decrease the security of others.
• Decreasing the security of others does not automatically place the state in a dilemma, but because of
the anarchic structure, other states will follow suit, if one state arms.
• They cannot know whether the arming state will use its increased military capabilities for attack in
the future.
• For this reason they will either choose to increase their own military capabilities in order to reestablish
the balance of power, or they will launch a preemptive attack in order to prevent the arming state from
upsetting the balance in the first place.
• If they choose the first option, the result may be a security spiral. A security spiral is an action-reaction
process, where two states are tied in an armaments race with each state responding to increases in
weapons procurement and defense expenditure by the other state leading them both to arm more and
more heavily.
• This may lead to war in the long run. If they choose the last option, military conflict will be
imminent.
Tragedy of commons
• Garrett Hardin used the idea of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ to draw parallels between global
environmental degradation and the fate of common land before the introduction of enclosures.
• He argued that if pasture is open to all, each herder will try to keep as
many cattle as possible on the commons.
• However, sooner or later, the inherent logic of the commons will remorselessly generate tragedy, as
the number of cattle exceeds the carrying capacity of the land.
• Each herder calculates that the positive benefit of adding one more animal (in terms of the proceeds
from its eventual sale) will always exceed the negative impact on the pasture
• As Hardin put it, ‘Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all’. The idea of the ‘tragedy of the commons’
draws attention to the importance of the ‘global commons’, sometimes seen as ‘common pool
resources’, and of threats posed to these by overpopulation (a particular concern for Hardin),
pollution, resource depletion, habitat destruction and over-fishing.
• Hardin himself agued in favour of strengthened political control, especially to restrict population
growth, even showing sympathy for the idea of world government.

Interdependence
• Interdependence refers to a relationship between two parties in which each is affected by decisions
that are taken by the other.
• Interdependence implies mutual influence, even a rough equality between the parties in question,
usually arising from a sense of mutual vulnerability.
• Interdependence, then, is usually associated with a trend towards cooperation and integration in
world affairs.
• Keohane and Nye (1977) advanced the idea of ‘complex interdependence’ as an alternative to the
realist model of international politics. This highlighted the extent to which
o States have ceased to be autonomous international actors.
o Economic and other issues have become more prominent in world affairs.
o Military force has become a less reliable and less important policy option.