INSTRUCTOR : Mr.

Muammad Zafar
Roll No :- HUSS221107023
PRESENTED BY :- Inam Hussain
Class :- Bs-IRRE-4
Course :- Foreign Policy Analysis

Foreign Policy Process

Foreign policy is the process by which countries influence each other to protect and advance their
national interests and values. The process of making foreign policy involves a number of stages, including:

 Assessing the international and domestic political environment

 Formulating a comprehensive plan based on knowledge and experience
 Determining the best foreign policy option
 Taking concrete courses of action to attain objectives

Foreign policy is influenced by various factors such as domestic considerations, the behavior of other
states, and geopolitical strategies. Foreign policymakers have many tools at their disposal, which
generally fall into three broad categories: political, economic, and military. Some tools of foreign policy
include: Diplomacy, Trade policy, Economic sanctions, Arms control, and Intelligence.

Foreign policymaking can be more effective when it is internationally coordinated within the appropriate
time frame and procedures.
 Pakistan
Pakistan’s foreign policy can be understood with respect to three impulses: the normative, statist, and structural. First, the normative impul

se is a constitutive element of the Pakistani nation-state project, including ideological and self-definitional tropes such as culture, values, re

ligion, and history based on its Islamic identity. The key question is to what extent Pakistan’s Islamic identity provides explanations for its f

oreign policy when international relations literature considers the national interest a more reliable predictor of foreign policy than identity

or ideology.

Foreign Policy Formulation in Pakistan: Institutional Framework

In a democratic setup, there are multiple stakeholders at different layers and fields playing their constitutionally
mandated respective roles in the formulation of foreign policy. Pakistan being a functioning democracy, its policy
formulation process, by and large, resembles any nation-state having fairly well-functioning democratic institutio
ns. These are as follows

Parliament
Theoretically, it is the Parliament of the Islamic State of Pakistan that is the supreme policy-making institution, i
ncluding the formulation of the foreign policy of the country.

Cabinet:
Although the Parliament is the supreme policy-making authority in the country, in actual practice, it is the cabine
t, headed by the duly elected chief executive i.e., Prime Minister or the President, which formulates the foreign
policy. The Constitution requires that all-important foreign policy decisions ultimately must be taken by the cabin
et

Foreign Office:
Normally, any foreign policy proposal would be initiated by the Ministry of Foreign affairs which is the focal point
for the initiation of all proposals relating to the foreign affairs of a country. However, there may be cases where a
ny issue relating to any ministry has foreign policy implications.

Armed Forces:
All over the world, armed forces play an extremely crucial role in the making of the foreign policy of any country
for obvious reasons. However, in the case of Pakistan, they play the dominant role. There are multiple reasons fo
r the larger-than-life role played by Pakistan’s armed forces in the political governance of the country,

Non-state Institutions
Although foreign policy formulation is a very structured process involving formal institutions of the country, thre
e non-state institutions provide important inputs in this process. These are the think tanks, media, and civil socie
ty organizations. Think tanks and research institutes play an extremely useful role in any country’s formulation of
policies by providing an independent assessment of the ground realities as well as recommending a course of act
ion.

India
Foreign Policy Making in India falls under the jurisdiction of the Union or Central Government of India. Li
ke any other country, India's foreign policy expands its sphere of influence, strengthens its role across na
tions, and makes its presence feel like an emerging force. The Prime Minister of India and the Ministry of
External Affairs also have an important role in determining Foreign Policy Making in India.Due to the com
plicated global economic scenario, it becomes important to understand the Foreign Policy Making in India.
We have shared the process of policymaking, along with details about the role of the Parliament in policy
making in India here.

About Foreign Policy Making in India

To achieve the goals of foreign policy making in India, 2023 brings several obstacles and opportunities. The rise
of China and its influence on India's neighbourhood, for example, is a source of concern for the country. Moreo
ver, the conclusion of discussions for an EU-China Comprehensive Investment Treaty dispels the idea of Chines
e isolation following the Covid-19 outbreak and strengthens China's position.This brings in the need to pay atte
ntion to foreign policy making in India. Some of the steps that the country should take is increasing convergenc
e with the United States. India must carefully address foreign policy difficulties and harness opportunities to sh
ift the regional power balance.

Which Body Formulates the Foreign Policy Making in India?

Foreign Policy Making in India is a complicated process that involves the participation of several senior-level d
ecision makers. One of the organizations involved in this process is the Ministry of External Affairs. This is the c
entral government institution in charge of foreign affairs. It is officially in charge of foreign policy making in Indi
a, policy execution, and the day-to-day management of international relations.

Here are the details of everyone involved in the process of foreign policy making in India:

 Ministry of External Affairs

 Prime Minister
 Government Agencies
 Political Parties and other interest groups

About the Ministry of External Affairs

 The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) balances and maintains foreign policy making in India.
  A cabinet minister leads the Ministry, supported by the Deputy Foreign Minister.
 The MEA's administrative structure is divided into two categories: territorial divisions and functional di
visions. In its relevant domain, each division is in charge of policy coordination.
 Foreign Policy Making in India is a crucial process directly managed by the Ministry of External Affairs
and the Prime Minister of India.
 With the rise of tensions among several foreign countries, Foreign Policy Making in India has become c
rucial.

Process of Foreign Policy Making in India

Foreign policy is a complicated process mediated by numerous parties' involvement. The issue of international
affairs falls under the jurisdiction of the Union or Central government in India, which is a federal country. Politi
cal parties, the media, pressure organisations, and government structures and authorities such as the Prime Mi
nister and the Ministry of External Affairs have a vital influence on foreign policy making in India.

 Since India has been a functioning democracy, non-government stakeholders have begun to play a mo
re significant role.
 The administration has also launched a public diplomacy apparatus to gather public support for its for
eign policy initiatives both at home and abroad.
 In addition, the development of a new type of information and communication technology has resulte
d in substantial changes in how foreign policy making in India is created and carried out.

Principles of Foreign Policy Making in India

The process of foreign policy making in India requires following certain principles of international standards. H
ere, we have shared some of the essential principles of foreign policy making in India are:

 Mutual respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of each other
 Equality and mutual benefit
 Non-aggression pact
 Peaceful coexistence

China
China’s foreign policy must rely on opaque and behind-the-scenes coordination organs to work through a large
number of bureaucratic agencies of the state, party, and military, whose primary roles are information gatherin
g and the implementation and recommendation of policy. In addition, some new players, such as think tanks, m
edia, local governments, and transnational corporations, have played a variety of roles to influence China’s fore
ign policy. This chapter examines the evolving role of the paramount leader, the foreign policy coordination and
elaboration organs, the bureaucracies, and the new players in the making and transformation of China’s foreign
policy.

1 China's Formal Security Policy Decision-Making Structure

We begin with the assumption that domestic political considerations can influence foreign policy decisions. 2 T
here are some analytic advantages in placing the foreign and security decision-making areas in a domestic cont
ext. The formal rank and authority of different bodies within Chinese domestic politics are relatively well establ
ished. Rank consciousness dictates the way that officials and their agencies interact with each other.

Almost all members of the bodies charged with implementing any policy are first and foremost members of th
e CPC. The Party's power is paramount. The Party's highest body ranks higher than the highest State body's ran
k; the Party outranks all sectors of the State, including government departments; the Party controls the use of
force through the People's Liberation Army (PLA), which is an armed wing of the Party rather than a conventio
nal state army, and the Party controls the consultative mechanisms of the state, which are designed to reflect
popular opinion.

2 The Rule-Makers
The Communist Party of China and the Government of the People's Republic of China have separate decision-
making structures although some entities overlap in function, authority and even personnel. Therefore, within
the formal Chinese political system, decisions are made along dual tracks: the Party track and the State track. F
rom the point of view of understanding how the political system works, there are three major coordination bo
dies of interest: one within the Party and two within the State.

.3 Major Bodies in the Foreign Policy Decision-Making Structure

The ultimate decision-making body on crucial foreign policy issues (and any other issue of utmost relevance) is
the executive committee of the Central Committee, called the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC). The PSC ov
ersees consequential decisions affecting China's major relationships, including the United States, Japan, Russia
and North Korea. The PSC also has to deal with emergencies or international crises, such as border skirmishes
or international incidents. While one assumes that there are a number of so-called ‘point men’ on the PSC cov
ering various strategic issues—Wang Qishan on Sino-US relations, Li Keqiang on the European Union and Zhang
Dejiang on North Korea for example—with the exception of PSC chair Xi Jinping, none of the other members h
ave specific foreign policy responsibilities.

4 The Warring Entities

Historically, the military establishment has been an important interest group in the Chinese political system, an
d it continues to wield substantial clout. Whether the military would like to have a greater role in foreign policy,
decision making is not the focus of this article. However, what is important to note is that the Party leadership
upholds a decision-making system that keeps the military at arm's length from political decision making. The m
ilitary has a completely different governance structure than other areas of the Chinese state. This provides it w
ith a good deal of autonomy over its own professional and operational activities

5 Old System, New World: Problems of Chinese Foreign Policy Maki

ng

All foreign policy actors claim to operate in the name of China's national interests—and thus almost all actions
can be justified. The Ministry of Commerce promotes China's prosperity; the People's Liberation Army defends
China's sovereignty; the oil companies ensure China's energy security; local governments raise living standards;
netizens uphold China's dignity, and so on. When this is combined with the natural bureaucratic instinct of ensu
ring sufficient resources for one's department, conflations of interest can emerge. For example, the PLA is pron
e to exaggerate the tensions over maritime interests to ensure sufficient funding for new vessels and aircraft; a
nd in doing so, it is likely to find a natural ally in the one or more of the national oil companies aspiring to explo
re resources in contested waters.
 United States of America

The Branches and Foreign Policy

The U.S. Constitution divides power between the three branches of government: the legislative, the exec
utive and the judicial. It also gives each branch some check on the other. The President can veto legislatio
n; Congress can override the President’s veto; the courts can declare a law of Congress or an act of the Pr
esident unconstitutional. Foreign policy is thus split amongst different governmental structures.

The Senate
The framers, suspicious of executive power, regarded Congress as the most “democratic” of the three bra
nches. Congress’s power to tax and control government spending —the “power of the purse” —is possibl
y its most important. Although the President usually cannot spend money not appropriated by Congress,
he has always been granted some latitude in emergencies.
The Constitution assigns the Senate a distinctive role in the foreign policy process—to advise the Presiden
t in negotiating agreements, to consent to them once they have been signed, and to approve presidential
appointments, including the Secretary of State, other high officials of the State Department, ambassadors
and career foreign service officers.

The President
Under the Constitution, the President serves as head of state and head of government. In most other gov
ernments (Britain’s and Germany’s, for example), the two functions are separate. As head of state, the Pr
esident is, in effect, the personification of the U.S.: its visible image, its official voice and its primary repre
sentative to the outside world. As head of government, he formulates foreign policy, supervises its imple
mentation and attempts to obtain the resources to support it. He also organizes and directs the departme
nts and agencies that play a part in the foreign policy process. Along with the Vice President, he is the onl
y government official elected nationally. This places him in a unique position to identify, express and purs
ue the “national interests” of the U.S.

The Policy making Machinery

Making foreign policy requires the participation of the President, the executive branch, Congress and the
public. Conducting foreign policy, on the other hand, is the exclusive prerogative of the President and his
subordinates in the executive branch. The distinction is fuzzy but important: you make policy when you d
ecide to protect the security of the Persian Gulf; you conduct policy when you send the Navy to do it.

Department of State
Until World War II, one agency, the Department of State, established in 1789 and the highest-ranking Cab
inet department, and one individual, the Secretary of State, who is directly responsible to the President,
managed foreign affairs. The traditional functions of the State Department and its professional diplomatic
corps, the Foreign Service, include: negotiating on behalf of the U.S. government with foreign governmen
ts and in international organizations; defending U.S. position in the world;

The Pentagon and Security

The U.S. emerged from World War II a nuclear superpower with global interests, necessitating expanded
departments to handle foreign policy, and chiefly, security. Military power serves as an instrument of dipl
omacy—as a means of achieving goals defined by civilian officials of the government. The head of the Def
ense Department is a civilian secretary who serves in the President’s Cabinet. The principal military advise
r to the President is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a strategy board consisting of the senior offi
cers of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

Formation of Foreign Policy

George Washington once remarked that the U.S. ought to have the most successful foreign policy of any
country in the world because it had so many self-styled secretaries of state. Since his day, the difficulty of
developing a cohesive, relevant and feasible foreign policy has increased enormously.
Theoretically, the process of formulation should begin with a clear definition of the national interests, foll
owed by a delineation of the policies that would promote those interests and the course of action by the
various departments and agencies that would further those policies, as well as the allocation of the resou
rces needed to carry them out. In practice, no system is likely to produce a cohesive, viable and supporta
ble foreign policy. The national interest is a cluster of particular interests, and the agencies and staffs invo
lved may have very different views as to what it should be. The government’s uneven response to the so-
called “Arab Spring” is just one example of the U.S.’s ever-shifting foreign policy.