A nation formulates its foreign policy keeping in View its various national interests and objectives. In this formulation general, internal and external determinants also play varying degree of role. These were discussed in detail in the previous Chapter. Under the influence of these factors foreign policy takes different forms and shapes in different countries.This article discuses in Types Of Foreign Policy
Types Of Foreign Policy and Choices
In other words different countries have different approaches and inclinations towards international relations. Accordingly, they make different foreign policy choices. For example, some states participate in international relations more actively whereas others prefer to be inert or isolated owing to their internal problems or other reasons. Few may choose to pursue a neutral path in foreign affairs while others may prefer to be non-aligned. Several ambitious states may have an inclination towards expansion or empire building whereas others may be contented with the status quo. Some aggressive states may adopt a policy of confrontation, while peace loving states may go in for a policy of peaceful co-existence. At times, powerful states choose a nationalistic universal policy. Various I types or kinds of foreign policy are the outcome of these choices. In this chapter these choices and types are examined.
1. Policy of Imperialism
Many powerful and ambitious nations tend to dominate and rule over others. For long, imperialism has remained a powerful instrument of pursuing and promoting national interest. Imperialism has long been employed as a foreign policy choice by several European powers and in a novel and indirect form it is still the choice of many powerful nations Human history reveals that the tendency to dominate over others has been manifested in one form or the other’ in different periods. Alexander the great, Napolean, Bismark, Hitler etc., had endeavored for empire building and thus adopted a policy of expansion.
The term imperialism has been used in a subjective and arbitrary manner. The use of the term is so arbitrary that it does not relate to its real nature whether the policy of a country is imperialist or not but any type of foreign policy followed by its opponents is sometimes dubbed as ’imperialist.’ The communist called the foreign policy of the Western Powers as imperialistic, anti-communists gave the same name to communists, while uncommitted nations termed both communists and capitalists as imperialists.
Different scholars have defined imperialism differently in their own ways. That is why Palmer and Perkins observe. imperialism can be discussed, denounced, defended, and died for, but it cannot be defined in any generally acceptable way However some of its important definitions are as follows:
imperialism is a policy which aims at creating organization and maintaining an empire says Moritz Julius Bonn. In a e words of Charles A. Beard imperialism is employment of engines of government and diplomacy to acquire territories, protectorates, and or spheres of influence occupied usually by other races or peoples, and to promote industrial, trade, and investment opportunities. On the other hand Parker T Moon observe “Imperialism means domination of none European native races by totally dissimilar European nations” Morgenthau defined it altogether in terms of the expansion of a state’s power beyond its borders. Marxists like Lenin hold imperialism purely m economic terms and regarded it as a highest stage of capitalism. Imperialism is closely related with colonialism. Both terms refer to superior-inferior Or rulers-ruled relationship.
The motives of imperialism are economic gains such as control of competition-free markets. sources of raw material and capital investment in virgin lands. Another motive is the enhancement of national prestige and glory by acquiring vast colonial empire. It also serves the purpose of extreme nationalism and national defense. Colonies were also conquered to settle surplus population there. The policy of imperialism was also pursued to spread a particular religion, culture or ideology. Advanced Western societies attributed another motive to imperialism i.e. the upliftment of less fortunate and poor yellow man’s Asia and black man’s Africa. They contended that it was “ white man’s burden” to carry the good things of their own religion and civilization to “backward” peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Several methods were employed to successfully implement the policy of imperialism such as military intervention and wars; economic methods like exploring the foreign markets for sale of finished products and purchase of raw materials and cheap labor. Means of economic investment and economic assistance are also employed these days. Through cultural methods imperial states conquer the minds of men of other nations and are able to impose their religion, culture or political ideology. This method is regarded far more superior to military victory and economic mastery. Christian missionaries and Soviet and Chinese communists employed this method.
Imperialism in practice.
It was Great Britain that pursued this policy in letter and spirit for a long period. British imperialism had its world wide tentacles that it was usually said Sun never sets over the British empire. By 1914, the British empire, despite the fact that it suffered many set backs it continued to be the world’s largest and the richest empire. France was the second largest empire in Africa and South East Asia. Germany under Bismarck between 1884-90 acquired Togoland Cameroons, South West Africa, German East Africa. the lease hold of Kaichow and extensive economic rights in Shantung peninsula in China and scattered groups of islands in the pacific. Like Germany, ltaly was also a late comer.
Though not much strong she occupied three colonies in Attica, Eriteria on the Red Sea, Italian Somali land and Libya in North Africa. Japan began her career as imperialist in 1894. She annexed Formosa and the Ryukn islands from China, absorbed Korea in 1910. She also acquired after defeating Russia in 1905 S0uthern Sakhlina leasehold import Arthur and eliminated Russian influence from Korea and Southern Manchuria. Russian imperialism had its own characteristics. it represented the spreading out over contiguous territory of I land hungry aggressive population. She wanted absorption of new area but not permanent colony. Her sphere of influence was in Persia, Manchuria and Mongolia, Spain, Holland and Portugal also had their colonies in Latin America, Africa and Asia respectively. it is worth mentioning that whereas British, French, German, Dutch imperialism decayed, the imperialism of the Soviet Union expanded after the Second World War to whole of the East Europe and parts of Asia.
The US imperialism is divided into three parts: continental expansion, overseas expansion and intervention. Her continental imperialism was short lived. Most of the acquired territories were purchased, followed by political equality. The overseas expansion was made through various processes. Alaska and Virgin islands were purchased. The Hawaii islands and the Canal Zone were acquired almost voluntarily; Puerto Rico, and the Philippines etc, were conquered in 1395. The Panama Canal Zone was leased for building a canal to her defense and commerce. Except Philippines all are still political subordinate. Her intervention in Western hemisphere is regarded as defence imperialism The Monroe Doctrine (1823) and Truman Doctrine 1946) were its examples.
imperialism had its merits and demerits. Those who speak in favor of it assert that it has been a boon inasmuch as it proved to be of mutual benefit to both the master countries and the colonies. For example, it promoted political unity, economic development, training for sell government, spread of general and technical education, creation of infra-structure and promotion of internationalism. its opponents condemn it by highlighting its evils. For example it is the symbol of political subjugation, economic exploitation and racial discrimination.it destroyed the native culture and social values of the colonial people. it also provoked international wars and rivalries. By mid-twentieth century the policy of imperialism was universally looked down upon and earned notoriety.
By the end of nineteenth century and the beginning of twentieth Spirit of nationalism overtook the colonies and masses militated against it. After the Second World War European Imperial powers lost their grip over their colonies because of their exhaustion in five-year long war. Immediately after the Second World War the process of decolonization started resulting in the decline of imperialism Decolonization, its causes and impacts are being discussed in detail in a subsequent chapter. At present there is no inclination towards empire building and the policy of imperialism has lost its relevance.
Policy of Nee-Colonialism .
The place of imperialism has been now taken over by Neo-colonialism. With the death of old or classical imperialism mac-colonialism was born in the second half of the twentieth century. it is also known as economic imperialism or Dollar imperialism or Red imperialism. The time of military or political imperialism and direct control or rule has gone and in its place covert or indirect imperialism has emerged. Various powerful and developed countries are now adopting the policy of new colonialism instead of imperialism. Economic imperialism is that form of imperialism in which a country though free from the direct control of an imperialist country, indirectly dances to its tunes.
The USA and the then Soviet Union by giving economic aid to under developed countries indirectly exercise their influence upon them. The USA by providing Dollar that is economic aid to backward and small countries wields considerable influence upon them and this is named as Dollar imperialism. Some of the Communist Q China’s expansionist and aggressive policies, particularly along its borders were dubbed by critics as ”Red imperialism”.
At present most of the nations of Asia and Africa are politically free sovereign. Apparently, they may be free, but actually they are still the victims of big powers‘ tentacles. The smiled independent nations are actually not independent but dependent. This latest type of imperialism is called as nee-colonialism. In the words of Palmer and Perkins, Thus “Neo-colonialism is regarded as a new and more insidious form of imperialism, widely prevalent and particularly polemicists and dangerous. it is the continuation of exploitation by other means. it prevails in the form of bloc Stem 0n satellite System, economic shackles, sphere of influence and ideological subversion. The chief objective of Neo-colonialism is to maintain the flow of imperialist profits from former colonial territories after the grant of political independence. Its aim is to have economic dominance in place of political and military dominance. Thus, trade and aid in the words of late President Nasser, a veil to dominate the resources of nations and to exhaust them for the benefit of exploiters.
Britain exercised its economic influence over the Arab world by means of oil diplomacy. In the post-Second World War period American‘dollar imperialism engulfed the Western Europe and the newly independent nations of Asia and Africa. Latin American nations are all sovereign states, but their economic life being so fully dependent upon the United States that they cannot dare to adopt an independent policy. The East European states remained under the Soviet control for many years.
3. Policy of Balance of Power
The balance of power has been discussed extensively in a previous chapter. It was mentioned there that balance of power is used by nations as a policy. As a policy it aims at creating or preserving equilibrium or disequilibrium as the case may be, it is a policy of maintaining or producing a condition. This policy is based on the assumption that unbalanced power is perilous. Thus it is contended that in a multistage system, the only policy which can check quarrelsome behavior of other states is that of confronting power with countervailing power. When Winston Churchill writes about balance of power as the wonderful unconscious tradition of British foreign policy it is evident that he has in mind a balance of power as a policy.
Kenneth Thompson and Hans Morgenthau also regard balance of power as a policy. As a policy, the balance of power is a study of methods and techniques that states adopted in order to achieve equilibrium or disequilibrium. These methods are: alliances and counter alliances armament and disarmament; compensation and partition divide and rule intervention; acquisition of territory and creation of buffer states.
4. Policy of Alliances
As already stated the policy of alliances is usually employed to maintain balance of power within the multi state system and promote national interest of the country, The states also resort to alliances merely as a matter of expediency. If a state is powerful enough to live without any help, it will like to shun alliances. Likewise, if a state is reluctant to assume commitments resulting from an alliance or if the gains likely to accrue from an alliance are to be less than the commitments involved, the state may avoid alliance.
The term alliance means a provision of mutual military assistance between two or more sovereign states. The alliances are made to supplement the national armed forces. Usually the states having the alliance formally pledge to join each other in lighting a common enemy. Sometimes the alliance may not involve actual military assistance and may only imply grant of permission to deploy forces on its territory or right to move forces across the territory. At other times the countries may enter into alliances for the promotion of cooperation in other fields, but mostly the military considerations underlie this cooperation, in fact these alliances are successful only if the military reasons are intact. Prior to World War l, the alliances were generally of non-aggressive nature. The alliances used to have a clause which obliged the signatory states not to indulge in aggression, and if a state party to alliance provoked a war, the other ally was relieved of the obligation to help the former.
There are several types of alliances. First, there an alliance serving identical or complementary intercom. The Anglo-American and US-Pakistan alliance are example, designed to promote complementary interests. Second, some alliances are of ideological nature which lay down certain general moral principles and the signatories to these alliances pledge to observe these alliances. The Treaty of Holy Alliance of 1815, Atlantic Charter of 1941, Arab League concluded in 1945 etc. are examples of this kind. Third, alliances concluded by states with equal power and serving identical interests are mutual alliances. On the contrary, if the major benefits of an alliance are meant for only one party while the other have to bear the main burden, the alliance is named as one sided. Fourth, the alliances which endeavor to protect the total interests of the contracting parties both during the war as well as peace are general alliances.
On the other hand, the alliances concluded during the peace time are limited in so far as they are concerned only with a part of the total interests of the parties. Fifth, the alliances can be either temporary or permanent. Sixth, an alliance is called operative if it coordinates the general policies and concrete measures of the signatories. On the other hand some alliances are concluded by states because they agree on general principles and objectives. But these alliances remain inoperative because the members do not agree on the concrete policies and measures.
Alliances in Practice.
The practice of forming alliances has been followed since long. There is no dearth of references in ” Ancient India, Ancient China and Ancient Greece to show that alliances were concluded by different states to promote their national interest. In the medieval period, the allied states often concluded alliances to check other states that aimed at establishing its hegemony. Toward the last years of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the present century the world was divided into two groups of alliances known as Triple Alliance and Triple Entente. In the inter-war period France rigorously followed the policy of forming alliances to the post World War II period when cold war was on, a series 0f military alliances took place. The world was divided into two hostile camps led by the US and the USSR The US formed NATO, SEATO CENTO etc, whereas the USSR ” concluded Warsaw Pact.
The policy of alliance has both plus v and minus points An alliance is beneficial so far as it holds the prospect of military assistance in case of need and acts as a deterrent on the enemy country It enhances the prestige of the smaller countries by bringing them closer to the powerful allies. The alliances contribute towards world peace by maintaining balance of power They also help in the growth ‘ of confederation or some sort of a federal unity among the sovereign states.
Alliances have also some negative aspects. They can be more of a drain on a country’ s strength The states entering into an alliance have an obligation to crime to the assistance of an ally, even though the resources and interests of the states may demand abstention from involvement in this conflict. They have also been responsible for the power struggle among “ the nations, Further, all alliances give rise to strains among the allies because in the course of time conflicts develop among them, which undermine their solidarity Both NATO and Warsaw Pact witnessed such strains In spite of these drawbacks the policy of alliance remained alive and will continue to live in future as well.
5. Policy of Allegiance
Allegiance and alliance are two different and distinct foreign policy choices. The policy of allegiance has been pursued by certain third world countries By adopting this policy countries become allies of one of the two super powers in the hope of certain benefits They feel that their allegiance with the superpowers not only’ increase their sense of national security but also enable them to get foreign aid required for internal
development and promise of sons to deal with enemies at home and abroad Generally the countries pursuing this policy extend full support to the philosophy of the super power and provide full support to it irrespective of the fact whether they have concluded an alliance with it or not. Moreover, they also look to the super power for guidance, support and assistance, The super powers also encourage allegiance and provide huge funds and other facilities to win over the small powers to their side No doubt states following this policy lose some freedom still they pursue this because they get material and political benefits from super power.
Mostly the state owing allegiance to the leading power follows the dictates of the latter as refusal to do so would entail denial of certain benefits and cause inconvenience. Usually, the weaker states give preference to the wishes Of their mentor without bothering about its sovereign rights. In brief, the policy of allegiance has following features :
(i) The states involved in this arrangement are of unequal strength.
(ii) Though a formal equality exists among states, actually the powerful partner dominates. The degree of freedom left to the weaker state is inconclusive for strong leadership and in its own interest it may be asked to submit to the stronger power.
(iii) Allegiance to a great power automatically involves recognition of the fact by all concerned that the small power has the ability to commit its ally and that the latter presumably cannot afford the losses attendant upon its weaker partners’ J a defeat.
6. Policy of Non-alignment
Over-indulgence in alliances and allegiances on the part of several countries and their evil consequences forced the newly independent states to choose the policy of non-alignment. Non-alignment is one of those phenomenon which appeared on the international scene after the Second World War when the world was divided into two hostile power-blocs. The contradictions of the cold war created the situation in which it became essential for the newly independent states to declare their determination to avoid military alliances dominated by the two super powers. These newly independent states refused to join the existing military alliances notwithstanding, their tonne:allegiances and economic and military weakness. These nations were interested to ply active role in the shaping of their own future and to influence world affairs in general. These nations felt that the only way through which they could achieve their goal was to adopt a policy of non-alignment.
Non-alignment policy means keeping out of alliance by a state. it implies freedom from commitment to any power bloc; it lays stress on the independence of choice and action in external affairs. The policy of not aligning with any bloc, but at the same time being friendly to everyone, so that it might be possible to exercise in international relations a moderating influence named as non-alignment.
Non-alignment in practice.
Initially the policy of nonalignment was pursued by few countries such as India, Indonesia, Egypt and Yugoslavia in the late fifties. After some time more and more newly independent states of Asia, Africa and Latin America followed suit. In 1961 when first Conference of non-aligned countries took place as many as twenty five nations were following this policy, in New Delhi summit in 1983, their number rose to 99. Now there are more than hundred states pursuing this policy. Of all the other kinds of foreign policy, this policy alone is being followed by a Large number of countries.
Non-alignment is a positive and active policy. In addition to seeking to protect freedom of newly independent states, it enables them to work for the presentation of international peace by building bridges of understanding between the hostile power blocs. It exerts a sobering influence in the sphere of international relations with a view to lessening tensions. It also enables them to mobilize economic resources for their development and to work for international peace without any inhibition.
On the other hand policy of non-alignment has been subjected to lot of criticism. it has been observed that in the contemporary times there is no possibility of non-alignment nor does it exist in the real sense of the term. With the end of bipolar ism, cold war and military alliances, it has no relevance. However, the supposes of this policy still believe in its relevance in more than one respect.
7.Policy of Isolation
The policy of isolation means little Participation in world affairs. It implies low level of involvement in poms. military, diplomatic and commercial transactions with other states. This policy does not mean that the state pursuing a does not maintain commercial or diplomatic relations with Other states. The state can maintain commercial or diplomatic relations to the extent that they do not lead to unpleasant military consequences or military threats from abroad. Assumptions.
The policy of isolation is based on the assumption that security and independence can bat be achieve by cutting of most transactions with other states and by maintaining diplomatic and commercial contacts with other states while handling all perceived or potential threats by building deterrents at home front. This policy is feasible only in a system with reasonably diffused structure of power, Where military, economic or ideological threats do not exist and the Other states are regularly shifting allegiances. The states following this policy are usually self-sufficient in their economic and social needs and the activities of other states do not disturb the internal developments of the isolated state.
The states may pursue this policy owing to geographical factors in with a view to meeting the actual or potential threat by withdrawing behind the frontiers and building defenses to make the state impermeable to military attack or cultural infiltration. High mountains, wide seas, deserts can provide protection to the political units on the condition that the other states do not have the necessary means to bypass the Isolation in Practice. A state may deliberately choose policy of isolation in the face of a perceived threat. For example, Japan adopted this policy after it came into contact with the Europeans. The Japanese emperor sealed off the Japanese islands ‘0 Prevent its conquest by Europeans or to prevent the infiltration of their culture into Japan. However. it gave up this policy after the middle of nineteenth century and entree into active commercial and military relations with Great Britain there.
This resulted in the declaration of the Truman Doctrine and USA helped Greek and Turkey to check the Communist expansion. The USA also initiated a comprehensive European Recovery Programme in the name of ’Marshall Plan“ to contain the communism and growing Soviet influence in Europe. It also gave economic and technical assistance to the Afro-Asian nations under the Point Four Programme. It sponsored or concluded various military alliances to meet the Communist threat in different regions. These alliances were: Organization of the American States (OAS), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the South East Asia Treaty Organization ‘ (SEATO), the Central Treaty Organization (CENT O) and ANZUS. The US also militarily resisted the encroachments by the Communists in Korea, Berlin, Vietnam.
In Latin America, the United States did not follow isolationist policy, instead it tried to act as hemispheric policeman. It always tried to bring Latin American countries under its control for political, economic and military motives. It intervened in Gautemala, Nicaragua, Chile etc to contain communism and to protect democratic governments there. By means of blockade it pressurized the Soviet Union to remove its missiles from Cuba.In Far East, the USA failed to check the emergence of communist China. However, it tried to build up Taiwan as an independent state and managed to keep China out of the United Nations for a long time. It also provided every possible military assistance to South Korea and ultimately succeeded in pushing the forces of North Korea. After the Second World War, USA showed deep interest in the Middle East.
It provided large financial assistance to the countries of this region to ensure stability in this part of the world. During Suez Crisis of 1956, it supported the Arab demand and asked for withdrawal of Anglo-French forces from Egypt. Despite its close relations with Israel, the United States also maintained good relations with the other countries of Middle East. it played a leading role in bringing about a negotiated settlement between Egypt Israel through Camp David Agreement.
Its military intervention compelled Iraq to vacate the illegal occupation of Kuwait After the Gulf War (1991) the United States has emerged as the preponderant power in the world and perhaps paved the way for a uni polar world. The balance between the two super powers has considerably tilted in favor of the US, and that the tams of the Soviet Union as a super power has suffered a set back. Throughout the Gulf War the Soviet Union was caught by severe internal crisis. in addition to sericms economic hardships, the danger of secession became alarming and ultimately in Dec. 1991 it disintegrated. Encouraged by the victory, George Bush has reiterated his promise made in September 1990, to build a “new world order” which will be based on ”cooperation” between the US and Russia and which will permit the UN a significant role. President Bush’s idea of a new world order is also based on collective security, rule of law, arms control, freedom and justice.
Bush wants his countrymen to make maximum use of this opportunity, provided by the Gulf War, to march forward on their proclaimed path. No doubt, Americans have got a rare opportunity to make the world better. But will they ? 3 asks LK. Baral. Is it a quest for a new world order or simply an extension of Par Americana ? The US is being tempted to throw its new found muscle power around to achieve its interests. It is endeavoring to combine the role of a messiah with that of a ”world policeman.
Thus the United States occupied a dominant position and powerful status in the international sphere on account of its ‘ military, political, economic and technological position.
’ The age of For Britannica was over after the Second World . War, Par Sovietica died in late eighties but Pax Americana is still intact‘with more vigor and vitality.
Par Sovietica. Though the days of Fax Sovietica is also over yet it remained in the Soviet history for a long period. Fax Sovietica refers to the expansionist choice of the Soviet foreign policy. Through it the Soviet Union extended its ideology and influence in other countries of the world. This expansionist tendency was ever present in Russia. Even during the Czarist and they reaffirmed the thesis of peaceful coexistence as a “fundamental principle of Soviet foreign policy.
Features The following are the features of post-Stalin Soviet policy of peaceful coexistence.
(1). During Stalin era, the Soviet Union considered all non-communist states as its enemies Khrushchev repudiated this principle and propounded that all non-communist states are not the enemy of the Soviet Union
(2). Solution of international disputes by peaceful means and methods was emphasized.
(3). Under this policy the Soviet Union decided to give economic aid and assistance to non: communist underdeveloped countries.
(4). Diplomacy of foreign visits was also accepted. It was considered necessary to relax the policy of Iron-curtain in order to make good and cordial relations with non-communist states.
(5). Western powers should be condemned as imperialists and colonialists but the policy of open conflict and struggle with western nations be abandoned.
(6). According to this policy, the Soviet Union divided the non-communist countries in three categories; first, the USA ; second, allies and supporters of the USA and third, uncommitted states e.g. India, Indonesia, Burma, Yugoslavia etc.
Peaceful Coexistence in Practice.
An example of peaceful co-existence among states with different social systems was provided by relations between the USSR and India, the USSR and Finland, as well as between the USSR and a number of other non-communist and capitalist states. This had been repeatedly stressed in joint documents signed by the USSR and these states in the post Stalin era.
Khrushchev and his successors put this policy into practice in the following ways. The Soviet Union agreed to a truce in Korea in 1953 and in India-China in 1954. it also entered into a treaty with Austria and gave it certain concessions in 1955. in the June of the same year, the Soviet Union agreed to a meeting at the summit with Britain, France and the United States to consider crucial issues between the Soviet Union and the West. annul 1955 the summit took place paving the way for more fruitful negotiations on several fronts. After Potsdam Conference it was the first meeting of big four during cold war days. The Soviet Union abandoned her territorial claims near Black Sea from Turkey in June 1955. The same year it called off a deadlock that was created in UNO on the question of Dag Hammerjsold as election as Secretary General.
Keeping in view the policy of peaceful co-existence he accepted Hammrjsold as the Secretary General of UNO. The Soviet Union also gave up the policy of opposing the entrance of new members in UNO. Hence in December 1955, eighteen new states were given the membership of UNO. In 1956 Cominform was dissolved. In 1963 he entered with the United States into three important agreements to establish a hotline between Washington and Moscow, to cooperate with the “i United States in certain programmes in outer space, and to sign the nuclear test ban treaty. During the days of cold war and intense arms race this treaty served a significant landmark towards disarmament.
The Soviet Union acted mediator to , end Indo-Pak war in 1965-66. The year 1968 witnessed the signing by the nuclear powers-the USSR, USA, Britain-and many other non~nuclear countries an important nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT). In his effort to minimize the tension of arms race the Soviet Union along with the US signed SALI’ l and SALT-ll agreements during the seventies.
It was due to the success of the policy of peaceful coexistence that culminated in the process of detente throughout the seventies. The period of detente in 1970s has revealed the escape of possibilities for peaceful to-existence and benefits that their realization brings not only to specific interests of directly involved super powers, but to the entire human race. After Khrushchev the threads of peaceful coexistence were picked up by Kosygin and Brezhnev When Gorbachev came on the scene he was not satisfied with mere peaceful coexistence, he went a step further in making a positive and constructive cooperation as the goal among countries following different sociology-economic systems.
In the 19705 the term Peaceful Coexistence was used with increasing frequency in United Nations documents as
well as in regional and bilateral international documents. This principle was recorded in the Declaration on Principles of international Law (1970) Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States adapted by the UN General Assembly in 1974 and the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1975 .
There is no gainsaying that the policy of peaceful coexistence was initiated by the USSR. But it was crowned with success because of the positive response of the USA. Palmer and Perkins criticize: ”All during the Khrushchev era the reality of the ‘thaw’ and the ‘new look’ was often belied by other Soviet actions which seemed quite incompatible with professions of belief in peaceful co-existence and the reduction of international tensions. “’ They continued to be political and ideological opponents of each other till 1989-90. There were several occasions when tension arose between them e.g. during Suez crisis and Hungarian problem of 1956, 1960’s U-2 aircraft crisis, Cuba episode of 1962, Vietnam war 1965-68, West Asian crisis in 1967 etc. Soviet intervention in Afghanistan during 1979-85 caused a setback to detente and ushered in an era of New Cold War. Even then, it can be said that during these crises both the big powers tried to avoid major war and solved these problems with a great degree of . self-control and tolerance.
9. Policy of Neutrality.
When two states or group of states are actively engaged in war other States may adopt a policy of neutrality. Neutrality is the condition of those states which in time of war take no part in the fighting, but continue pacific intercourse with the waning states By going to war belligerents change their relation with each other; but the powers who choose to be neutral make no change in their relations with either of the belligerents and continue to be friends common to both parties.
Neutrality is a condition which exists only when there is war thus the policy of neutrality express an attitude of impartiality adopted by third states towards belligerents and recognized by belligerents such attitude rights and duties between the impartial states and the belligerent; The attitude of impartiality does not mean passive impartiality or inactivity but affords rights to a neutral state to protect its frontiers or defend itself when its rights are being violated. Neutrality does not require breaching off relations with either belligerent.it, on the other hand, grants to a neutral state certain rights towards the belligerents and also obliges it to observe certain duties presented by customary law or by international convention
Neutrality may be perfect or imperfect. Every sovereign state has a right to observe perfect or absolute neutrality With respect to the wars in which other states may be engaged, imperfect Neutrality is noticeable where a state although neutral is obliged to give, directly or indirectly, some assistance to one of the belligerents in consequence of a treaty entered into below the War. It is also known as qualified neutrality. Another form of neutrality is perpetual or permanent neutrality, the example of which is Switzerland.
A state may be neutralized either voluntarily or by force of circumstances. Switzerland’s neutralism is one of choice, but that of Laos is one imposed by powers outside the country as a result of the Geneva agreements. Other kinds of neutrality are general and partial neutrality; voluntary and conventional neutrality armed in a state of permanent mobilization and benevolent neutrality implying that the slate although professing to be neutral has indirectly a partial attitude. The two countries practicing the policy of neutrality since long are Switzerland and Austria.
10. The Policy of the Status Quo
Classification of foreign policies provided by Lerche and Said it not very elaborate as it includes only two types that are applicable in a significant way and cover a broad range of instances!“ These two categories are
(i). The policy of the status quo and .
(ii). The policy of revisionism these are explained as follows:
From the viewpoint oi purpose that stresses satisfaction and conservation arises the policy of choice of status quo. States that prefer this foreign policy choice develop policies with a number of common distinguishing features. The status one a state seeks to preserve is its own status vis-a-vis the rest of the international system. It does not necessarily mean enthusiasm for the details of the existing state of affairs, but rather a judgement that the overall pattern of value satisfaction extracted by the state from the international system is the most favorable it can hope for by any reasonable expenditure of effort. Thus, a status quo policy by no means condemns the state to rigid defense of all the details of an established order indeed, an enlightened status quo position-particularly when held by a major power leaves ample room for extensive situational change and exertion of initiatives by the state concerned. What is beyond major modification is the state’s relation to the system as a whole.
Status quo policies are defensive in nature, however often they may become for some time tactical offensives; Major . terms used under this policy are defense , preservation and neutralization rather than offense , change and advantage. Status quo policies are for the stabilization of relationship rather than their alteration. They accept restraints of international morality, international law, international organizations etc. on the outer limits of state action. This policy accepts conflict as a condition of existence, but never initiates it. The states pursuing this policy also never begin major wars.
The policy of status quo, whether adopted by a big or small state, is aimed at development of the international system into a permanent set of relationship that incorporates the relatively advantageous situation the slate enjoys at the moment. Consequently, status quo policies are characterized by restraint in conception, caution in execution and acceptance of only a comparatively small burden of risk. Operationally, their strength lies in their capacity to anticipate situational change and to develop rapid and efficacious responses to it. When status quo policies are prevalent in the international system. the general atmosphere is of relative quiet and relaxation; change is slow, evolutionary and limited in extent.
11. The Policy of Revisionism .
The other kind of foreign policy which comes from decline of the present states and coin of the state-is called a Revisionism. This policy is quite contrary to the policy of the status quo
Revisionism endeavors to favorably modify the state’s over-nil international status in the system. it does not Willy work on the assumption that all international relationships are fluid and subject to change, but only those that it consider are significant. This policy is strategically offensive. it requires major environmental change in the mate’s favor and is directed toward the discovery or creation, and complete exploitation, of opportunities for effective action. Relationship would not be stabilized until the state achieves what it demands. Revisionist states are not interested in any institutional arrangement that restrict their carefully protected freedom of action in international politics.
States following this policy accept conflict as a means for the accomplishment of their objective. They are neither afraid of tension in a dispute nor averse to its escalation. Unlike status quo states they are not for a stalemate or a draw. Larche and Said observe : “In a struggle between an exemplar of each type, it is normally the revisionist state that begins the conflict and sets its terms ; in any such controversy short of all~out war, it is usually the revisionist state that also decides how long the dispute will continue. Major wars have usually been begun by states that were revisionist in orientation, at least at the time the critical decision was made.
This policy is thus daring in conception. optimistic about calculation of factors of cost, and willing to carry a comparatively large burden of risk. Its plus point lies in its capacity to bring about situational change or capitalize quickly upon it. it brings a high level of tension“ in international politics and ”a rate of change that is both rapid and extensive.
12. Policy of Nationalistic Universalism
When nationalistic principles are projected in universal terms by a country, it is known as the policy of nationalistic universalism. Despite the promotion mainly of national interests a foreign policy may give emphasis on certain universal principles such as maintenance of world peace and justice, advancement of liberty of the people, development of general human welfare. This policy of nationalistic Universalism is quite opposite to the policy of isolation. The successful execution of this policy depends on three conditions. First, the state adopting this policy must have overwhelming superiority especially in the military field. Second, it must believe in an ideology that gives it the necessary impetus and self-confidence . to carry out its world mission.
Third, it must be technically sound so that it cannot only conquer a world empire but also hold it together. Thus it is a policy of the politically, militarily, ideologically and technically sound and powerful states. It is not the policy of weak countries. How Britain, the USA and the Soviet Union have pursued this policy will be. discussed in the following paragraphs: ‘
Pax Britannica. Pax means peace or stop quarreling. When a powerful country enforces peace on other states, the Pax is usually prefixed with the name of enforcing country. For example Pax Romana, peace enforced on states in the Roman Empire; Pax Britannica, peace and principles enforced in the British Empire.
The high days of Far Britannica were between the Congress of Vienna and the First World War (1815-1915). During these years Britain played a major role in European politics, maintained the balance of power system in Europe and enforced its nationalistic principles on colonial states of the vast British empire. Only on two occasions the supremacy of Britain was threatened during this period. First in 1854-56 during the Crimean war when the Russians threatened to dominate the Constantinople. Second, in 1870-71 during the Franco Prussian War, which led to dislodging of France by Germany as a leading power on the continent. This however did not change the balance of power in the European system.
But there was a sharp decline in the power and influence of Great Britain in the present century, specially after the First World War. This was partly owing to her internal difficulties and partly due to competition with other states (the USA, Germany, Japan etc.) possessing larger populations“ and resources. The rising tide of nationalism in the former colonial possessions of Britain also played a major role in the collapse of its empire. Though the British power continued to gradually decline after the First World War, it became visible only after the Second World war. thereafter even the British statesmen stopped boasting of Pax Britannica and became conscious of the weak position of their country. It is a different matter that even now they try to gain maximum on Britain’s past influence and prestige. They also made necessary readjustments in their foreign as well as domestic policies. Thus the age of Pax Britannica is over. However, Britain still occupies a prominent position among. the world powers.
The term Pax Americana is associated with the dominant role of United States of America in the period after the Second World War. This policy is in complete contrast with the isolationist policy pursued by the US from its establishment to the First World War. But after the Second World War, America realized that it possessed omnipotent and decisive power. It was within its capacity to resolve any international issue. It began to express faith in principles of nationalistic universalism. In 1964 US State Department described America goals in world affairs as national security through strength; progress through partnership; supporting the postwar revolution of freedom; promoting the concept of international community under law and peace through perseverance. Though these objectives of foreign policy have been modified in the light of the circumstances yet by and large USA has tried to adhere to these principles.
Even while expressing faith in the above principles of I foreign policy, the USA in the post World War 11 period, endeavored to play a dominant role in the world affairs. In Europe it felt concerned over the Soviet attempts to expand communism in Europe and to create its sphere of influence the United States and other European countries and started taking active part in the power struggle in Far East.
It was the United States of America that followed this policy for a long time. Though the US was a part of the European system in terms of commercial and cultural contacts, it was not directly involved in the various ideological, national and dynastic issues which separated the various European powers. Therefore, prior to twentieth century, the American leaders preferred to be aloof from European alliances and affairs. Thus the Americans chose policy of isolationism due to geographical, political and economic reasons in the hope that this would ensure security of the country and enable them to concentrate on internal development.
From the beginning of the twentieth century, America’s policy of isolation showed signs of change. During First World War, USA abandoned this policy for some time on account of serious threat from Germany to democracy and extended support and help’ to European democracies, but reverted back to policy of isolationism soon after the war. The American Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles which committed USA to membership of League of Nations and involved the country in undefined and unforeseeable contingencies. By and large, it continued to pursue the policy of isolation in the inter-war period. The America decided to take part in the Second World War only after the Japanese attacked the Pearl Harbour. In the post World War ll period, America’s isolationist policy underwent a sea change and it began to play an active role in the international sphere.
Different countries adopted this policy owing to different reasons. The states which adopt this policy , are essentially not indifferent to the developments taking in ‘ the world around. They are quite vigilant with regard to international developments and potential threats. Mostly, this policy is pursued by states which are relatively independent . economically and militarily and perceive that involvement would only endanger their social, economic and political values.
This is no longer popular in these days as no major and important nation follows it. The US-its traditional practitioner abandoned it during the Second World War.
8. Policy of Peaceful Coexistence.
The policy of peaceful co-existence was first initiated by the Soviet Union during the Premiership of Malenkov but it became more and more clear during Khrushchev and later Brezhnev Kosygin period Subsequently many other countries of the world also adopted the principle of peaceful co-existence in their foreign policy.
Origin and Meaning. In the 20th Congress of Communist Party in February 1956, Stalin and”his policies were criticized , and Leninist principle of ’inevitable war with capitalist countries was modified and the theory of peaceful coexistence was accepted as the basis of Soviet foreign policy. After that the Soviet Union overhauled its foreign policy. The new look stressed Soviet willingness to solve outstanding East-West question diplomatically. Khrushchev advocated the policy of peaceful coexistence between capitalism and communism. He would like both the systems to exist side-by-side in order to prove their superiority. In the opinion of Khrushchev, the Soviet Union stood for peace and peaceful coexistence. His country would never begin war, if it is not attacked. Soviet people are not thinking of war, either against the United States or against any other country for that is against the spirit of Soviet ideology. The USSR wanted to compete in peaceful construction, in constructive work.
Palmer and Perkins observe:
The Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party Of the Soviet Union in 1956 was a significant landmark in the history of Soviet Communism At this congress Khrushchev and other Soviet spokesmen revealed an ideological flexibility and capacity for fresh maneuver in striking contrast with the rigidity of later-day Stalinism , They modified Communist ideology in such a way as to facilitate cooperation with other countries, communist and non-communist alike, and with Socialist parties in Europe and Asia they announced that war is not fatalistically inevitable rule Russia advanced in the direction where it encountered least resistance.
Thus it expanded its territory towards Finland and the Baltics, towards Poland, towards the Caucasus and the Caspian sea and Central Asia towards Siberia and Pacific. Russia also wanted to expand in certain other areas like the Balkans, the Turkish Straits, Afghanistan, Tibet and China.However, this could not happen as the other powers Opposed.
In the period after the Second World War, the Soviet Union successfully extended her influence in Poland, Yugoslavia, Albania, East Germany, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Mongolia, Manchuria, North Korea, Vietnam etc. by establishing communist regimes in these states. Along with these countries the Soviet Union formed a communist ‘ block and became its leader. The USSR also entered into various treaties and agreements with East European Countries and set up a Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) with Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania and Albania. In 1950 Russia concluded a Treaty of Friendship Alliance and Mutual Assistance with the Communist Government of China. The Warsaw Pact a military alliance among the USSR, Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany, Poland, Rumania and Czechoslovakia came into existence with the Soviet Union as its leader in 1955. The USA dubbed all these activities of the Soviet Union as Red imperialism.
However, in the mid-fifties certain irritants developed in the Communist bloc. Under the leadership of Tito, Yugoslavia came out of the Soviet satellite system. Sion-Soviet rift distanced China from the Soviet Union, and further weakened the Soviet bloc. Later Albania broke away from this camp. Despite these losses the Soviet Union continued to enjoy a dominant position in East Europe and even made efforts to increase its influence in,the third world countries of Asia and Africa.
The Soviet Union also endeavored to create its sphere of influence in the Middle East. it supported the expulsion of British from Iraq and Egypt and ouster of France from North Africa. In addition, Soviet Union also made available military and economic assistance to Egypt, Algeria and other Arab countries. The failure of the Soviet Union to provide adequate military assistance to the Arab countries during the Arab Israel War of 1967 (which resulted in the victory of Israel) gave a jolt to Soviet influence in the region.
After this its influence gradually waned from this region. From 1979 to 1985 the Soviet military‘ i remained stationed in Afghanistan to support its puppet government there. In 1985, Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union and his Perestroika and new political thinking” brought several changes in the Soviet, foreign policy. The Soviet Union not only withdrew its forces from Afghanistan but also relieved the East European nations from its grip. Now there is no communist or Soviet bloc in the world. The Soviet Union has been disintegrated since 1991 and its successor the Russian Federation can ill afford to stick to the policy of nationalistic universalism for the time being.
Middle Kingdom Complex.
Though the choice of middle kingdom complex or intermediate zone occupied an important place in China’s foreign policy yet it has lost its relevance now. This concept was evolved by Mao Tse-Tung after the Second World War when there was civil war in China and cold war between the two super powers at the global level. The conduct of United States convinced Mao that while it professed to be neutral, actually it was favoring Chiang Kai Shek. Likewise, the Soviet Union not only harmed the Communist interests by looting the industrial installation at Manchuria but also advised them to avoid a war, because it feared that the war would distill-b the equilibrium between . the two post-war power blocs. Therefore, Mao stressed the need for keeping the revolution alive. He explained international situation in his own ways by saying that the Soviet Union was playing a relatively passive mole and subsequently there was chance of a war between the two Super Powers.
He suggested that under the situation,the third bloc, including China and whole of the capitalist world outside the United States and its dependencies could play a more positive and dynamic role. This was his concept of middle kingdom complex or intermediate zone. Mao explained that the American talk of war with the Soviet Union was a me phobia created by the former to dominate all the cones which lay between the two great powers.
He argued America’s world wide network of bases could be used against the Soviet Union but only after it had mastered the rest of the world. Actually, it was the policy of the American imperialists to harm through peaceful means and oppress all capitalist colonial and semi-colonial countries. Mao believed that the system of military bases and alliances such as NATO, SEATO, CENTO etc. were in reality directed at the very countries which they incorporated. He argued that these countries, including China formed the real battle ground for the fight with imperialism. Therefore, he gave a clarion call to all the democratic forces which found themselves in contradiction with the United States to come together to form a united front against it.
In the late fifties Mao adopted a dual strategy for the execution of his middle kingdom concept. On the one hand he tried to improve the economic and military strength of China so that it could. play an effective role in the world affairs and on the other hand he actively supported the struggles of the intermediate zone because he was convinced that here alone the world-wide offensive of imperialism could be blunted. That is why, throughout the sixties China projected an image among the third world countries that it was a revolutionary power that liked to support nationalist movement elsewhere.
After the Sion-Soviet rift, Mao further modified his concept of the intermediate zone. in 1964 Mac pointed out that there existed two intermediate zones in the world. Asia, Africa and Latin America constitute the first intermediate zone. Europe, North America and Oceania constitute the second. Mao did include the East European countries in the second intermediate zone as they were the part of Soviet hegemony. The major capitalist countries of the second zone except the two super powers were also subjected to the control, intervention and bullying of two overlords to varying degrees and the contradictions between these countries and the two super powers were daily developing. Thus, in Mao’s concept intermediary zone of the intermediate zone countries were placed between two super powers on the one hand and the socialist countries on the other.
The Middle Kingdom concept of Mao’s China could not gain popularity among nations. Rather third world countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America were attracted towards non-aligned movement. After the demise of Mao in the mid seventies his successors abandoned to a great extent? Mao’s foreign policy. Moreover international situation has also undergone a sea change. There is neither cold war nor bipolar-ism instead process of detente is going on not only between the USA and Russia but also between the USA and China and further more between Russia and China. Soviet bloc has since ‘ ’ crumbled and the Soviet Union as a world power has disintegrated. In the post-Mao scenario of China as well as of the world, Middle Kingdom concept is of little relevance.