The internal character contain variables such as economic power, military strengths, natural endowment, level of technological development, geographic location, etc. The techniques of identifying the relevant foreign policy variables from the irrelevant ones need an institutional approach and scientific analysis.
Ethiopia stands one of the oldest countries in international relations. Nevertheless, its foreign relations began to take modern shape under Haile Selassie I.
It is during his period that permanent representations have begun and diplomatic missions were opened in many countries. In this respect he became an international figure Arka Abota, There can be no doubt that the attainment of speedy economic development, democratization and peace is fundamental to the survival of the country which finds itself in a state of abject poverty and backwardness.
Unless, the overall policy direction pursued by the Government takes this basic reality into account, our national existence and security will face grave danger. In this respect it is clear to see that our foreign relations and national security policy and strategy can only have relevance if it contributes to the fight against poverty and promotes speedy economic development, democracy and peace. If we do not realize our goals, one can predict that our country will be exposed to great instability and even collapse and our very security, and indeed survival, will be at stake.
The former governments pursued external relations and national security policies that disregarded internal problems that were fundamental to our national condition.
Rather, the effort was to focus on the outside world and to look in from the outside, as it were. Such an approach could not adequately protect our national interest and security. There is no point in trying to pursue a foreign relations and national security policy to be implemented externally without a major and effective in-country effort to realize our vision of development and democratization.
Its effects on the psychology of the people and its adverse impact on our relations with the outside world cannot be underestimated. These is, however, not to say that the country does not have external enemies or that all past policies directed against those who were arrayed against the country were wrong.
What is essential is the necessity to carry out appropriate studies and assessments to distinguish between those whose interests would be negatively affected by our development and democratization efforts, and those who mistakenly believe that their interests would be negatively affected in this way.
It would subsequently be proper to pursue a policy and strategy that would reduce the dangers and threats while ensuring that speedy economic development and democratization process. Currently, Ethiopia has formulated its own foreign affairs and security policy towards the external environments. At the end, the policy shows the policy direction of the state towards the International and non-governmental organizations.
Challenges the Policy It is known that poverty is the only internal enemy that has not been removed still from Ethiopia. Otherwise, Ethiopia is an independent country that never colonized by foreign countries. But, although the state has a long history with its nation and nationalities without being colonized, there are internal and external challenges they have been affect the struggle against poverty and backwardness. These challenges are related to political, social and economical nature of the country itself in specific and its neighbor countries and internationally in general.
As has clearly been indicated in our Foreign and National Security Policy and Strategy, it is not just the normal type of economic development that we need, but a rapid one.
That, we have said, is an imperative necessity for maintaining the very viability of Ethiopia as a country. The same applies with respect to the work we have in connection with our democratization agenda. For a country as diverse as Ethiopia, its survival also hinges on the strengthening and deepening of democracy in our country. But, to do that there are challenges that may categorized as internal and external depending on their origin.
The foreign relation policy should formulate based on the national interest of the country that could not IRJBM — www. The foreign relation policy can affect the economic growth of the nation.
In general the internal challenges are: The nature of relations among the nations, nationalities and peoples of the state, the development level and resource availability of different regions, political difference between ruling party and other political parties, the relationship between the people and the state, the attitude of the society towards its neighbor states, the issue of poverty reduction struggle at national level, 1.
These challenges may relate with: the political difference and border conflict with Eritrea, political disorder in Somalia and in Sudan, illegal trades and migrations across the neighborhoods, The global economic crisis and foreign political interference on national interest. Conflicts on nation-buildings and interests with other countries like with Egypt, 3. Policy response towards the internal and external challenges The foreign affairs and security policy of Ethiopia is formulated based on the constitution of the country.
As a result, according to Article 86 of the constitution sub -article deals about: 1 to promote policies of foreign relations based on the protection of national interests and respect for the sovereignty of the country. Based on this, foreign policy is a policy consists of self-interest strategies chosen by the state to safeguard its national interests and to achieve its goals within international relations environment.
This implies, as the foreign affairs and security policy is formulated based on the constitution of the land, it has an empirical response to these challenges that may happen within the state.
From the perspective of national economic development agenda, for regional stability and peace-in short, in light of fundamental national interest framed by development and security-utmost priority are given to the relations between Ethiopia and other states. The policy response towards the external challenges is also clearly involved under the policy direction of the policy document.
This means, the external challenges are taken in to consideration. But, the developmental struggle of Ethiopia is disturbing by neighbor countries. Because, the political disorder in Somalia, border issue with Eritrea, and the internal problem in Sudan has been affecting the stability of the horn of Africa and the continent in general.
In order to create a peaceful political, social and economic relation, the country has diplomatic ambassadors in the neighbors and other states. International treaties are usually negotiated by diplomats prior to endorsement by national politicians. In general, what happen in other countries, the foreign affaire and security policy of Ethiopia is based on the constitution of the land in development and building of democratic system, and the international law.
As a result Ethiopia has been playing a great role to create a peaceful and stable nation, continent and glop. Therefore, this can become the response of challenges internally and externally. Objectives of the Policy The failure to realize development and democracy has resulted in our security being threatened. It has meant that we have remained impoverished, dependent and unable to hold our heads high.
The prospect of disintegration cannot be totally ruled out. In doing so, we can consolidate our existence as a nation, and preserve our honors. The goal of foreign and security policy is to ensure international conditions that are conducive to achieving national development and democratic objectives.
In addition to this, the basis and goal of the foreign and national security policy is defined as realizing development and democracy of the country. To bring about development and realize it in the framework of globalization, the state needs extensive market opportunities, investment and technical support.
For some time yet, Ethiopia will also needs grants and loans to finance its development endeavors. The country also requires considerable technical and financial support to build and strengthen institutions of democratic governance, so crucial for the growth of democracy. The objective of foreign policy is exactly related to domestic interests of the state. Beside to that the main objective of the policy will be to create an enabling environment for development and democracy and, in this context, it helps to identify markets, attract investment, solicit grants, loans and technical support and make maximum utilization of all possibilities.
The Ethiopia diplomatic work must aim at eliminating or at least reducing external security threats. Basing itself on national efforts to overcome the danger of strife and collapse emanating from within, the foreign and national security policy has the objective of resisting external threats to our security and building our capacity to reduce our vulnerability.
The Foreign Affairs and National Security policy Strategies The foreign affairs and security policy has the following policy strategies 5. We need therefore to focus our efforts on the domestic front. Unless, we will be concerned mainly with attempting to meet external demands and requirements.
Because, our national interests and security will be guaranteed only if rapid development is attained. Therefore, the policy focused on the poverty reduction strategies of the nation. According to the policy, lists of priorities are market opportunities, investment, technical and financial support for internal economic development and democratization.
The state needs political, diplomatic, military and technical support for the maintenance of internal security. We have to differentiate between assistance that contributes significantly to our development and building of a democratic order and aid that has a more modest impact. This requires detailed investigation. Foreign Service work should be based on studies and proper coordination. In so far as our main goal is development and democracy, what is threatening is what hampers our efforts in promoting them.
Our study of the sources of danger involves identifying those forces whose interests could be negatively affected by the process of development and democratization in Ethiopia. There may also be some who incorrectly believe to be threatened by progress in Ethiopia, which requires further assessment. It is visible, that to protect these interests and maintain our national existence, we need to address and do away with these threats-first of all internally.
It is a given that, external threats are extensions of the national or domestic challenges that we face. It is important in general that the basic strategy that we employ to reach our foreign policy and security objectives should be the reduction of vulnerability by correctly identifying and then dealing with the problem at the source.
The creation of a capable national defense force is similarly central to the protection of our security. Clearly the challenge in the building of a strong defense is that of the availability of resources. This leads us to examine some approaches that are presented below a Capacity building on the basis of a thorough threat analysis b Building capacity by focusing on manpower development c Cost-effective use of financial resources d Ensuring symbiotic linkage between defense expenditure and the economy e Building capacity in the context of economic development and current threats 5.
Rather it should implement based on:- a Forging national consensus-Foreign relations and national security goals are all about development, democracy and survival. The task cannot be left to a few professionals or politicians.
People as a whole can, in a manner, participate. Our foreign and security policies and strategies, including our relations with various countries should be made transparent to the public so that various sections of the community discuss these policies, improve on them and reach a common position. They are expected to elaborate and implement a plan designed to make the policies effective.
For professionals of this caliber to come to the fore, it is necessary for the nation to reach a common understanding on the main elements of the national interests and security issues. Without such a common understanding, the proliferation of diplomats and researchers would not allow us to protect our national interests and unity in a coordinated way.
Government ministries and institutions that are directly or indirectly concerned with foreign and national security affairs should coordinate their work.
That is one thing. In addition, Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Security should coordinate their work with ministries and institutions in the economic and the social sector in view of the fact that the economy is central for diplomatic work.
It is of utmost priority for these ministries to develop their manpower, their organizational structure and procedures so that they are effective in carrying out their responsibilities, including the responsibilities dealing with foreign affairs and security. Isolated efforts will not bring results. These institutions need to coordinate their work and reorganize themselves accordingly. Ethiopians in the Diaspora could also play an important role in carrying out research and investing at home.
They could act as a bridge between Ethiopian companies and firms in their land of residence, thereby promoting investment and trade ties while seeking markets for Ethiopian products. In this world so closely interconnected through globalization, civil society has started to play a more important role in relations between countries. Religious organizations, professional associations and NGOs have been building links with fraternal organizations all over the world and are striving to spread the benefits of globalization around.
In this way, they contribute to development and the building of democracy. They are becoming new forms of inter-country interchange. It is when we strengthen our networking, when we seek the widest participation, and when we play a key coordinating role that we can build our capacity to deliver what is needed to protect our interests and security.
The foreign relations and national security policy and strategy are designed to address the gaps that need to be filled. The external environment is viewed from the prism of national situation and condition, and this ensures that the policy and strategy have relevance to national security and survival. This means, the policy derived from the national interest of the state in case of the internal peace and security, then after, it goes towards the external environment so as to avoid the external threats that can affect the poverty struggle of the country.
The policy emphasized on the poverty reduction strategies and creates a pleasant condition to the economic growth of the country in terms of stabilizing the political, social and economical relations with neighbor countries and the international communities. In general the following are the primary issues that described as a core focus areas on the foreign affairs and security policy of the state. Development and the building of a democratic system:- According to the foreign policy of the country; benefiting from rapid development means, living a life free from poverty, ignorance and backwardness.
And, the primary interest of the people is to live freeform poverty, disease and ignorance. The policy added that rapid development is not merely important in raising the standard of living of the people, but also a guarantee of national survival. Unless the society can bring about rapid development that benefits the people, the nation will not be able to avoid chaos and disintegration. Therefore, assuring accelerated development and raising the living standard of people is critical in preventing the country from disaster and dismemberment.
This is a fundamental issue on which the interests and the survival of the people of Ethiopia depend. In consequence, a seri- ous division has opened up, not for the first time, between the normal discourse of democratic mass politics and the professional discourse of academic commentators.
On the other side of the coin various forms of nationalist reaction have taken place against the idea that a given society might have to accept limits on its freedom of action by virtue of inhabiting a common international system, and there are too many examples of groups, even whole nations, believing that survival requires a foreign policy geared to a degree of brutal self- interest barely imaginable even by Thomas Hobbes.
These various divisions mean at best that debates are conducted at cross-purposes and at worst that in the area of external policy the dem- ocratic process is severely compromised. It is my hope in this book to go some way towards redressing the imbalance caused by people talking past each other.
I aim to provide a conceptualization of foreign policy that might stand some chance both of bringing its usefulness back into focus for an academic subject which seems to have lost interest in actions and decisions, and of helping pub- lic debate about international affairs to evolve in the direction of under- standing the interplay between the state and its external context. Foreign policy needs liberating from the narrow and over-simplified views that are often held of it, and International Relations as a sub- ject needs to move forward in reconstituting its notions of agency after the waves of attacks on realism in recent decades, which have estab- lished the weakness of state-centric accounts without putting much in their place.
The approach taken here is to rework the idea of foreign policy, not to defend a particular school of thought or appeal to a mythological past of paradigmatic unity and shared discourse.
Too many people have doubts about the contemporary function of foreign policy for the issue to be brushed aside. Equally, there is widespread bewilderment as to where we can realistically expect meaningful actions to be taken in international relations, and over the appropriate contemporary roles of states, international organizations, pressure groups, businesses and pri- vate individuals.
Is the focus to be reduced to the rump of what diplomats say to each other, which would leave out many of the most interesting aspects of international politics, or should it be widened to include almost everything that emanates from every actor on the world scene? This genuine dilemma over what foreign policy includes has led some to assume that its content is now minimal, and that agency lies else- where, with transnational enterprises of various kinds. It has led others to ignore the question of agency altogether, as if in embarrassment, con- centrating their attention on structures — power balances for neo-realists, international regimes for liberals, and markets for the gurus of global- ization.
Both of these reactions represent a trahison des clercs, as they lead to the neglect of a wide range of activities with the potential for influencing the lives of millions. A brief definition of foreign policy can be given as follows: the sum of official external relations conducted by an independent actor usually a state in international relations.
In a world where important international disputes occur over the price of bananas or illegal immi- gration it would be absurd to concentrate foreign policy analysis on relations between national diplomatic services.
Conversely low politics — in the sense of routine exchanges contained within knowable limits and rarely reaching the public realm — can be observed in NATO or OSCE multilateralism as much as perhaps more than in discussions over fish or airport landing rights. Thus the intrinsic content of an issue is not a guide to its level of political salience or to the way it will be handled, except in the tautological sense that any issue which blows up into a high-level international conflict and almost anything has the potential so to do will lead to decision-makers at the highest level suddenly taking over responsibility — their relations with the experts who had been managing the matter on a daily basis then become a matter of some moment, which can be studied as a typical problem of foreign policy analysis.
The idea of foreign policy also implies both politics and coherence. It is natural that foreign policy should be seen as a political activity, given the at best informally structured nature of the international system, but as we have already seen, it is difficult to predict in advance what is likely to rise up the political agenda. There is a similar issue with coherence. That very often the system of policy-making fails to live up to these aspirations is beside the point; the pursuit of a foreign or health, or education policy is about the effort to carry through some generally conceived strategy, usually on the basis of a degree of rationality, in the sense that objectives, time-frames and instruments are at least brought into focus.
Thus foreign policy must always be seen as a way of trying to hold together or make sense of the various activities which the state or even the wider community is engaged in internationally. In that sense it is one way in which a society defines itself, against the backcloth of the outside world. Competing Approaches Foreign policy may be approached in many different ways within International Relations.
The tools of decision- making analysis are readily adaptable to detailed cases, and the opening up of many state archives has made it impossible to avoid evidence of such pathologies as bureaucratic politics or small group dynamics.
In the United States in particular, there has been a deliberate encourage- ment of links between historians and political scientists, with much useful cross-fertilization. Area-studies are strong in both the United Kingdom and, particularly so, in France, as any reading of Le Monde will demonstrate.
United States foreign policy naturally generates most analysis, although from regrettably few non- Americans. Unless welcomed by IR in general they will inevitably be forced into the camps of either history or comparative politics, which will be to the gain of the latter but much to the detriment of International Relations. Realism is the best known approach in IR, and the most criticized. It is the traditional way in which practitioners have thought about interna- tional relations, emphasizing the importance of power in a dangerous, unpredictable world.
Much realist thought was more subtle than this summary allows, as any encounter with the work of E. This is ironical given that FPA grew up in reaction to the assumption of classical realism that the state was a single, coherent actor pursuing clear national interests in a rational manner, with varying degrees of success according to the tal- ents of particular leaders and the constraints of circumstance.
The work done in FPA invariably challenged the ideas of rationality, coherence, national interest and external orientation — possibly, indeed, to excess. As will be shown below, it is fundamentally pluralist in orientation. His view was that the international sys- tem was dominant in certain key respects. By the same token it has had less appeal elsewhere.
In neo-realist theory, foreign policy, with its associated interest in domestic politics and in decision-making, was simply not relevant, and indeed barely discussed. Waltz can be accused of inconsistency, since his previous book had been about the differences between US and UK ways of making foreign policy, concluding that the more open American system was also the more efficient.
Neo-realism therefore deals in levels of analysis, with foreign policy analysis operating at the level of the explanation of particular units. This is not the place to debate the overall value of neo-realism in IR. It is important, however, to show that it is unsatisfactory — because highly limiting — as an approach to foreign policy. In Chapter 2 I shall discuss the underlying issues of structure and agency. For the moment, it is worth stressing how few interesting political and intellectual problems are left for an actor in a system which operates in the top—down manner envisaged by Waltz and his colleagues.
For neo-realism has a deterministic quality which is at odds with the tendency of FPA to stress the open interplay of multiple factors, domestic and interna- tional. An approach which has so far had little particular impact on the study of foreign policy, although it is widely disseminated elsewhere in polit- ical science, is that of rational choice, or public choice in some recent incarnations.
This is partly because FPA grew up attacking the assump- tion of rational action on the part of a unitary actor with given goals usually power maximization which was associated with realism. It continues to be the case because few IR scholars of any persuasion believe that the explanation of international relations can be reduced to the individual preferences of decision-makers seeking votes, political support, personal advantage or some other kind of measurable currency.
Rational choice has grown out of the individualist assumptions of eco- nomics, and in its stress on power as currency and on the drive towards equilibrium it is closely related to neo-realism. Yet the collective action problems are particularly acute in international relations. Public choice theory addresses this very problem of collective action, and the converse, that policies agreed jointly often bipartisanly may be remote from the actual preferences of individual politicians — let alone those of the voters.
Even here, however, the necessary assumption that states are unified actors is difficult to sustain empiri- cally. More generally, the economic formalism of the public choice approach and the contortions it must perform to cope with such matters as competing values, geopolitics and conceptions of international soci- ety limit its ability to generate understanding.
Like game theory, public choice can be of considerable heuristic use, but to start from an assump- tion of unitary decision-making optimizing given preferences, with the influences which shape preferences bracketed out, limits the applicability to actual cases. In recent years the wave of post-positivism has brought a new per- spective to bear on foreign policy. This is because politics is constituted by language, ideas and values. We cannot stand outside ourselves and make neutral judgements.
That this view has incited considerable controversy is not the issue here. More relevant is the extra dimension it has given to for- eign policy studies — another competing approach, but one which con- firms the importance of the state. Writers like David Campbell, Roxanne Doty and Henrik Larsen have examined the language of foreign policy and what they see as its dominant, usually disciplinary, discourses. Indeed, foreign policy is important pre- cisely because it reinforces undesirably, in the views of Campbell national and statist culture.
If this approach can be linked more effec- tively to the analysis of choice, and can confront the problem of evi- dence, then it may yet reach out from beyond the circle of the converted to contribute more to our understanding of foreign policy. Language, whether official or private, rhetorical or observational, has a lot to tell us about both mind-sets and actions, and it is a relatively untapped resource.
Since the chapters which follow apply FPA in some detail, there is no need to describe its approach here in more than summary form. FPA enquires into the motives and other sources of the behaviour of international actors, particularly states. It does this by giving a good deal of attention to decision-making, initially so as to probe behind the formal self-descriptions and fictions of the processes of government and public administration.
In so doing it tests the plausible hypothesis that the outputs of foreign policy are to some degree determined by the nature of the decision-making process. As the language used here sug- gests, there was a strong behaviouralist impetus behind the rise of FPA, but the subject has subsequently developed in a much more open-ended way, particularly in Britain. They are already integrated in the sense that foreign policy analysis is underpinned by systems theory, even if there are still many creative interconnections to be explored.
It is time to move on. The Changing International Context The politics of foreign policy are perpetually changing, depending on the country or the region, and by no means always in the same direc- tions. This is why case and country-studies are so important. There is no point in lofty generalizations if they seem beside the point to experts on Guyana, or Germany, or Gabon.
Yet as the result of imperial expansion, world war and economic integration we have had to get used to seeing the world, and the international political system, as a whole.
Changes in the whole are thus real and of great significance for the parts. Con- versely, changes in a particularly important part may lead to upheaval in the system as a whole. We have had a strong sense of this since the implosions of communism, the Cold War and the Soviet Union in the dramatic events of — Each of these great issues will be examined in turn, but only in terms of the implications for foreign policy.
The end of the Cold War with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact in is seen by some as a revolution in international affairs in itself. The end of an empire always alters the outlook and calculations of the other members of the system, and not only at the end of major wars.
The dismantling of the French and British empires between —64 created many new states and seemed to have weakened the two metro- pole powers. Yet adjustment soon takes place. By it had become difficult to remember the world as it was before decolonization, while the position of France and Britain remained remarkably unchanged.
Even to this day their permanent seats on the UN Security Council are not in real danger. On the other hand, both decolonization and the end of the Cold War signalled the death of a set of particular ideas, and the arrival of new possibilities. The nature of a new order may not be imme- diately apparent, but it can be immanent. In the case of and after, what happened was not only the humiliation of a superpower, and the folding up of a set of international institutions, but also the destruction of a major transnational ideology.
This ideology, coupled with the power of the Soviet Union, had acted as a straitjacket for the foreign policies of many different states, not just those in eastern Europe. Poor states needing Soviet aid, or looking for reassurance against American power, all found themselves defined by it.
Opponents, likewise, either turned directly to the US and its allies for fear of international communism, or self-consciously adopted a strategy of non-alignment in the hope of escaping the bipolar trap. Some states found themselves the victims of various kinds of intervention in any case. Large resources were consumed by those who saw themselves rightly or wrongly as threatened by Soviet communism. All this has now disappeared. There is no communist aid or interven- tionism.
There is no anti-communist excuse for western interventionism. Resources are or should be released for other purposes, domestic and international. Internal politics have, in many cases, been reconfigured as the result of the ideological straitjacket being removed.
Indeed, for some states the very relationship between foreign and domestic politics has been cast into the melting pot. In some rather unpredictable states, politics has been shaken up by the removal of the old orthodoxy. France has found it eas- ier to move into a working relationship with NATO, and Italy has begun to develop a more confident national foreign policy.
In both countries the domestic environment has become more fluid as the result of the demoralization of what were previously strong communist parties. Globalization, by contrast, is seen by many as having rendered foreign policy redundant. At least, the large numbers who write about global- ization give this impression by the simple fact of ignoring it.
Globalization in its turn has been boosted by political change, notably the emergence of the confident states of east Asia in the wake of the Vietnam war, and the collapse of the communist bloc in Europe.
It is always a bad mistake to assume that the present will resemble the past, but in the case of foreign policy and globalization there seem to be good reasons for supposing that the death of foreign policy has been forecast prema- turely. Discounting the possibility of world government, this could conceivably come about by stealth, through the emergence of global governance in the form of a net of issue-based regimes, in which units took up positions on the merits of a problem, without concern for community-based link- ages.
Much more significant in terms of the impact of globalization is likely to be a reshuffled relationship between foreign policy and foreign economic policy. In times of stability, as the post period seemed at first likely to be, it is natural to expect that economics will occupy a central place in foreign policy.
Modernity heightens this expectation. Although Europe at least seems to have exchanged a period of grim stability in the Cold War for one of mixed hope and turbulence, this trend need not be denied. Much of foreign policy for modern states is about promoting prosperity as much as security, and indeed about blurring the two con- cepts together. Governments simply become subtle and varied in their strategies for protecting the welfare of their citizens, sometimes working together with other states, sometimes intervening indirectly even illegally to win contracts, and sometimes using tradi- tional means, such as defence expenditure, for reasons of economic policy.
This does not make any fundamental difference to the fact that states need some form of external strategy, and machinery, for managing their external environment.
0コメント