2018-02-14
1974
Military Capabilities
The proposition that states’ internal capabilities shape their foreign policy priorities is supported by the demonstrable fact that states’ preparations for war strongly influence their later use of force. Thus while all states may seek similar goals, their ability to realize them will vary according to their military capabilities.
Because military capabilities limit a state’s range of prudent policy choices, they act as a mediating factor on leaders’ national security decisions. For instance, in the 1980s Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi repeatedly provoked the United States through anti-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric and by supporting various terrorist activities. Qaddafi was able to act as he did largely because neither bureaucratic organizations nor a mobilized public existed in Libya to constrain his personal whims and militaristic foreign policy preferences. However, Qaddafi was doubtlessly more highly constrained by the outside world than were the leaders in the more militarily capable countries toward whom his anger was directed. Limited military muscle compared with the United States precluded the kinds of bellicose behaviors he threatened to practice.
Conversely, Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, made strenuous efforts to build Iraq’s military might (partly with the help of U.S. arms sales) and by 1990 had built the fourth-largest army in the world. Thus the invasion of Kuwait became a feasible foreign policy option. In the end, however, even Iraq’s impressive military power proved ineffective against a vastly superior coalition of military forces, headed by the United States, which forced Saddam Hussein to capitulate and withdraw from the conquered territory. The conflict reignited in 1998 when Iraq resisted UN inspection of its weapons-production facilities.
Economic Characteristics
The level of economic and industrial development a state enjoys affects the foreign policy goals it can pursue. Generally, the more economically developed a state is, the more likely it is to play an activist role in the global political economy.
Rich states have interests that extend far beyond their borders and typically possess the means to pursue and protect them. Not coincidentally, states that enjoy industrial capabilities and extensive involvement in international trade also tend to be militarily powerful – in part because military might is a function of economic capabilities. Historically, only the world’s most scientifically sophisticated industrial economies have produced nuclear weapons, which many regard as the ultimate expression of military prowess. In this sense nuclear weapons are the result of being powerful, not its cause.
For four decades after World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union stood out as superpowers precisely because they benefited from a combination of vast economic and military capabilities, including extensive nuclear weapons capabilities. This enabled both the states to practise unrestrained globalism; their "imperial reach" and interventionist behavior were seemingly unconstrained by limited wealth or resources. In fact, historically major powers (rich states) have been involved in foreign conflict more frequently than minor powers (poor states). For this reason, gross national product (GNP) is often used in combination with other factors to identify great powers, and by itself is an important element in predicting the extensiveness of states’ global interests and involvements.
Although economically advanced states are more active globally, this does not mean that their privileged circumstances dictate adventuresome policies. Rich states are often "satisfied" ones that have much to lose from the onset of revolutionary change or global instability and that usually perceive the status quo as best serving their interests. As a result, they often forge international economic policies to protect and expand their envied position at the pinnacle of the global hierarchy.
Levels of productivity and prosperity also affect the foreign policies of the poor states at the bottom of the hierarchy. Some dependent states respond to their economic weakness by complying subserviently with the wishes of the rich on whom they depend. Others rebel defiantly, sometimes succeeding (despite their disadvantaged bargaining position) in resisting the efforts by great powers to control their international behavior.
Thus generalizations about the economic foundations of states’ international political behavior often prove inaccurate. Although levels of economic development vary widely among states in the international system, they alone do not determine foreign policies. Instead, leaders’ perceptions of the opportunities and constraints that their states’ economic resources provide may more powerfully influence their foreign policy choices.
Type of Government
A third important attribute affecting states’ international behavior is their political system. Type of government demonstrably constrains important choices, including whether the use of force is threatened and whether the threat is carried out. Here the important distinction is between constitutional democracy (representative govemment) on one end of the spectrum and autocratic rule (authoritarian or totalitarian) on the other.
In neither democratic (sometimes called "open") nor autocratic ("closed") political systems can political leaders survive long without the support of organized domestic political interests (and sometimes the mass citizenry). But in democratic systems those interests are likely to be politically potent, dispersed beyond the government itself, and active in their pressure on the government to make policy choices that benefit them. Public opinion, interest groups, and the mass media are a more visible part of the policy-making process in democratic systems. Similarly, the electoral process in democratic societies more meaningfully frames choices and produces results about who will lead than typically occurs in authoritarian regimes, where the real choices are made by a few elites behind closed doors. In short, in a democracy, public opinions and preferences may matter and, therefore, differences in who is allowed to participate and how much they exercise their right to participate are critical determinants of foreign policy choices.
Compare, for example, the foreign policy of Saudi Arabia, controlled by a king and royal family, with that of Switzerland, governed by a multiparty democratic process. In the former, foreign policy decisions have sometimes been bold and unexpected, as exemplified by the Saudi royal family’s revolutionary policies in summoning U.S. military forces to its territory during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, in contravention of long-standing Arab policies designed to prevent Western encroachments against Muslim lands. In Switzerland, where voting and mass political participation heavily influence decisions about Switzerland’s international activities, the policy of neutrality has been pursued without deviation since 1815.
Although public preferences help shape democratic societies’ foreign policies, so too does elitism. Often, even in democratic governments, decisions are made by a small ruling elite; this is especially true when international crises erupt. Military-industrial complexes, obtrusively evident in many countries, are examples of elite groups sometimes believed to exercise disproportionate control over defense policy making, in both turbulent and calm times. Elitism’s rival model, known as pluralism, sees policy making as an upward-flowing process in which competitive domestic groups pressure the government for policies responsive to their interests and needs. Pluralism is a peculiarly democratic phenomenon that is widespread, although its effects are sometimes difficult to pinpoint.
Exercises:
1 Answer the following questions:
1. What role do a state’s military capabilities play in its foreign policy?
2. How did M.Qaddafi act on the international arena in the 1980s?
3. What was S.Hussein’s foreign policy option?
4. How does the level of a state’s economic development affect its foreign policy?
5. What countries can be considered superpowers? What is typical of their behavior on the international arena?
6. How do the foreign policies of rich and poor states differ?
7. What factors play an important role in the policy-making process in the democratic system?
8. Who influences a political choice in the authoritarian system?
9. What is the difference between the foreign policy of Saudi Arabia and Switzerland? What is this difference based on?
10. Explain the terms “elitism“ and “pluralism“.
2 Give Russian equivalents for the following word-combinations:
to seek goals, prudent policy choice, mediating factor, to constrain personal whims, militaristic preferences, limited military muscle, to preclude bellicose behavior, feasible foreign policy option, vastly superior coalition, weapons-production facilities, to extend far beyond the borders, extensive involvement, scientifically sophisticated industrial economy, ultimate expression, military prowess, imperial reach, minor powers, adventuresome policy, envied position, pinnacle of the hierarchy, to comply subserviently, to rebel defiantly, disadvantaged bargaining position, to constrain a choice, policy-making process, critical determinants, to summon military forces, long-standing policy, to influence heavily, obtrusively evident, rival model, upward-flowing process.
3 Give English equivalents for the following words and word-combinations:
внутренние возможности, доказуемый факт, энергичные усилия, военная мощь, уйти с захваченной территории, выделяться как супердержава, обширные возможности, валовой национальный продукт, уровень производства и процветания, экономические основы, оказатья неточным, исполнить угрозу, политически могущественный, общественное предпочтение, нарушение политики, предотвратить вторжение, вести политику нейтралитета, без отклонений, определять политику (2 глагола), военно-промышленный комплекс, осуществлять контроль над чем-либо, тревожные и спокойные времена, давить на правительство, отвечающий интересам и нуждам, широко распространенный феномен.
4 Make up nouns from the following verbs and adjectives using suffixes:
to propose, to prepare, to secure, to repeat, to vary, to prefer, to compare, to direct, to preclude, to invade, to withdraw, to conquer, to ignite, to produce, to pursue, to extend, to possess, to protect, to coincide, to include, to intervene, to identify, to satisfy, to perceive, to prosper, to respond, to generalize, to constrain, to provide, to occur, to contravene, to prevent, to encroach, to deviate, to erupt, to defend;
prior, active, bureaucratic, feasible, superior, weak, accurate, distinct, autocratic, similar, turbulent.
5 Give as many synonyms as possible to the following words:
to support, to influence, to seek, to vary, to limit, to preclude, to threaten, to conquer, to prove (оказаться), to extend, to possess, to protect, to regard, to predict, to respond, to comply, to rebel, to carry out, to occur, to govern, to contravene, to help;
range, decision, border, benefit, behavior, onset, bargain, foundation, force;
internal, similar, doubtful, outside, military, strenuous, mighty, feasible, vast, prosperous, ultimate, precise, major, evident, bold.
6 Give antonyms adding negative affixes, if necessary:
capable, limited, secure, mobile, personal, impressive, effective, developed, likely, restrained, constrained, important, satisfied, dependent, controlled, accurate, active, visible, real, different, expected, true, proportionate, responsive.
7 Explain the meaning of the following adverbs and make up sentences with them:
conversely, generally, repeatedly, largely, likely, doubtlessly, partly, frequently, coincidentally, precisely, seemingly, subserviently, defiantly, heavily, peculiarly, demonstrably, similarly, obtrusively.
8 Insert prepositions where necessary:
1. Quaddafi was more highly constrained... the outside world than were the leaders... the more military capable countries... whom his anger was directed.
2. Compare the foreign policy... Saudi Arabia, controlled... a king and royal family,... that... Switzerland, governed... a multiparty democratic process.
3. In the end Iraq’s impressive military power proved ineffective... a vastly superior coalition... military forces, headed... the Unitd States, which forced Saddam Hussein to capitulate and withdraw... the conquered territory.
4. The important distinction is... constitutional democracy... one end... the spectrum and auticratic rule... the other.
5.... 4 decades... World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union stood out as superpowers because they benefited... a combination... vast economic and military capabilities.
6. The electoral process... democratic societies more meaningfully frames choices and produces results... about who will lead than typically occurs... authoritarian regimes, where the real choices are made... a few elites... closed doors.
7.... this reason gross national product is often used... combination... other factors to identify great powers, and... itself is an important element... predicting the extensiveness... states’ global interests and involvements.
8. Levels... productivity and prosperity also affect the foreign policies... the poor states... the bottom... the hierarchy.
9. Military-industrial complexes, obtrusively evident... many countries, are examples... elite groups sometimes believed to exercise disproportionate control... defense policy making,... both turbulent and calm times.
10. Some dependent states respond... their economic weakness... complying subserviently... the wishes... the rich... whom they depend.
9 Translate from Russian into English:
1. Несмотря на тот факт, что многие государства хотят достичь схожих целей во внешней политике, их реализация во многом зависит от военных возможностей той или иной страны.
2. Именно ограниченные военные возможности удерживают лидеров некоторых стран от воинственного поведения на международной арене.
3. Как показывает практика, чем выше уровень экономического развития государства, тем более активную роль оно обычно играет в мировой политике.
4. С одной стороны, могущественные державы всегда более часто вовлекались во внешние конфликты, чем второстепенные страны, с другой стороны, процветающим державам есть что терять из-за глобальной нестабильности.
5. Зависимые страны действуют по-разному в отношении мощных держав: одни покорно подчиняются их желаниям, другие яростно сопротивляются усилиям сверхдержаввлиять на их внешнюю политику.
6. В демократической стране общественное мнение, предпочтения и средства массовой информации могут давить на правительство в выборе выгодной для страны политики, тогда как в авторитарном обществе принятие политических решений зависит лишь от узкого круга правящей элиты за закрытыми дверями.
7. Считается, что военно-промышленные комплексы осуществляют чрезмерный контроль над принятием политических решений страны как в тревожное, так и в спокойное время.
10 Questions for discussions:
1. The role of military capabilities in a state’s foreign policy.
2. Rich and poor states, their behavior on the international arena.
3. Foreign policy in democratic and autocratic political systems.
4. Elitism and pluralism in the policy-making process.
UNIT 4
