Idea Transcript
JurnalPhobia "Introduction to International Relations" RSS Feed Twitter Facebook
Category Archives: FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS recommended books Valerie Hudson, 2007. Foreign policy analysis: an introduction. London: … (a textbook required for most of the lectures) Marijke Breuning, 2007. Foreign Policy analysis: a comparative study. London: Palgrave Macmillan January 10, 2010
Diplomasi and Foreign policy i 4 Votes DIPLOMASI DAN KEBIAKAN LUAR NEGERI Pengertian diplomasi Secara harfiah diplomasi berasal dari kata “diploma” (Yunani: sebuah kertas yang dilipat dua) yang didesain sebagai dokumen resmi Negara/ dokumen sejarah, sebuah sertifikat perundingan, kewenangan, dan semacamnya. Berdasarkan Bester’s New World Dictionary of the American Language (1996) diplomasi adalah: 1. Hubungan relasi antar bangsa, dalam membuat keputusan, 2. Keahlian dalam melakukannya, 3. Keahlian dealing with people. Berikut adalah definisi diplomasi menurut beberapa ahli: – Ellis Briggs: diplomasi adalah sebuah kegiatan urusan official dengan cara mengirim seseorang untuk mewakili pemerintahan. Tujuan diplomasi adalah untuk menciptakan persetujuan dalam kacamata kebijakan (1968, p.202) – Geoffrey McDermott: diplomasi adalah pertimbangan dalam manajemen hubungan internasional. Masing-masing Negara, seberapapun kaliber dan ukurannya, selalu ingin memelihara/ mengembangkan posisinya dalam kancah internasional. Begitulah adanya, kendati faktanya, akan lebih baik jika lebih sedikit negara nationally minded di dunia ini. (1973, p.39) – Honore de Balzac: ilmu pengetahuan bagi mereka yang tidak berkuasa… suatu ilmu pengetahuan menyenangkan yang selalu demi memenuhi dirinya sendiri; suatu ilmu pengetahuan yang mengijinkan praktisinya untuk tidak mengatakan apapun dan berlindung di belakang anggukan kepala misterius; suatu ilmu pengetahuan yang mengatakan bahwa eksponen yang paling berhasil, pada akhirnya, adalah mereka yang mampu berenang bersama kepalanya di atas arus kejadian-kejadian yang pura-pura ia lakukan. (p.37) DIPLOMASI DAN PERKEMBANGANNYA Catatan historis pertama megenai pertukaran duta pemerintahan terorganisir terjadi di millennium ketiga sebelum masehi, yakni peradaban tulisan berbentuk paku Mesopotamia. all contents have been moved here (http://adf.ly/m0Bn1) Source: Adam Watson. (1982). Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States. Oxford: Routledge Publishing
Report this ad
Report this ad Posted in DEVANIA ANNESYA, DIPLOMASI, FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS Tagged D Annesya, DIPLOMASI, foreign policy 2 Comments December 22, 2009
REVIEW FOR MID TERM EXAM: KEY POINTS i Rate This Perbandingan politik luar negeri (Foreign Policy—FP) “CARA BELAJAR, ADA BEBERAPA KEY POINTS YANG MESTI DIHAPAL (METODE RENI) DAN DIPELAJARI, DIPAHAMI (METODE DEVA)” 1. Definisi PLN dan ruang lingkupnya (the Nature of Foreign Policy) 1. Jack Plano, FP menghadirkan dan mencerminkan kepentingan nasional 1. i. KEY POINTS: FP dan kepentingan nasional 2. Henry Kissinger, FP dimulai ketika kepentingan domestik berakhir 1. i. KEY POINTS: FP dan domestik politik 3. Raymond Hopkins, FP merupakan “arising influence of international system cross into domestic arena” 1. i. KEY POINT: FP berwujud INFLUENCE (pengaruh) Wujud FP adalah pengaruh. Pengaruh sistem internasional kepada arena domestik dan sebaliknya, yang ditransformasikan ke dalam perilaku internasional 1. Rosenau, FP merupakan KEY POINTS 1. 2. 3. 4.
i. “Bridging discipline” yang menghubungkan semua negara satu sama lain dalam ruang lingkup sistem internasional yang lebih luas ii. FP merupakan specific actions by government / staff iii. FP merupakan aksi otoritatif pemerintah K.J. Holsti 1. i. FP: “perencanaan ide dan gagasan untuk solusi” permasalahan antarnegara, kebijakan, politik dan perilaku negara
Menganalisa FP menggunakan definisi yang digunakan oleh 1. Modelski: 1. FP adalah sistem (kesatuan) aktivitas yang muncul oleh komunitas “negara2” dengan tujuan mengubah perilaku negara lain dan penyesuaian aktivitas mereka ke dalam sistem internasional 2. Key poin 1. i. Input & output 2. ii. Capability (power) 3. iii. Context of FP 4. iv. Prinsip khusus FP sebagai panduan (guidance) 5. v. Konsep dasar FP 6. Rosenau 1. Specific action 2. Aksi otoritatif pemerintah 3. Bridging disiplin 4. Key Point 1. i. Cluster (group) orientations 2. ii. Set of plans and commitments actions 3. iii. Foreign policy sebagai bagian dari “PERILAKU” Orientasi yang dilengkapi dengan perencanaan dan komitmen, mempengaruhi PERILAKU NEGARA 1. Holsti: 1. seperangkat ide terencana untuk solusi berkaitan permasalahan internasional 1. i. Orientasi FP 2. ii. Peranan nasional 3. iii. Objectives 4. iv. Actions Tradisi FP Menurut Hudson Kerangka tradisi FP dibedakan menjadi dua 1. unit analysis : apa yang dijelaskan 2. unit of explanation : apa yang menjadi sumber penjelasan dari keduany, Hudson, membuat klasifikasi perkembangan Studi FP, menegaskan letak FPA (Foreign policy analisis itu dimana) klasifikasi yang dibuat 1. Groups Decision Making (unit analisis) 1. Dinamika group kecil (sebagai unit eksplanasi) 1. i. Terdiri dari kelompok orang yang punya kedudukan tinggi—highest position in Government, sifat kelompok temporer (sementara), sewaktu-waktu dibutuhkan sewaktuwaktu tidak (inilah arti dari istilah “dinamika”) 2. Comparative Foreign Policy—(unit analisis) 1. i. Events data (unit eksplanasi) 1. FP dipelajari dengan metodologi yang sistematis, guna menjelaskan fenomena politik, khususnya berhubungan dengan FP. 1. Membuat generalisasi empiris fenomena politik luar negeri 2. ii. Penjelasan terintegrasi (integrasi=menyatu)—unit eksplanasi 3. Psychological & Societal Milieu (unit analisis) 1. i. Individual Characteristic—mempertimbangkan faktor intern individu itu sendiri (unit eksplanasi) 2. ii. National & Societal characteristic—mempertimbangkan faktor eksternal yang mempengaruhi gagasan individu tersebut 3. Klasifikasi oleh Walter Carlsnaes 1. Innenpolitik (INTERN) 1. i. Policy—kebijakan, sebagai variabel utama dalam FPA 2. ii. Kebijakan=didominasi faktor internal oleh studi terhadap kepentingan nasional, utamanya DOMESTIK 3. CFP=Comparative Foreign Policy, perbandingan politik luar negeri (EKSTERN) 1. i. Policy—menitikberatkan pada studi behavioral, studi behavioral menggunakan generalisasi empiris 2. ii. Mempertimbangkan faktor eksternal 4. FPA 1. i. Fokus pada FPA 2. ii. FPA yang menggabungkan INTERN dan EKSTERN INDIVIDUAL DECISION MAKING Kegley 1. Mengungkapkan bahwa kepemimpinan menjadi faktor dominan utama yang vital 2. Tingkat pengaruh pemimpin terhadap pengambilan keputusan FP 1. Otoritas dan legitimasi 2. Cermin diri (self image) baik di mata internasional maupun domestik 3. Jumlah informasi yang tersedia 4. Posisi pemimpin di kancah politik 5. Situasi krisis nasional Rosati 1. 2. 3. 4.
Belief & images Kemampuan berpikir rasional Keterbukaan (open minded) & ketertutupan (close-minded) Psikologi politik
Hudson 1. Intern 1. Minat thp FP 2. Kapabilitas—kemampuan 3. Style kepemimpinan 4. Keahlian dalam FP 5. Ekstern 1. Situasi krisis 2. Situasi tidakt terduga 3. Tipe rezim yang sedang berkuasa 4. Interaksi group yang ikut ambil bagian mempengaruhi keputusan Posted in FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS, FUN ESSAYS, RENNY CANDRADEWI Tagged addition note, analysis, foreing policy, R Candradewi, Review, summary Leave a comment December 22, 2009
PUBLIC INFLUENCE AND ROLES OF MEDIA i Rate This PUBLIC INFLUENCE AND MEDIA’S ROLE Public influence and media’s role in foreign policy making constitutes a vast range of features as they would be employed to influence. Previously we have talked about the internal factors regarding the decision maker either individual or groups and the entire system thoroughly. The more informations attained the more complete foreign policy become possibly and simply observable. Thus it is necessary then to combine both internal and external features to acquire the full and complete inquiry. However, this study is aimed not far from investigating the formulation and and conduct of foreign policy. A broader scope of external power spring from different sources such as accounts provided by media[1], the mutual and global communications Eytan Gilboa earlier stated[2], public opinion and domestic structure in framing foreign policy[3] in describing foreign policy using a case study, CNN[4] This short essay essentially will address the above features questioning their role in formulating and directing foreign policy neither directly nor indirectly. 1. Media and foreign policy The media involvement is explained by Glenn Snyder and his colleagues, he then promotes two models of how media will be incorporated namely input and output model of decision making process. His model takes into account two different aspects, internal setting and external setting. Internal setting specifically dealing with human environment composed of cultural and demographic composition. This human environment depicted as the reflections of expectations, interpretations of various different members and groups of society and non-governmentals as well[5] in which media have simultaneously played significant tool in expressing and partially bringing them up on the surface so the government will acknowledge to satisfy their demands. This is suggesting that Glenn atempts to encompass media as the only single factor within input feature affecting decision making. Furthermore, Brecher argue that media has not only been seen as single factor acting alone, he proposes that international setting also put effort the same way in input[6]. Different inquiry made by these two different persons must not contribute to misleading, misconception and misunderstanding. Different perspective occupied by different knowledgbe basis, this must become our broad information following with certain tendency that may occur either in present or future. However, these two media environmental models is just a mere example to create how media is likely to be seen exist within decision making process. So far that we have known, decision maker must meet domestic and international views either portrayed by media nor other entity as one of their main source of information, partial reality for practical minded consideration. The second perspective available. It is media seen as the output environment. Later will be discussed below. 1.1 The Media as Environment mass media as seen as environmental factor in a specific state is likely accomodated by six variables First, the political communication, regime in the state under consideration defines wheter media’s involvement is completely controllable, liberal nor restricticted[7]. Second, the communication policy adopted by the government of that state addressing whether communication regulations utilized by media is created under their favor; some features may be characterised different type of regime[8]. Third, the political economy setting of the mass media; whether media has been merged by large body of communication directed under certain political owners own hugely profitable unit on media business. Fourth, the various communication channels and technologies existing in that country will highly possibly allow the transfering information rapidly[9]. Fifth, the typical functions performed by media channels will enable certain shifting in old tradition to a more acceptable, developed and broad function (from general into more specific function)[10]. And finally, news values, the criteria that lead media “gatekeepers” to include items and events in the news. 1.2. Media as an output environment
Slightly different form previously mentioned, media as an input in decision making saying that media intentionally or accidently makes effort affection decision makers. In output environmental perspective, how decision makers make some efforts to influence media for instance making some image, develop a campaign that will affect either international point of views or domestic’s. the basic understanding resting on decision makers perform in an environment which includes mediat to make political decisions[11]. The frame thoughts of this perspective will be covering questions regarding who is in charge managing media and bridging relationships between professional media and professional political, what methods are being used by those people in managing or setting a set of regulations upon media[12]. Review Media remains as one of the powerful feature influencing foreign policy due to its consideration in representing its national and international aspects. Media helps to arrange foreign policy strongly and indirectly by visualizing images and motions that may be feasible reflect view points needed by decision maker. They provide huge amount of specific data, historical accounts, speeches etc. that will equip foreign decision maker effective and more sufficiently important in calculation what options, behaviors, and outcomes might be possible if certain decision would have been undertaken. Media hold two main core functions, media as seen as both input and output of foreign policy making; media is seen as influential factors, media seen as a instrument. 1. Global communication and foreign policy Global communication has become a major consquence occurs throughout area with technology network, mainly. This makes Eytan Gilboa views global communication as another actor exist within foreign policy decision making[13]. The building understanding will maintain us to keep on the soft power existence in which technology with the flow of communication globally allows stream of influencing effort. The invention from communication technologies enable several global news channels existed, for instance BBC, CNN international, NBC etc. Their broadcasting network have covered a wide range of nations. This make them able to spread and possibly modify news to fill certain national interest, individual interest or small group interest. Once global communication hasn’t been acting independently, it will be hugely potential being a very useful instrument to frame global viewers as mentioned in CNN effect below. 1. Public opinion and domestic structure in framing foreign policy This inquiry focused on liberal democratic states in which public policy have always been matter. Public opinion influence and shape a government’s foreign policy or governments influence and shape the form of public opinion on foreign policy issue. Both occur reciprocally. Public opinion is a political resources wielded by different actors (including the public itself) in different ways. Most of the scholars are arguing the question below. Since it can be one of them is true, but as the matter of fact, there are always two possibility which happened in most of the cases. Relationship between the public and foreign policy decision making is complicated. There are two basic view to examine this relationship: 1. Strong impact. In this view, the public opinion could influence directly and strongly to the foreign policy matters. Because it derives from the pluralist model of policy making. The model is usually ‘bottomup’ type, which started from the grassroot opinion to the elites. This model also usually found in democracies or pluralistic countries. 1. Denies any real impact From this view, we can examine that the influence of public opinion to foreign policy decision making is unseen. It is representing the conventional wisdom in the literature, because according to the popular concensus which is the function of elites concensus and elites cleavages would trickles down to mass public opinion. Or we could say as ‘top-down’ model. It could be found in non-democratic countries. Besides, in this view, there are 3 different public: 1. mass public, who usually not interested in foreign policy matter 2. attentive public, known as interested in and informed about the world affair, but only influence by helped of the interest group. 3. the elite, which is a small section of public that interested, informed, and influencial in the shaping of public opinion. According to Ole Holsti, there is no linkage between public opinion and policy formation, but the policy makers’ perception of public opinion would set the parameters for foreign policy behavior. Difference between how public opinion influence the foreign policy decisionmaking in 1. Democracies states Usually we called as “bottom-up” public opinion on foreign policy. Because it would matter more to the public. But the influence is indirect impact, or we could say that there is a long road to make the grassroot opinion to be implemented in the foreign policy directly, and usually got help by the interest group. 1. Non-democracies Called as “top-down” effect, which usually came up from the elite to influence the mass opinion. If it became nonfactor in foreign policy decisionmaking, it would not effect the process at all. Or it would play at best an instrumental role for elites, after it had been made which would influence the grassroot’s life directly. So the scholars argues that it would matter more than an elitedriven model would allow. 1. New Foreign policy in the power seeking within globalized era In chapter 5 we discussed how the dominant Japanese pacifist political culture was being challenged by a nationalist subculture. This potential change in political culture had an impact on public opinion in China in 2005. That nationalist challenge in Japan resulted in the election of ardent nationalist leadership in the governing Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). In the same time period that the history texts were revised, Japan was making its case internationally for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. The Security Council has five permanent seats (held by the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China) and ten rotating seats. Japan’s bid for a permanent seat rested largely on the strength of its financial contributions to the United Nations. U.N. membership dues are calculated by the size of national economies. Japan makes the second-highest financial contribution to the United Nations after the United States. Japan’s view was clear: if it paid so much to maintain the U.N. system, it should have a voice commensurate with its contributions. That voice meant permanent membership, since the real power of the United Nations lies there. Japan was pushing its candidacy in 2005 because of a World Summit scheduled for September that was to consider the issue of reforming the United Nations. Adding permanent member seats to the Security Council was one critical issue under debate. As the Japanese began their public relations campaign in early 2005, a different campaign opposed to Japan’s bid took form in China. Many popular Chinese websites began a petition campaign in February against the Japanese. Many issues drove the problematic relations between the Chinese and Japanese in this period. These included Japanese claims to some islands and oil reserves in the South China Sea, the increased nationalism of Japanese leadership, the new textbooks already mentioned, and Japan’s bid for a permanent seat in the U.N. Security Council. At the same time, China had replaced the United States as Japan’s primary export market in 2004; and China’s economy had “helped pull the sluggish Japanese economy out of recession.” One of the most basic questions in the study of public opinion and foreign policy is: Does public opinion influence and shape a government’s foreign policy, or does the government influence and shape the form of public opinion on foreign policy issues? The Chinese case suggests that the answer is a little bit of both—that the relationship between the public and foreign policy decision making is complicated. The Chinese case also demonstrates that public opinion matters to governments, even in nondemocratic systems. 4.1 Different Views On The Public The relationship between public opinion and foreign policy making is complicated. Scholars and policy makers offer different views on this relationship, but not views that are always compatible. Some of the early foreign policy studies on public opinion focused on whether the public held a structured, coherent view on foreign policy matters. In a 1950 study, Gabriel Almond established one strong position in the scholarship by contending that American citizens were ignorant of foreign policy issues and that their opinions lacked structure and content. This left the public open to volatile mood changes. There are two basic views on the relationship between public opinion and policy making. The first suggests a strong impact, and the second denies any real impact. The first view derives from the pluralist model of policy making. This view is “a ‘bottom-up’ approach [which] assumes that the general public has a measurable and distinct impact on the foreign policy making process. The second view “representing the conventional wisdom in the literature suggests a ‘top-down’ process, according to which popular consensus is a function of the elite consensus and elite cleavages trickle down to mass public opinion.” This view is consistent with realism, as it envisions a persistent national interest pursued by elites and a passive, acquiescent, or inconsequential mass public.Public opinion should matter more in democratic states. Public opinion in nondemocracies, on the other hand, should be a nonfactor in foreign policy making, or should play at best an instrumental role for elites. The research, however, does not support these simple generalizations. Instead, public opinion is seen to have an indirect impact on policy making in democratic states, while public opinion in nondemocracies matters more than an elite-driven model would allow. This gray area is more understandable when we recall that policy makers’ perceptions of public opinion are crucial. 1. A case study: define CNN effect towards foreign policy using perspective of global communication, public opinion and domestic structures There exists in the minds of some observers and policy makers a phenomenon called the “CNN effect.” Political scientist and former U.S. assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs Joseph Nye explains the CNN effect in this way: The free flow of broadcast information in open societies has always had an impact on public opinion and the formation of foreign policy, but now the flows have increased and shortened news cycles have reduced the time for deliberation. By focusing on certain conflicts and human rights problems, broadcasts pressure politicians to respond to some foreign problems and not others. The so-called CNN effect makes it harder to keep some items off the top of the public agenda that might otherwise warrant a lower priority. Nye sees the CNN effect as real and potentially harmful to reasoned policy making. Because the news broadcasts “24/7,” the media sometimes force issues out into the open, issues policy makers would be happier to keep in the dark. This, in turn, lessens deliberation time and the search for the most reasonable policy response. Those who believe that the CNN effect is real propose that it makes use of public opinion. Once the media broadcast images of mass starvation, ethnic conflict, or some other sort of mass suffering, the images arouse strong emotions in the public. The public then turn to their elected officials and demand some strong and morally correct response. This suggests that the media play a powerful role in setting the public Agenda. Media, like other societal actors, can take control of a government’s policy only when that government loses control: If officials let others dominate the policy debate, if they do not closely monitor the progress and results of their own policies, if they fail to build and maintain popular and congressional support for a course of action, if they step beyond the bounds of their public mandate or fail to anticipate problems, they may suddenly seem driven by the news media and its agenda. 5.1 A COMPLICATED RELATIONSHIP: GOVERNMENT, ELITE, MEDIA, AND THE PUBLIC Robert Entman offers an understanding of the complicated relationship between policy makers, opposition elites, the media, and the public that combines many of the elements of state-level foreign policy analysis discussed in these last three chapters. The basic set up is this: When a foreign policy problem arises, someone attempts to explain the problem and its solution. That someone might be the policy makers, or what Entman calls the governing elites, or the opposition elites, or even the media. The explaining of the problem and its solution is called “framing.” Framing is not so easy, and it is in the framing that governing elites may get behind on an issue, opening the door to competing frames from the opposition and/or the media. Framing is the act of “selecting and highlighting some facets of events and issues and making connections among them so as to promote a particular interpretation, evaluation and/or solution.” Frames that work best are those that have cultural resonance, that is, frames that evoke words and images that are “noticeable, understandable, memorable, and emotionally charged” in the dominant political culture. Such framing is necessary because all actors in the political context are cognitive misers and satisficers. Successful frames depend on the stimulus: when the foreign policy event is recognizable and congruent with the political culture, then the national response is based on habit. If the governing elite have successfully matched the event with a habitual schema, it requires “almost no cognitive effort [by the public] to make the connections promoted by the administration’s frame of the event.” REVIEW There is little scholarly agreement on the impact of public opinion on policy making other than that the impact is probably indirect. There is little scholarly and practitioner agreement on the “CNN effect,” but policy makers seem to believe the effect is real. Scholarship on the “CNN effect” shows that it has no impact on policy once decision makers have already agreed on a course of action. When a government stays in control of the “framing” of a foreign policy event, it generally can control the views of the opposition, media, and the public on that event. When a government lets others define and explain a foreign policy event, it stands to lose control of its own response to that event. ANALYSIS External features never loose an essential part within decision making process. Media as viewed as one of important key framing public opinion is seen within two perspectives, input and output environmental. It enable us to get a clarity of broader function of it. As well as globalization communication is hugely related with the invention and evolution of information technology. It suggests that as the world become global and interest becomes more intense, information can be feasible to modify to meet interest of certain small groups. As the CNN effect explains to us how this information available to allow certain public global viewer seeing international relations by new perspective. Decision maker cannot act alone, decision maker will continously rely on complementary sources outside their authority. However, different regime may contribute to different action how to perceive such intervenes. This will be our new knowledge gained from comparative analysis and thus enable us to make prediction of the possibility that decision makers somehow provided by constrainst exist in their own internal environment. They must play two-level game: satisfy international demand as well as to fulfill domestic demands. additional updates Social media alone, however, do not instigate revolutions. They are no more responsible for the recent unrest in Tunisia and Egypt than cassette-tape recordings of Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini speeches were responsible for the 1979 revolution in Iran. Social media are tools that allow revolutionary groups to lower the costs of participation, organization, recruitment and training. But like any tool, social media have inherent weaknesses and strengths, and their effectiveness depends on how effectively leaders use them and how accessible they are to people who know how to use them. (Read more: Social Media as a Tool for Protest | STRATFOR (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110202-social-media-tool-protest? utm_source=SWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=110203&utm_content=readmore&elq=9b7c1650f064474d9612ee55e14cab0f#ixzz1D6Pfs6Zz)) REFERENCE Naveh, Chanan. 2002. The Role of Media in Foreign Policy decision-making: a theoretical framework. JSTOR. Gilboa, Glbal communication and Foreing policy. Risse-Kappen, Public Opinion, Domestic Structure, and Foreign Policy in Liberal Democracies. JSTOR. Neack, Laura. 2008. The New Foreign Policy: Power seeking in the Globalized Era. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
[1] Naveh, The Role of Media in Foreign Policy decision-making: a theoretical framework. p.1-14. [2] Gilboa, Glbal communication and Foreing policy.p.1-18. [3] Risse-Kappen, Public Opinion, Domestic Structure, and Foreign Policy in Liberal Democracies. p.1-35. [4] Neack, The New Foreign Policy: Power seeking in the Globalized Era.p.111-128. [5] Naveh, The Role of Media in Foreign Policy decision-making: a theoretical framework. p.2. [6] Brecher, 1972. p.10 in Naveh, The Role of Media in Foreign Policy Decision Making : a theoretical framework. p.3. [7] McQuail, 1994.p.127-131. In Naveh, The Role of Media in Foreign Policy decision making: a theoretical framework. p. 5. [8] Baldwin, 1996. p.301-352. in Naveh, p.5. [9] McQuail, 1994,p 12-21. In Naveh, The Role of Media in Foreign Policy decision making: a theoretical framework. p. 6. [10] Laswell, 1971. p.85 in Naveh. [11] Naveh, The Role of Media in Foreign Policy decision making: a theoretical framework. p. 8. [12] Naveh, The Role of Media in Foreign Policy decision making: a theoretical framework. p. 9-14. [13] Gilboa, Global Communication and foreign policy.p.1. Posted in FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS, RENNY CANDRADEWI Tagged FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS, Mass media, media, Public influence, R Candradewi, roles Leave a comment December 22, 2009
DOMESTIC VARIABLES IN FOREIGN POLICY i Rate This KEBIJAKAN LUAR NEGERI : VARIABEL DOMESTIK Kebudayaan, Identitas Nasional, dan Politik Domestik serta Oposisi INTRODUCTION In the study of foreign policy analysis, we acknowledge the presence of two level analysis. It suggests that individual decision maker together must satisfy its foreign affairs as well as to satisfy its domestic demands. This key point leads us to the understanding that in analyzing foreign policy, we must look carefully the fundamentals idea building domestic demands. Domestic demands contain chains of mutual elements. Those are included what we assume as a national identity and culture. The very inner of domestic demands rest domestic politic and opposition. Furtther explanation about how these four elements are correlated each other, will be discussed below. Culture and National Identity Valerie provides a vast definitions regarding culture have been issued. However, it’s partially simply important to narrow our mind to the insights built by LeVine. LeVine addresses that culture is the matter of how organized people communicating. Kluckhohn states that culture refers ot pattern of thoughts, feel and reaction that symbolized in people manners and behaviors. Triandis assumes that culture is a component of human made of objective elements which shared common belief and habits. According to d’Andrade refers to adaptive form of behavior of its surrounding environment. While Geertz, refers culture as a symbolized meaning inherited historically. There’s no need to memorize the vast scope of those definitions, what we shall have in mind is the simple thought that culture refers to adaptive behavior of its surrounding environment. While national identity lots of times are shaped by culture and building image of domestic motivation. Political beliefs is the implementation of a firm national identity created for long period of time. The analyzing of culture entails n Culture as the organization of meaning n Culture as value preferences n Culture as templates for human strategy The Interface n Shared systems of meaning in foreign policy and foreign policymaking n Differences in values and preferences in foreign policy and foreign policymaking n Prefabricated templates of action in foreign policy and foreign policymaking Analisis kebudayaan dapat menggunakan metode-metode seperti: n Comparative analysis n Subnational analysis n Discourse analysis n Horizon analysis n Interaction analysis Politik Domestik dan Oposisi According to Dahl, the central critical point within political domestic was nature of the regime. Conversely, Milner addresses a distitinctive important term regarding domestic politic, it is players that matter and policy preferences, distributed information, and fashion of power distribution. The important players holding the role is potensial actors dan non-domestic actor. Dimension of Organizing n Proximity to the foreign policy decisionmaking (FPDM) positions n Cohesive of fragmented each of the identified actor n The number of people represented by the actor in question n The degree of differece in viewpoint between domestic actor and the regime n Activeness of a particular actor has been on a given foreign policy issue Vital security strategy to face oposition are: n Ignoring or refusing to engage the opposition n Direct tactics n Indirect tactics n Out-persuade the opposition n Form alliances with other groups n Deflect the attention of the nation away n Compromise Conclusion There is firm chains from culture, national identity, domestic demands and motivation, and domestic politic. Domestic politic is a collective image figured by image, stereotype, and beliefs that country citizens may share in common. There are critical points of political domestic. But those critical points may differ from one scholars to others regarding the context of history and events. However, the inclination may always be existed in order to make some predictions. Predictions are potentially used to arrange strategy. Security has become the complex problem troughout nations in most of part of the world. Therefore, exist some security strategy needed to coounter any opposition that exists within domestic politics. Referensi: Hudson, Valerie M. 2007. Foreign Policy Analysis Classic and Comtemporary Theory. Posted in FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS, RENNY CANDRADEWI Tagged Domestic variables, FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS, R Candradewi Leave a comment December 22, 2009
THE LEVEL OF NATIONAL ATTRIBUTES AND INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM: EFFECTS ON FOREIGN POLICY i 1 Votes The Level of National Attributes and International System: Effects on Foreign Policy So far we have examined foreign policy through individual level and state level analysis encompass perspectives created by psychological factors, small and large group effects, culture and social discourse and domestics politics. Considering national attributes as important as psychological factors, small and large group and their consequence, we have come to take account to macro level approach to understanding FP. There we shift our perception from FP decision making (at micro level extent) to FP as a whole of macro level analysis. This outlook is simply using more conventional traditions of IR theory occupied by various variables which are fairly stable. The analysis provide another point of views in the course of national attributes in the systemic international nature followed its effects broadly explaining different foreign policy. Regardless the objective to posit how change in these in FP direction but rather than to show how the particular value of these variables leads to probability distribution over certain type of FP choices, national attributes and foreign policy typically relative while considering the power of the state, which is including elements: natural resources, size, geography, demography, etc. International system and foreign policy International system is the highest level analysis in the international political study in which the level analysis has gradually developed into more conceptual definition in regard the state system nature. While the system theory has been ranging to various explication answering how its dynamic changing across the years, it conventionally address about type of system theory posit system permutation, but not necessarily address the issue of transition itself. Concerning system attributes and its effect towards foreign policy, due to its process, it is highly feasible to take account to each attributes into effect hypothesis and values to foreign policy. Ways to hypothesize system attributes for foreign policy are beneficial, but it is increasingly important as well to comprehend for what it cannot tell us. Another approach introduced derives the foreign policy behavior. It is Kaplan classification involved real world and hypothesis system showing that the derivative from behavioral generalization of systemic level variable could be posted counterfactually. He addressed there are five reliable factors within the system : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Increase capabilities, but negotiate rather than fight Fight rather than fail to increase capabilities Stop fighting rather than eliminate an essential actor Oppose any coalition or single actor that tends to assume a position of predominance within the system Constrain actors who subscribe to supranational organizational principles Permit defeated essential actors to reenter the system as acceptable role partners, or act to bring previously inessential actors within an essential actor classification, treat all essential actors as acceptable role partners.
Whenever regulation altered so is the system, there would be predisposition rise within the system. How to connect international system with FP A. Using system attributes 1. make typologies systems according to a number of attributes numbers of actors in a system; the distribution of power across those actors; the number of major powers or poles within a system; the degree of adherence to these poles through formal or informal alliance mechanisms; the presence/absence of supranational organizations; the number of contested issues in the system; etc 1. create typology (like above) then derive general principles of FP behaviour from it Morton Kaplan, tight bipolar, loose bipolar, the universal system, the hierarchical system and the unit veto system B. Using concepts of system transition and transition’s effect on FP The nature pattern of international system has been increasingly critical affecting different foreign policy. 1. Long Cycle Theory — George Modelski posits a regular and cyclical set of system transition 1. Marxist theory propounds more of a forward moving spiral movement of the international system culminating in an end state with no further transition National attributes dealing with foreign policy within macro level analysis are: 1) Size State ranging from small to large state also promotes to direct foreign policy. Small state identically prone to the presence of its neighbor power. If the neighbor power is relatively stronger or growing stronger, it will be encouraged to build alliance with the opposite power of its neighboring state. This has been tendency for Europe international system in middle ages. 2) Geography Particulars of geography can drive foreign policy and geography itself plays a role in natural resources element. First of all, access to ports, waterways, and strategically important land features, is an aspect of geography with great import for foreign affairs. Higlands may also be important. For example: Afghanistan. Afghanistan has very little worth coveting but people keep invading it. Because Afghanistan have a land pathway from the Middle East to Asia. Access to the sea is another important facet of geopolitics. Many land-locked countries fall prey to their neighbors with coastline, who then may exert disproportionate influence over their economy. The borders of a nation may also have foreign policy implications. Some scholars have argued that nations with more borders tend to be involved in more regional wars than nation with few borders, arguing that proximity may become the catalyst for conflict. Borders drawn with more reference to a map than to realities on the ground may also have profound foreign policy effects. Many borders drawn by colonial powers in Africa are similarly troublesome; tribes were divided by these borders; long-standing enemies were placed within the same borders; accessibility to ports was dependent on the outcome of struggles between colonial powers; borders crossed linguistic lines and so forth. 3) Demographics Characteristics of a nation’s population also have foreign policy repercussions. Nazli Choucri and Robert North developed the concept of “lateral pressure”, meaning that nations with high population growth rates become hard-pressed to satisfy the needs of their citizens without pressure to obtain these resources from abroad, through trade, migration, colonization, or conflict (1975). In the 21st century, one might also need to develop a theory concerning the inverse of lateral pressure; perhaps the “lateral vacuum”. Many of the richest nations of the world now have birthrates significantly below replacement levels. These nations are depopulating, particularly in Europe (including both eastern and western Europe) and Japan. Issues of migration from high growth rate poor countries to negative growth rate rich countries are now beginning to dominate the domestic politics of many developed nations, with clear foreign policy consequences. However, there is more to population than simply rates of growth or decline. Other variables come including age distribution, gender distribution, wealth distribution within the population, ethnic/linguistic/religious fractionalization, and education and health. For example: India and China. Historically, the presence of a sizeable number of “bare branches” (young men, typically at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum who are surplus to the number of females in society) has led to severe domestic instability (Hudson and Den Boer, 2004). Governments do become aware of the problem and are tempted to co-opt these young men into the armed forces and send them away from population centers of their own country. Governments also may be forced into a more authoritarian mode to cope with the social disruption caused by the bare branches. In sum, abnormal gender distribution within a population may be an aggravating factor in international affairs and in contemporary times may have ramifications for conflicts. International migration flows and human trafficking also profoundly affect nations from which people come and go. 4) Political System The key of political system is “Democratic Peace” which means the democratic state usually does not fight with other democratic state. On the contrary, democracies fight no democracies as much as other non-democracies do. That is why the political system which a state used to maintain their national domestic politics would also give consequences for foreign policy. The transparency which increase empathy, the voting process which value the politician, and the high status of women make democratic peace phenomenon is chosen in order to prevent the emerge of conflict. The example of this phenomenon could be seen in Iraq. During Saddam Hussein administration, Iraq known as a “pseudo-democratic” states. It made their foreign policy tend to avoid or against U.S. It is also became the reason why U.S fight against Hussein’s regime, in order to deliberate democracy government in Iraq. 5) Military Capabilities This national attributes which usually includes in the national power give huge impact on the foreign policy of a state. There are two reasons, why the military became important. First, it can often lead the foreign policy to a coercive diplomacy. And second, it can substitute for international support. That is why most of state which has a good military capabilities usually also known as a “super power” state. We could see the example clearly during the Cold War era, where there were only two “great power” in the international system, U.S and USSR who has good power in military. There are also three kinds of mass destruction weapon which could make a state became powerful; chemical weapon, nuclear weapon, and biological weapon. Reference Marijke, Breuning. 2005. Foreign policy: a comparative introduction. London: Palgrave macmillan Posted in FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS, RENNY CANDRADEWI Tagged FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS, national attributes, R Candradewi Leave a comment December 22, 2009
EVOLUTION AND OVERVIEWS OF FOREIGN POLICY i 1 Votes FOREIGN POLICY: EVOLUTION AND OVERVIEWS INTRODUCTION The centre study and analysis of foreign policy in international relation is focused into two, namely, what the matter is will be explained and what will provide explanation in foreign policy analysis. Those matters encircle between human decision maker and decision. They will then explicate the motivation, interest, personalities on their perceptions, beliefs and values as the factors that explain foreign policy decisions (Breuning, 2007: 11). Decisions can be shaped from its evidence left in newspapers and chronologies, this is the term of “events” and data produced by accumulating them are so called “events data”. Thus human decision maker and decision develop into what to be explained and understood in order to analyze foreign policy. What will provide explanation in foreign policy analysis covers factors that influence foreign policy decision making and foreign policy decision makers. Even sometimes several intervening features may be concluded within hallmarks of FPA, those are multifactorial, multilevel, multiinterdisciplinary, integrative theoretical enterprice, agent oriented, and actor specificity (Hudson, 2007: 6). Above mentioned comes to conclusion that in order to build perceptives of foreign policy analysis it is beneficial to use more than one level of analysis. These level of analysis may be vary and thus complicated because it may differ from one writer analysis to another. However, as the first effort to complete our perceptives by using distinct approaches, we will overview the evolution following tradition of foreign policy analysis from its paradigmatic works in certain years between 1950s and early 1960s, study the classic FPA scholars (19541993), foreign policy from 1993 till present following the conclusion at the end. FPA and the possible combinations in IR It is important to highlight the study of FPA to IR by identifying point of determinations, that the actual actor within foreign policy analysis is not the state, but human decision makers (Hudson, 2007: 7). Yet it’s quite concerning while different writer may not use this approaches to really analyze foreign policy (Breuning, 2007: 11) because it seems inadequate to acquire this fundamental thoughts by only relying on one simple aspect. Foreign policy, it is a complex phenomenon. However, it doesn’t pronounce that FPA is impossible and hardly valuable to IR. To attain a firm foundation for analyzing, it’s rational to put our main concern mainly on the study of decision makers. As Hudson states, that adding human decision makers as the key theoretical intersection confers some advantages generally lacking in IR theory. In the study of FPA, it allows the conduct of two-level game saying that state must follow simultaneously concern on domestic politics and interest as equal as its foreign politic. It simply suggests that state must satisfy domestic policy and foreign policy altogether (Putnam, 1988). A complete and complex comprehension of FPA possibly be attained through various approaches, that implies multifactorial, considering various factors viewed by some levels of analysis (multilevel) which forms set of combinations of several disciplinaries (multiinterdisciplinaries) range from micro discipline up to the very macro disciplines. Those are integrated within a compressed variety of information of human knowledge. According to Hudson, the core agent of FPA is not state, but mainly human beings, thus entails human being (with its position as decision maker) as a true agent and so that clarifies why there is no theory about state-oriented within foreign policy frameworks. It is not actually fresh idea, this term has been previously suggested by Alexander George in 1993. For example it was not a state which had been engaging to war in Iraq, but Saddam Hussein who had decided to invade Kuwait. This proposes that it would have been different outcomes, if the president of Iraq at that time were somebody else. The outcome, would be less slightly different, but the history would have been totally unidentical. This finally lead to the final features in FPA studying is the presence of specific actor. That a state may possibly be interchangeable factor, but motivation, character personality, beliefs, and values shaping decision maker perceptions can’t be culturally altered. Paradigmatic Works in 1950-1960 The early approaches of Foreign Policy analysis has been set up in the late 1950s and beginning 1960s. those approaches framed within three paradigmatic works are: 1. Decision Making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics by Richard Snyder, Henry Bruck, and Burton Sapin (1954). In this work, Snyder and his colleagues inspired researchers to look below the nation-state level to the actual players involved. 2. 2. ‘Pre-theories and Theories of Foreign Policy’ by James Rosenau, in R. B. Farrell (ed.) Approaches in Comparative and International Politics (1966). Rosenau encouraged the development of actor-specific theory, by underscoring the need to integrate information at several levels of analysis, from individual leaders to the international system, in order to understand foreign policy. It focuses on individual state level analysis. 3. Man-Milieu Relationship Hypotheses in the Context of International Politics by Margaret and Harold Sprout (1956). The Sprouts argued that one needed to look at the ‘psycho-milieu’ of the individuals and groups making the foreign policy decision. That is, the international and operational environment or context as it is perceived and interpreted by decision-makers. It focuses on the context of international politics where power matters, therefore it proposes system level analysis. Classic FPA Scholarships 1954-1993 This period was a time of great intellectual effort and excitement, marked by path-breaking work in conceptualization, development of actor-specific theory at various levels of analysis, and methodological explanation. A. Classic Foreign Policy Analysis Scholarship a. Group Decision Making The process and structure of groups making foreign policy decisions is analyzed. The groups that were studied ranged in size from very small groups to large organizations and bureaucracies. b. Small Group Dynamics Social psychologists explored the unique dynamics of decision-making in small groups. This research was carried into foreign policy analysis: it was discovered that the motivation to maintain group consensus and personal acceptance by the group could deteriorate decision-making quality. c. Organizational Process and Bureaucratic Politics Researchers began to study the influence of organization process and bureaucratic politics on foreign policy decision-making. Organizations and bureaucracies put their own survival at the top of their list of priorities; the organization will jealously guard and seek to increase its turf (relative influence) and strength. It was found that the ulterior objectives of foreign policy decision ‘players’ influenced their decision-making. B. Comparative Foreign Policy The sub-field of Comparative Foreign Policy developed as a response to James Rosenau’s challenge to build a cross-national and multi-level theory of foreign policy. Foreign policy behavior, as disparate as a war, a treaty, or a state visit, could now be compared and aggregated. Data was collected on a variety of possible explanatory factors to determine patterns by which these independent variables were correlated. Researchers hoped to emerge with a grand unified theory of foreign policy behavior applicable to all nations and time periods. a. Events Data The collection of ‘events data’ was used to set up early warning systems that would alert policy makers to crises in the making around the world. Computerized decision aids and analysis packages began to appear. b. Integrated Explanations Research aimed at integrated multilevel explanations. Independent variables at several levels of analysis were linked by theoretical propositions to types of foreign policy behavior. C. The Psychological and Societal Milieu of Foreign Policy Decision Making Increasing attention was directed to the mind of the foreign policy decision-maker. The societal context in which the decision-maker operates is shaped by several factors such as culture, history, geography, economics, political institutions, ideology, and demographics. Within this societal context, the individual mind is unique in its own personal beliefs, attitudes, values, experiences, emotions, traits, style, memory, national, and self-conceptions. To better understand foreign policy, researchers directed their attention to the socio-psychological context of the decision-maker. a. Individual Characteristics Political psychology was employed to understand the personal characteristics of the decision-maker. Under certain stressful conditions these individual characteristics would become crucial in understanding foreign policy decisions. Efforts were made to categorize decision-makers according to their foreign policy dispositions. In addition, the role of perceptions and images in foreign policy was also an important research agenda during this time. Misperception in foreign policy situations could have grave consequences, and was furnished by the rampant use of stereotypical images with reference to the ‘enemy’. Research was conducted on ‘cognitive constraints’, including cognitive bias, heuristic error, the motivation of leaders, cognitive maps, scripts, and schemas, cognitive style, and the life experience of decision makers. b. National and Societal Characteristics The decision-maker’s perception of its nation’s ‘role’ in the international arena began to be studied. Once a ‘national role conception’ was perceived, decision-makers could make their decisions to fit according to the conceptual mould. In addition, the study of culture as an independent variable affecting foreign policy came to the forefront; analysts considered that the very process of policymaking might be stamped by one’s cultural heritage and socialization Foreign Policy Analysis 1993-present The end of the Cold War brought with it a renewed interest in actor-specific theory. An intuitive understanding of this event involves delving into the individual actors themselves: the personalities of the leaders, the activities of various actors, the struggle between domestic players, and so on. From the late 1980s to the present, foreign policy researchers have focused on developing the following themes outlined below. A. Theory Development in Decision Making a. Construction of Meaning and Framing of Situations by Human Agents in International Relations Human agents interpret situations and problems differently, due to the various personal backgrounds, which influence reasoning. Researchers have articulated a two-step decision process: in the first step, options that would translate into serious political loss are weeded out; in the second step, alternatives are analyzed against one another. b. Persuasion and Diffusion Undertaken by Framing/Meaning Entrepreneurs within IR; Analysis of Interaction between Competing Entrepreneurs Representations formed by human agents in foreign policy must first be diffused to others before collective action can follow. The process by which individual representations are ‘diffused’ onto others has been under study. Technology has been useful here, by providing simulation exercises to study how persuasion occurs. c. Change and Learning by Human Agents in International Relations Using cognitive mapping techniques, researchers have been able to detect new knowledge structures within the minds of decision-makers; this ‘social learning’ may enhance understanding between different actors and even facilitate successful negotiations between antagonists. d. The Study of Human Agents as They Interact in Groups in International Relations Decision-making in small and large groups remains the subject of ongoing research. Recent works on bureaucratic and organizational influences apply agent-orientated perspectives to explain institutional innovation or variations in foreign policy decisions. B. Theory Development Regarding Leader Characteristics a. Leader Assessment Frameworks A more systematic tool has been constructed for assessing a leader’s foreign policy orientation. Technology has allowed for a resurgence of operational code analysis: no longer an extremely laborious or time-consuming task, automated content analysis has enabled researchers to perform speedy and accurate analyses of leader characteristics. b. New Frontiers: Neuroscience, Emotion, and Embodiment Research in the field of neuroscience is slowly filtering into foreign policy analysis. Neuroscience, with its discoveries on the workings of the human mind, is poised to contribute largely to our understanding of human decision-making. The effect of emotions, pain, illness, the genetically determined ‘happiness set-point’ and other factors of the human body all have implications on decision-making, and therefore also for foreign policy analysis. C. Theory Development Concerning Culture, Identity, and Social Groups a. Construction of National Role Conception Identity by Human Agents within the Nation Questions of national identity formation are still largely furnished by research on national role conception. More recently, eclectic methods such as discourse analysis, process-tracing and computational modeling have helped to trace the origin and evolution of identities in conflict. b. Horizon/Template Analysis Distinctive patterns of horizon visualization have been discerned in different cultures, which suggests that an understanding of ‘who we are’ plays into the understanding of ‘what it is we do’. c. The Influence of Societal Groups The effect of various social groups on foreign policy behavior is under study. Also explored has been the effect of media, and the manner in which media influences the domestic political context of foreign policy decision-making (eg. the so-called ‘CNN-effect’). CONCLUSION The centre of FPA is mainly about who decisions makers are. Foreign policy analysis remains complex instrument to define most worthy reason about state and decision makers behavior. It’s beneficial features that enable us to unlock more doors to close assessment, yet they remain vague and open to question. Separate IR thinkers argue in many diverse level of analysis. The problem of arranging available options to make a good assessment is never quite simple if we rely upon one single analysis. Therefore, broad and open analysis is needed. However, we cannot neglect considering several factors although they are partially important. The micro study contributes a huge meaning creating foreign policy options, behavior, and outcome, as well. We must remember, a simply distinctive factor altered may lead to either beneficial or disastrous outcome. References: Breuning, Marijke. 2007. Foreign Policy Analysis: A Comparative Study. London: Palgrave Macmillan Christopher Hill. 2003. Foreign Policy. The Oxford Companion to the Politics of the World, 2e. Joel Krieger, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Hudson, Valerie. 2007. Overview and Evolution of Foreign Policy Analysis. Rowman and Littlefiled. pp. 3-33. Posted in FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS, RENNY CANDRADEWI Tagged evolution, FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS, overviews, R Candradewi Leave a comment December 22, 2009
FOREIGN POLICY AS A COMPLEX PHENOMENON i 1 Votes FOREIGN POLICY: DEFINITIONS Foreign policy can be chategorized into two meaning: decision and action. A COMPLEX PHENOMENON INTRODUCTION
As one of the International Relation case of study, foreign policy has many definitions and there isn’t any precise interpretation from this terminology as it opens for multiple meaning and intrepretation. The problem is we must be familiar with one of the characteristic. First, it is conducted to regain national interest to another state. (Holsti, 1987). Regarding foreign policy serves and reflects national interests, we must understand that foreign policy is alao a continuation of domestic policy as Rosenau narrated. Second character of foreign policy is that only a state who remains as a main actor to foreign policy because of its sovereignty thus differentiates from non-actors including non-governemental entities. The literature that has burgeoned on foreign policy since 1960 provides us with the means to understand both the underlying forces which shape a country’s foreign policy, and the evolution of the phenomenon itself. At the heart of the study of foreign policy is the desire to understand countries’ actions and behaviors towards other countries and the international environment generally. Foreign policy is defined as the totality of a country’s policies toward and interactions with the environment beyond its borders. This definition is quite broad and encompasses a variety of issue domains or issue areas, which are defined as a set of interrelated concerns in policy making that are, however, more loosely tied to other sets of interrelated concerns. Traditionally, the study of foreign policy has focused primarily on the quest to maintain and enhance a country’s power and security. It centered on questions of averting war when possible, deciding to fight if necessary, and— first and foremost— ensuring the integrity of the country’s borders. Increasingly, economic relations between countries have gained attention. Since the end of the Cold War, globalization has become an important process that highlights the interconnectedness of the world’s economies. This has had a greater impact on countries with economies that, in earlier eras, were less connected to the international economy. For those countries that traditionally have depended greatly on international trade, economic issues have had a higher priority on the foreign policy agenda much longer. The foreign policy agenda does not stop with security and economic issues: in recent decades, environmental issues have increasingly gained attention; so have issues such as human rights, population growth and migration, food and energy policies, as well as foreign aid, development, and the relations between richer and poorer countries. In addition to the increased diversity of issues on the foreign policy agenda, there is also an increasing variety in the actors who engage in foreign policy making. Foreign Policy as a complex phenomenon For modern observers, foreign policy is at once a phenomenon, a concept, and a major area of study. No definition can do full justice to all three of these aspects of the term, but it is still possible to establish a starting point from which the arguments about interpretation can develop. For there are almost as many views of foreign policy as there are different schools of thought on international relations, or types of political ideology in the world. To claim that a particular foreign policy is in the national interest imparts a degree of authority and legitimacy to that policy. (Griffiths and O’Callaghan, 2005) Foreign policy becomes a complex phenomenon since it is also influenced by the national interest of a state. Beside, the national interest itself also a complex phenomenon because national interest consists of many element of a state life. In addion to Rosenau, foreign policy is a complex study because not only consists of the external aspect, but also internal aspect of a state. External aspect is important since the policy is implemented “across border”. As the matter of fact the internal aspect could give some choices to the policy maker to make and determine the policy. There is one statement states that foreign policy begins when domestic policy ends. (Kissinger, 1971) This suggests that the internal condition state will also give affects to the creation of foreign policy and thoughts to foreign policy decision maker. It is quite challenging to determine whether state foreign policy success in international relations. Furthermore, acccording Nicholas, foreign policy quality and success will not merely depend on the vague objective. But it will have to require the real diplomacy through various methods. Who or what influences foreign policy? Although leaders are quick to take credit for foreign policy successes and the public is often quick to blame them for failures, leaders rarely make foreign policy alone. Advisory systems and government bureaucracies may be organized differently in different countries, but they always play some role in foreign policy decision making and implementation. Domestic constituencies may vary in influence, depending on the attentiveness of a public to foreign affairs or the structure of government in a specific country. Finally, the world beyond the borders affects the possibilities for foreign policy action. It may present opportunities, but it also presents constraints. With so many factors affecting foreign policy, it’s quite essential how do we unravel the contributions each of these multiple factors make. First, we will not consider all these factors at once. Although foreign policy behavior is rarely caused by one person or one thing alone, it makes sense to investigate various factors separately before thinking about their interaction. It is simpler to focus on one explanatory factor at a time.After analyzing various factors separately, we can then assess their relative contributions to foreign policy behavior, taking into account also the possible interactions among these different explanatory factors. The strategy is to initially analyze different factors that influence foreign policy making in isolation and to subsequently attempt to integrate these into a comprehensive explanation, assuming that foreign policy is generally purposive or goal-directed behavior. CONCLUSION Generally speaking, foreign policy is actions by nation dedicated beyond its border. It combines set of principles, norms, behaviors, plans and strategy determining state engangement into such various international issues. It has also been a platform to conduct set of actions to attain the objectives each nation might pursue. The study of foreign policy includes more than merely leaders and decision making process. It’s a study of the quest to maintain and enhance power and security as well as a strategy to analyze different attempt to integrate those factors within broad explanation to define a nation foreign policy. Reference: James N. Rosenau, The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy, 2d ed. (London, 1980). Yaacov Y. I. Vertzberger, The World in Their Minds: Information Processing, Cognition and Perception in Foreign Policy Decision Making (Stanford, Calif., 1990). Alexander George, Bridging the Gap: Theory and Practice in Foreign Policy (Washington, D.C., 1993). David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, rev. ed. (Minneapolis, 1998). Christopher Hill “Foreign Policy” The Oxford Companion to the Politics of the World, 2e. Joel Krieger, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Posted in FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS, RENNY CANDRADEWI Tagged complex phenomenon, FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS, R Candradewi Leave a comment
Blog at WordPress.com.