SOURCES OF FOREIGN POLICY: ORIENTATIONS AND ROLES

The structure of the international system is a basic condition affecting the orienta­tions of states. The several historical examples provided in Chapter 2 illustrate the fate of states in various types of systems: In the hierarchical system, submis­sion and dependence are the main orientations; in the polar system, states that seek security through isolation or nonalignment generally fail. They are reduced to vassal states by bloc leaders, or, in some cases, they are simply destroyed and incorporated into the territory of bloc or alliance leaders. For instance, in the polar structure of the Greek system, the smaller allies of Athens and Sparta had few alternatives in their foreign-policy orientations. They had to be faithful allies and pay tributes of taxes and armed forces or face occupation by the bloc leaders. In general we can conclude that the orientations of most states in a bloc, multibloc, or hierarchical system are determined by the interests of the superior powers. Put in the form of a hypothesis, the more cohesive a polar or hierarchical system, the less latitude of choice or freedom of action remains for the weaker

315 Explanations of Foreign-Policy Outputs

members of the system; likewise, opportunities for changing orientations and roles are limited. Orientations are determined by the general distribution of power in the system and by the needs and interests of the major actors.

In the diffuse system, where power is distributed widely among the mem­bers, orientations may be explained better by the presence or absence of specific-threats, geographic location, and internal needs, as well as other factors discussed later in this chapter. Alliances can be explained best by a common perception of threat by two or more states, although common values and ideologies at least help to maintain cohesiveness in the alliance. National needs (apart from security) and geographic location have not been shown to be important condi­tions underlying decisions to make military alliances. Some have been organized to provide security against internal threats; but even in this case, all the parties to the coalition perceive the internal threat in one state to be a threat to their own interests as well.

Explanations of nonalignment are often cast in terms of internal political needs of new regimes, particularly in those states beset by ethnic, religious, and language divisions or by a history of colonial occupation. It has often been asserted that nonalignment is adopted as a means of providing one's indepen­dence and giving an outlet for nationalism. However, some of the more tradi­tional nonaligned states, such as Switzerland and Finland, cannot be understood in terms of domestic political needs. Rather, their orientations can be explained better by reference to geographic location (Finland as bordering the Soviet Union), traditional policies (Switzerland's neutrality has been established since 1815), and narrower calculations of the best ways to meet specific problems related to national security. Perception of threat is certainly not a sufficient condition to explain nonalignment or isolation. Some states choose these orienta­tions as a means of coping with external dangers, but there are many nonaligned states today that have no particular security problem.

It should be apparent that these generalizations are not satisfactory from an empirical point of view. Aside from the effect of threats on alliance orientations or the impact of bloc or hierarchical structures on orientations in general, we cannot claim with any degree of accuracy that condition A leads to orientation B. The research that would allow such statements to be made has not yet been undertaken. More important, it is virtually impossible to weigh the relative impact of the various systemic or national conditions in explaining any particular orienta­tion. In any given case, all the factors might be relevant, but there is as yet no precise way to measure how important each of them is.

High-level policy makers divulge at least some of the sources of national role conceptions. They define their governments' ongoing tasks and functions in the international system or within regions, and, in so doing, they occasionally point out why their country should fulfill these roles. In one obvious case, Charles de Gaulle often claimed that France's role of regional leader within Europe was to be understood in terms of the traditional position of that country on the continent. The main source of the role conception was a notion of traditional

Table 12-1Sources of National Role Conceptions

responsibilities of leadership—at least as defined by de Gaulle. In other cases, the presence of certain role conceptions could be explained by such conditions as perceptions of threat, weak or strong capabilities, traditional roles, economic needs, and the like. Table 12-1 lists the sixteen national role conceptions found in recent policy statements of government leaders and some of the factors that were cited in these statements as reasons why the roles were adopted.¹

If we aggregate these sources, three general types of explanatory vari­ables emerge. National roles can be explained by reference to (1) external condi­tions, (2) national attributes, and (3) ideological or attitudinal attributes. Table 12-2 displays the individual sources according to these three general categories.

Research that would measure the relative importance of these sources of national role conceptions has not yet been undertaken. In the absence of reasonably precise studies covering many states over a considerable period of time, one cannot make formal casual statements. However, a few impressions can be offered. First, some of the very active roles, such as bastion of the revolu­tion or antiimperialist agent, are strongly linked to ideologies; the governments concerned see themselves as having certain international responsibilities deriving

¹ Table 12-1 is reprinted, with amendations, from KJ. Holsti, "National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy," International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 296-297, copyright © 1970 by Wayne State University Press, with permission of Sage Publications, Inc.

Table 12-2Types of Variables Linked to National Role Conceptions

from ideological imperatives. An obvious case would be the Soviet Union. The duty to provide moral, propagandist, and physical support for revolutionary movements is clearly spelled out in terms of the internationalist ethic of commu­nism. Roles such as faithful ally and regional protector are strongly linked to common perceptions of threat.

The reader should keep in mind the three general kinds of variable outlined above. Very similar types of variable can be employed in examining explanations for objectives, decisions, and actions.

Поиск по сайту: