The document discusses the foreign policy processes of Pakistan, India, and China. It outlines the key institutions and factors involved in formulating foreign policy in each country, including roles of government bodies like the cabinet, foreign ministry, and armed forces. It also discusses principles of foreign policy making and how domestic politics can influence decisions.
The document discusses the foreign policy processes of Pakistan, India, and China. It outlines the key institutions and factors involved in formulating foreign policy in each country, including roles of government bodies like the cabinet, foreign ministry, and armed forces. It also discusses principles of foreign policy making and how domestic politics can influence decisions.
The document discusses the foreign policy processes of Pakistan, India, and China. It outlines the key institutions and factors involved in formulating foreign policy in each country, including roles of government bodies like the cabinet, foreign ministry, and armed forces. It also discusses principles of foreign policy making and how domestic politics can influence decisions.
The document discusses the foreign policy processes of Pakistan, India, and China. It outlines the key institutions and factors involved in formulating foreign policy in each country, including roles of government bodies like the cabinet, foreign ministry, and armed forces. It also discusses principles of foreign policy making and how domestic politics can influence decisions.
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 impulse is a constitutive element of the Pakistani nation-state project, including ideological and self-definitional tropes such as culture, values, religion, and history based on its Islamic identity. The key question is to what extent Pakistan’s Islamic identity provides explanations for its foreign 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 institutions. These are as follows Parliament Theoretically, it is the Parliament of the Islamic State of Pakistan that is the supreme policy-making institution, including 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 cabinet, 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 cabinet
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 any 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 for 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, three non-state institutions provide important inputs in this process. These are the think tanks, media, and civil society 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 action. India
Foreign Policy Making in India falls under the jurisdiction of the Union or Central Government of India. Like any other country, India's foreign policy expands its sphere of influence, strengthens its role across nations, 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 complicated 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 policymaking 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. Moreover, the conclusion of discussions for an EU-China Comprehensive Investment Treaty dispels the idea of Chinese isolation following the Covid-19 outbreak and strengthens China's position.This brings in the need to pay attention to foreign policy making in India. Some of the steps that the country should take is increasing convergence with the United States. India must carefully address foreign policy difficulties and harness opportunities to shift 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 decision makers. One of the organizations involved in this process is the Ministry of External Affairs. This is the central government institution in charge of foreign affairs. It is officially in charge of foreign policy making in India, 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 divisions. 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 crucial.
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. Political parties, the media, pressure organisations, and government structures and authorities such as the Prime Minister 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 more significant role. • The administration has also launched a public diplomacy apparatus to gather public support for its foreign policy initiatives both at home and abroad. • In addition, the development of a new type of information and communication technology has resulted 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. Here, 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 gathering and the implementation and recommendation of policy. In addition, some new players, such as think tanks, media, local governments, and transnational corporations, have played a variety of roles to influence China’s foreign 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.
We begin with the assumption that domestic political considerations can influence foreign policy decisions. 2 There are some analytic advantages in placing the foreign and security decision-making areas in a domestic context. The formal rank and authority of different bodies within Chinese domestic politics are relatively well established. 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 the CPC. The Party's power is paramount. The Party's highest body ranks higher than the highest State body's rank; 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 conventional 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. From the point of view of understanding how the political system works, there are three major coordination bodies 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 oversees 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 covering 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 have specific foreign policy responsibilities. 4 The Warring Entities
Historically, the military establishment has been an important interest group in the Chinese political system, and 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 military has a completely different governance structure than other areas of the Chinese state. This provides it with a good deal of autonomy over its own professional and operational activities 5 Old System, New World: Problems of Chinese Foreign Policy Making
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 ensuring sufficient resources for one's department, conflations of interest can emerge. For example, the PLA is prone to exaggerate the tensions over maritime interests to ensure sufficient funding for new vessels and aircraft; and in doing so, it is likely to find a natural ally in the one or more of the national oil companies aspiring to explore 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 executive and the judicial. It also gives each branch some check on the other. The President can veto legislation; Congress can override the President’s veto; the courts can declare a law of Congress or an act of the President 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 branches. Congress’s power to tax and control government spending —the “power of the purse” —is possibly 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 President 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 governments (Britain’s and Germany’s, for example), the two functions are separate. As head of state, the President is, in effect, the personification of the U.S.: its visible image, its official voice and its primary representative to the outside world. As head of government, he formulates foreign policy, supervises its implementation and attempts to obtain the resources to support it. He also organizes and directs the departments and agencies that play a part in the foreign policy process. Along with the Vice President, he is the only government official elected nationally. This places him in a unique position to identify, express and pursue 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 decide 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 Cabinet 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 governments 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 diplomacy—as a means of achieving goals defined by civilian officials of the government. The head of the Defense Department is a civilian secretary who serves in the President’s Cabinet. The principal military adviser to the President is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a strategy board consisting of the senior officers 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, followed 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 resources needed to carry them out. In practice, no system is likely to produce a cohesive, viable and supportable foreign policy. The national interest is a cluster of particular interests, and the agencies and staffs involved 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.
