Category: Foreign Policy

One has to recognise geographical realities for the unequal growth of nations is the cause, directly or indirectly, of the great wars of history and is in large measure the result of the uneven distribution of fertility and strategical opportunity upon the face of our globe—Sir Halford Mackinder.

Geography consists of largely the answers to the question ‘where is it?’ whether in reference to a state or to any other part of the earth’s surface. Christopher Hill (2003) contends that while refusing to accept the validity of this inadequate view, geographers will admit that the locational factor in the study of a state is of great importance but will also agree that the value of position alters with changing conditions in many ways. Hill maintains that the location of a state does indeed affect its political geography in an intimate way (Hill, 2003).

In Europe which contains more independent states than any other area of comparable size, the strategic aspect of location receives a great deal of attention. No one who is familiar with Germany during the inter-war years will deny the effects on the country’s internal affairs of fears which were centred on the dangers of encirclement. Carlton Synder (1962) points out that closely allied with the locational factor as a geographical element in the internal affairs of the state, are considerations of size and shape. Every state has grown to its present size from relatively small beginnings in the form of a nuclear area from which expansion has taken place and which generally remains a dominant position in the internal organization. Upon closer examination one would notice that France grew out of L’Ile de France, U.S.A grew out of the original thirteen colonies on the Atlantic seaboard, the U.S.S.R out of Muscovy and, to show that the workings of this principle are not confined to modern times; the Roman Empire grew out of a small nucleus in Latium. As a result, one could conclude that size or space inevitably plays a major role in the organisation of a state if for no other reason than the fact that its relationship with its nuclear areas must be facilitated and organised. Failure to tie together the outlying parts with the centre will inevitably leave the former open to the threat of acquisition by rival states.

Roy Macridis and Robert Art (1992) affirms that “the foreign policy of a state is usually dominated by one or more aspects of its relations with other states”. The Soviet Union, for example, back then, appeared to be obsessed with the desire for military security, behind which it had hoped to achieve economic and social reconstruction in line with its particular theories. Again, the foreign relations of France as well as its internal affairs were largely dominated by fear of possible German aggression. On the other hand, the countries of the Far East, including India, China and Indonesia were still concerned with furthering their independence from the political and economic dominance of non-Asian powers and with a pronounced growth of nationalist tendencies and their external relationships, were accordingly biased by these considerations. Macridis maintain that one can scarcely hope to understand the foreign policies and interactions of states without the use of maps (Macridis and Art, 1992). For though maps like all models are indispensable they can be tricky tools when used with knowledge of their properties and limitations, as maps can illuminate almost every international problem.

Harold Sprout and Margaret Sprout (1960) comes close to arguing that the non-human environment of the Soviet Union presented permanently disabling obstacles to successful Soviet competition with Western Europe and the United States. They wrote “Geography has imposed permanent limitations on the development of the Soviet Union. Man can do much but the restrictions of great distances, remoteness from the ocean, terrain, short growing seasons, inadequate and variable rainfall and in addition continentality will always remain…the geographic potentials are very large, but the geographical limitations are formidable” (Sprout and Sprout, 1960).

Michi Ebata (1996) argued that Premier Stalin gave his country the task to overtake the capitalist world. From the standpoint of geography this does not appear possible. Limitations of location, climate, scattered resources and continentiality combine to create landscapes which no amount of planning can fully surmount. Whatever its government, it would seem that Russia can never become a truly great world power. Geographical space between the state’s boundaries and its vital centers of population and economic production was likewise regarded as a strategic asset. Where space was deemed inadequate, a buffer zone of protected states (we call them satellites today) might be created to absorb the shock of invasion. Charles Hermann et. al., (1987) contends that it is not enough to just describe relationships between actors. We have to understand the basis of relations, the different goals being pursued by different actors, as well as the motivations behind actions.

(Hermann et al., 1987) points out that there are two fundamental questions underlying much of foreign policy scholarship, do states act the way they act in the world because of who they are? Or is it because of where they sit in the world as defined by their relationships with other states in the international system? In realist system-level accounts, the focus is on how a state’s position in the international system is related to its foreign policy. Sometimes the suggested relationship is causal (a country’s position is said to determine its foreign policy) but, most typically, the suggested relationship is a matter of explaining which options are open to states in certain positions and what those states must and/or will do to preserve or enhance their status. One cannot deny that a state’s size and location determines its ability to stabilize or disrupt the international economic system.

Geography, then, is quite important in terms of location and renewability of resources, as it still affects political action through the position, size and boundaries of states. The random ways in which frontiers are superimposed on the world means that states vary enormously in size, mineral, wealth, access to the sea, vulnerability and cohesiveness. Some states come under great pressure through being in difficult circumstances, such as Bangladesh. Others, like the United States seem to possess every card in the pack. Bangladesh is in the situation it is in, the first instance at least, because of the artificiality of the divide Pakistan created on independence in 1947, and because of the dangerous international consequences which would have followed any attempt to absorb East Pakistan into India in 1971. States therefore has to work with the political geography they have however unjust. They cannot be indifferent to it, and they can only change it at the margin. Their physical characteristics have important implications for all areas of public, not least foreign policy. Even distance, which many would think had been rendered insignificant by technology, must still be factored in.

In agreement with (Hermann et al., 1987) one must realise that geography frequently influences political decision-making just as political power influences geographical space. Iraq’s oil reserves for example, coupled with pivotal location in the oil-rich Middle East, bounded by six neighbors (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Iran and Kuwait) and locked in a sectarian civil war, make it a likely candidate for geographical assessment. Here people struggle for control of territorial space with a vengeance, and that struggle affects foreign policy decision making and the lives of many other people outside Iraq. By extension as Snyder (1962) maintains, political geography plays a huge role in who gets what, when and how in the game of world politics. Take for example the costs and benefits of the US’s occupation of Iraq. That invasion led to the loss of an average of two million barrels a day of Iraqi oil from world markets. This affected economies around the globe, most notably in higher oil prices.

James Rosenau (1964) was among one of the many literatures which led to the point, that apart from Geography, International Law tends to be the other element in the international arena that influences foreign policy. Rosenau (1964) points out that International law began to develop with the rise of territorial states. In the 20th century international law grew rapidly owing to the need for rules and regulation to manage complex issues associated with security, trade, finance, travel and communication, stemming from spreading interdependence (Rosenau, 1964). Sources of international law include common practice and custom, international treaties, general practice of law as recognized by states (represented by the International Court of Justice) and international law that emanates from the many U.N. declarations and resolutions. A closer look at this argument led to the realisation that the Law of the Sea supports this point. It stems from a U.N. treaty governing the oceans from Admiralty Law. The U.N treaty on the Law of the Seas, among other things provide for legal controls to manage marine natural resources, pollution control, navigational rights and jurisdiction over coastal waters. The U.N Law of the Sea Treaty (1994) codified territorial waters of twelve nautical miles (13.8 miles) and an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles (230 miles). Rosenau (1964) maintains that in addition with concern to International Air law, each state has exclusive sovereignty over the air space above its territory, including its territorial sea. An Outer Space Treaty (1967) represents International Space Laws that bar parties to the treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in orbit of the earth. While international law by no means always work smoothly, countries has to take its requirements into consideration whenever embarking on foreign policy decisions.

I have chosen to cover the fifth core principle of Singapore’s foreign policy, “We must be a credible and consistent partner” in my essay. This principle talks about how Singapore’s credibility enables us to play a constructive role in international affairs because we handle issues fairly and with transparency (Balakrishran,2017).

Hence, I linked this principle to the case study on how the United Kingdom (UK) adopts Huawei for 5G, against the pressure from the United States of America (US). According to Cellan-Jones (2020), the US officials have continuously put pressure on European nations to boycott Huawei’s equipment for its next generation mobile 5G networks citing serious potential security risks. However, there were no substantiated technical evidence regarding their fears.

Firstly, the decision of UK to go against US pressure of the Huawei Boycott demonstrated their reliability and impartiality towards China. This exhibited how they was unafraid of putting themselves in a jeopardizing position that could offend US who is politically superior and stronger to them. This is also further supported by how these two nations had an affiliation, putting them in greater risk of “deteriorating relations” with the US (Kharpal, 2020). Despite the possible consequences they might face, their views were firm.

Additionally, the decision of boycotting Huawei laid in the hands of the UK, which allowed them to make the call without US interference (CNA, 2020). It was admirable to see that UK did not solely let the word of mouth by US sway their decision-making without any concrete proof of political attack on US by China. Furthermore, the accusations by the US against Huawei were rather “hypocritical” and marked by a “double standard” (Cabanas, 2020). Hence, UK established consistency and trustworthiness by asserting their sovereignty to make an independent and objective decision on this boycott. By going against US with logic and reasoning, it builds up trust and goodwill between UK and China, improving their bilateral relations and partnership.

A valuable lesson Singapore can learn here is to never succumb to pressure and feel intimidated by countries who are higher or more powerful than us. Being firm and rooted allows us to assert our sovereignty as a growing nation while supporting our partnering countries as a reliable associate. Giving in to pressure would only establish a reputation of Singapore as a weak-willed and overly accommodating country. Instead, we can learn from the UK on how to calculate the risks involved and resulting outcomes on both parties to come up with a fair judgment on where we stand in the situation. Hence, to conclude, being a dependable partner is an asset to both our nation and the countries that surround us as we work hand in hand and strive towards building a peaceful and progressive country.

At any time in history, various countries take a reflection at their policies and see if they are out of touch or are on track with their behaviors over a particular period of time (Duedney, Daniel, &Jeffrey, 2008, p, 21). According to Rosenau, Smith, & Smith, (2019, p,138, & p, 142) what actually consist of his work on foreign policy analysis in the 1960s and early 1970s the trend of his work is far less easy to determine. Rosenau goes on to claim that, his second volume can offer much light on interdependence and transnationalism which is clearly concerned with the phenomenon of international relations, and in no area, is this more visible than in foreign policy analysis. Foreign Policies had often been described as interplay between various political agents and structures formed by social structures. Also, foreign policies are the determinants in how a country conducts itself. Usually, when the topic of Foreign policies comes up the next topic on the top of most peoples ‘mind is diplomatic ties, countries are always in competition with each other be it business or social structures. One must understand one thing, when it comes to talking about a countries’ foreign policies it all comes down to how they interacts with other nations. Moreover, when considering countries foreign policies it has always been important to pick out what is very essential because, there are quite numerous factors involved when taking particular countries into consideration. The paper attempts to show the crucial factors that matter in the processes that shape them when considering these countries: Iran, United States of America and China. Before, going into details when considering the factors internally they depicts the inputs to the foreign policy making processes as the external, societal, governmental role and individual categories that make up the analytical framework whereas the external source category refers to the attributes of the international system and to the characteristics and behaviors. Foreign policy has to do with relations with other countries so what makes China, Iran and USA so unique and dominant in spheres of influence.

First, the issue of terrorism from the USA’s perspective views Iran as a state sponsor for terrorism whilst China has been well-known to be on the side of America to fight the noteworthy cause of terrorism (Clarke, 2011, p, 128). Most countries have their foreign policies connected to their national character a typical example of that is America. At the mention of America, the first concept that comes to my mind is it democracy and ability for everyone to express their liberties as they want. America has however been the pillar and beacon of democracy for a quite a long time. America to other nations has been an indispensable nation one that has looked further into the future and predict the moves of other nations and has assisted in more than one way. Again, America has had another exceptional aspect to be hailed for and that is Consumerism. This has to do with the financial spending power that the country has and had embraced the system of capitalism.

On the account of Iran, when considering internal affairs leadership usually comes up as a concern. For that reason, Iran’s leadership came with the dramatic rise of Riza Shah commander of Iran’s Russian – trained and only effectively disciplined military force, the Cossack Division. More also, Riza Khah rose to power and maintain the position of Sadar Sipah of the armed forces in political partnership with a leading pro – British nationalist figure, Sayyid Ziya al – Din Taba who become the prime minister in a coup in 1921. Even more, Iran was a country that had always had friendly relations with the United States. Iran is located in the Middle East and surrounded by Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq and Iran had always been seen as a strategic location of Iran between Russia and Britain’s colonial presence in India rendered the country of concern to both powers. Iran and USA relations were somewhat better a century ago. USA used to support the Iranians till the Shi’a came to power and started to distort the relations that Iran once had.

Additionally, in the comments of Bradley, (2007) he clearly states that, Iran’s internal factors had recently been about Khatami’s modest progress till date. Recently, some influence had shown that his second term may gain greater reform, even on the sensitive terrain of United States concerns. His alarming reelection went against widespread expectations and demonstrated the vast shifts in Iran’s political status over the last four years. More also, on the international front Khatami’s renewed mandate vindicates his adjusted outreach to the world, an approach that will become even more importantly over the next four years (Saikal, 1991, p, 426-427).

Some scholars have taken into account a peculiar perspective when considering China that has to do with interdependence and transnationalism. As, to how true this is, we will found out in this paper, in light of this account, China’s international interests under Hu Jintao were in many ways similar to Jiang’s. Then, there was an awesome deal of importance on the safeguarding of the international normalcy and a high awareness on developing trade and cooperation while enriching China’s people and economy (Rosenau et al., 2019). More also, both leaders were much concerned with making sure that China did away with its old way of thinking” and criticized it quickly in other states, for example: the determination of alliances (such as NATO), in the West and concerns over establishing domination. Whereas, while Jiang intensified his diplomacy under Hu become much more cross regional expanding in Africa.

Ever since the commencement of People’s Republic of China in 1949, Beijing had been focused on gaining the territorial, political, economic and cultural integration of Xinjiang and its non– Han ethnic groups into the Chinese state. Now, from the time that Xinjiang was peacefully liberated by the People’s Liberation Army in 1949, China’s approach to the region has been defined by one overarching goal: to integrate Xinjiang with China(Clarke, 2015,p, 127-128). According to Chi kin Cheung (2015,p,205-207) when giving details of china one must not forget about their nationalism which has received quite noticeable attention from academics and it was forecasted that from the path which China took it was certain to prosper in its economic reform. In other words, Chinese nationalism has attained scholarly opinions in the past centuries as China achieves success in economic reform

In the first place, China’s concept of international relations have been developed out of cultural fundamentals of Daoism, Confucianism and Mohism that were teaching the primordial form of ethics over law in human society. Generally, China’s main concept of dealing with outside world stemmed from the philosophical framework of the harmonious and hierarchical universe. For example: China took some drastic internal changes into their implementation of their foreign policy and one popular value of the traditional culture as far as society as well interstate relations are concerned is the concept of hierarchical order and harmony (Cheung, 2012, p,207).

Now, that I will discuss the China’s approach to foreign affairs and how it implements their foreign goals. It would be good to note that of China when it comes to the China’s influence in the international relations realm? Over the years, China had changed internally which had ensured that they moved from a medium-sized power to a state in search of stability, as well as higher prestige and freedoms connected with a great power, through revolution. Some scholars have held the view that Beijing is widely known for its claim to be a major force based on its increasing market power and military capacities and its greater visibility in global regimes and desire and capacity to further advance its own interests outside of China. As well as, increase its influence within the international system as one of the world’s biggest reforms in the turn of the millennium, which would leave the world amazed gaze focused on China leaving an image that illustrates a birth of the superpower, which came up as a new way through a stunning cultural performance, as opposed to a decisive military victory.

Furthermore, there is more about the external factors that influenced China’s foreign policy. As, an example: a typical external influence that made massive improvements in China was when Jiang Zemin left office having made massive changes in developing China’s international relations, including opening up contracts both with the Pacific Rim Region and with other regions. Second, another point will have to do with evidence from a number of major terrorist attacks in the region in recent years which suggests that some extremist Uyghur militants have begun to implement the tactics of other regional and global Islamist organizations. From what was shown above, it can be seen that, China changed over the years and has ceased to have gone back to its old ways that was harboring development (p, 429). Many scholars have pointed out that Chinese nationalism is linked to the continued production and consumption of the century of national humiliation.

Recently, before understanding what China does best, we need to know that it had a history of communist or socialist tendencies which made it what it is now. Despite the fact that, China is been given much pressure from President Trump regarding the economic sanctations levelled against it has flourish. As to the finding out what the internal factors may be would be up to policies that were implemented to ensure that such opportunities were created. To begin with, when it comes to providing a clear understanding of China’s most influential factor with regards to what shapes their policies. Since, Chinese’s domestic politics have had numerous changes during, Maoist times, in knowing who plays a role in China’s international affairs. First, there was a change and it came around the late 1970’s of Deng Xiaoping, who expected greater foreign policy and especially trade expertise from his government. In line with that, Deng’s immediate successors Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao stressed on even greater professionalism and education in the foreign policy arena.

In the comments of Pijl (2012, p, 503) China used to be a socialist state and has now changed over the years to a communist state that had been able to take in economic reforms. China has now been able to take the spotlight and has made a name of itself. In the words of Chi-kin Cheung (2012, p, 205) when one takes a look at how far China has reached with their economic reform they have “entered a new stage.” Nevertheless, this stage can be considered as Confucianism a vital aspect in the domestic affairs of China and these policies played an important governing tool in imperial China and for that reason, Confucianism had held the title as the dominant political doctrine in Chinese public life and had a dramatic downfall right after the elimination in 1905 of the imperial examination system which was based on the Confucian classics. Nevertheless, the dates are quite different scholars like that of Jim O’Neill Goldman Sachs chief economist estimates that China will exceed the USA by 2027 at present growth levels (as Pijl, 2012, p, 503 cites Neill, 2009). In the 150th century, the first period culminated in the trips of the Chinese Treasure Fleet under Admiral Zheng He, and in 1978 a gradual introduction of market practices was commenced by the People Republic, spearheaded by Deng Xiaoping.

Another aspect of China’s exceptionalism has to be with its cultural shift. Over the years, China’s international thinking moved considerably from that a medium power seeking to overturn the order of how things used to be via revolution to a state seeking stability. The Chinese model of development took over 30 years of experience. However, there was a new initiative put in place. These new initiative relates with the cultural shift in China which the relevance of socialist ideology has paved the way to the notion of Chineseness, which is actually becoming of nature of acceptance in China’s modernization. Moreover, this cultural change is portrayed in the growing enthusiasm in China for articulating a Chinese perspective all round concerning its development. It seems that China has rather used their own indigenous “model and intellectual trend” to boost China’s modernization.

One vital key doctrine responsible for the tendencies of realism is the Monroe Doctrine. Realism has been one of the aspect of political exceptionalism that has been a dominating spirit in America’s affairs. In that regard, neo realist theories had always aligned with realist sentiment, not liberal idealist aspirations (Morgenthau, 1973, as cited by Rosato & Schuessler, 2011 p, 812). Realism contends that, the international community around a state-centric structure in which national sovereignty is more important than any liberal collective government entity. Moreover, perspective realist theory is a manual for security without war and is therefore a guide for American policy makers today. Whereas, the liberal theory of international relations state that institutions have had to intervene to bring about peace and harmony through cooperation.

Another point for American exceptionalism has to do with Truman Doctrine. This doctrine helped ferment the ideals of Truman and the creation of the NATO to be able to get these communist out of America and rather embrace the ideals of a liberal democracy. Whereas, with the Monroe Doctrine it had become a fundamental law that regulate the policies that USA had to make it a sovereign state. Also, America had always been seen as an empire and had been the pillar of democracy (Essuman, 2018, Duedney, Daniel, &Jeffrey, 2008, p, 21).

In conclusion, countries vary in every affairs and influence that what makes them stand out in what they do. In regard to this question, I will say that it would both factors that matter most in the implementation processes that help shape the country to stand out. Each country represents a particular concept and ideology just like every political office matters in its little way so does both internal and external factors also. In the case of China, it would be the communist party and the economic reform whereas with America it has to do with national character so basically its external influence. Foreign policies have to do with relation with each other what is vital to each such as how geopolitical positioning is to Iran as well as leadership so are the doctrines that are what makes America superior to any other nation and have dominant power in its circle. More also, with regards to China we can see that it is economic and cultural factors and nationalism and turn away from the old way of thinking that has caused the Chinese to be exceptional as well. In my opinion, I think both internal and external factors matter most in the processes that shape the foreign policies. This is because globalization is in process so both external and internal factors play vital roles.

American foreign policy right now in 2019 can be called a lot of things, isolated,Selfish, inhumane and unexpected are some of the words that has been called so far . The change is an American foreign policy started in April 6, 2018 with the crack down on immigration When the justice departments new “zero tolerance “ policy for the southwest border of USA . This policy separates families who have migrated to the US . At least 3000 and more children have been displaced from their families and have been put in cages . Later , another announcement by the administration highlighted the annual refugee quota to about 30,000.

On May 8, 2008 Trump announced the withdrawal Iranian nuclear deal . Calling off the JCPOA which is also known as the joint comprehensive plan of action , Donald called off the deal . The deal was made to remove the harsh sanctions which was about the damage the economy of Iran . In return , Iran agreed to fall back on its nuclear program and also agreed for inspections for their side of the agreement .In 2017 trump made and accusation to Iran that Iran was violating the “spirit “ of the agreement . Which lead him to withdraw from the agreement 6 months later . By removing USA from the deal , trump turned down Obama’s one of the major foreign policy achievements during his time .

Another big step Trump made which changed in the area of foreign policy was by moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem. On May 14, 2018, The US administration made a controversial move to establish a US Embassy on the disputed land of Jerusalem.It’s really officials think it was a good movie made by the US well as the Palestinians condemned it. Being the key Moderator and Mediator between the Israeli and Palestine in peace process since the time of Bill Clinton, This was a Step took by United States which are use the qualities that a mediator requires in peace negotiations.

On June 12, 2018 President Trump met face to face with a dictator Kim Jong-un from North Korea which happened in Singapore . Although having calling each other names like the “rocket man “ and the “ mentally derailed “ , the summit ended with positive attitudes from both sides .which lead them to signing an agreement which states that there will be complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and promised security for North Korea.

On July 6, 2018 the United States declared a trade war with China.All things manufactured in China including electronics mechanical products what immediately subject it into imposing taxes when brought inside United States.Leading into a trade war with the worlds two largest economies.

Trump has been incredibly consequential on the world stage increasing diplomatic relationships with dictators , isolating USA from historically traditional allies and many more. ooking at the history of American foreign-policy there are many similarities between President Jackson who was the first populist of America and Donald Trump. Going up against John Quincy Adams son of a former president the same way Trump went against Hillary Clinton, the campaigns for both of them had to prove something big to the nation which would be different fromThe main stream way that it has been ruling the country. Both President Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump use the public to deliver the message and get their support in many situations. Andrew Jackson used to drill and debate with other people while Donald Trump uses Twitter as his medium to make his words out there in the public.

Donald Trump really doesn’t focus much on the history of foreign affairs as mentioned in one of his speeches he believes that he is the only one who matters and who is the real deal maker and the deal breaker. Any agreement or contract that has behind it it’s self within the American nation before it has to be re-taught by the other nations since most of them have been with Withdrawn and have been reconsidered. Many nations are concerned about the real value of the new president signature in an agreement.

Comparing Donald Trump’s methods with the other past presidents of the United States the past presidents used to take advice from the other members of the White House where as Trump mostly goes unprepared and has that boost of confidence where he mentioned that he was ready for this from a long time . This method used by Trump can be very challenging in the future. Donald mentioned before going to make the leader Kim Jong-un off courier that he didn’t need preparation and that it’s all about confidence. Looking back at the time when the united states president extended a similar hand in the reduction of nuclear power inflation during the time of President Ronald Reagan when he met the Soviet leader Mikal Gorbachev in 1986 talking about can’t control and management, they expected to talk about arms reduction in control but Gorbachev Proposed to illuminate all nuclear weapons within the time span of 10 years. This was a lesson for the American government as to how unexpected meetings with other world leaders of the nations can be. And that if you are caught off guard and unprepared for the meetings the concept of the whole meeting can be turned upside down .

Foreign policies and relations of a country refers to how the government deals with other countries in the matter of trade defense and how it safeguards the interest of the nation and the citizens.Trump has been using the isolation theory and has been dominating the other countries to satisfy the needs of his own. Believing that imperialism is not the way to lead a government he has taken this transaction ideology of running the world by power. Mentioning to the world that basically if you pay a lot of money to the US , US is going to help you and that if you are not going to be enough money the US will not. Another steps Donald Trump made was after noticing that the NATO countries are expected to be providing a certain amount of monetary funds from their GDP is to the organization however, none of the other NATO countries were able to do so and although Trump is right about other countries not being there to Contribute, the alternate way of making the other countries pay the similar amount suggested by Trump was really extreme . Trump took a big step in Withdrawing the nuclear umbrella from South Korea and Japan which is one of the major bedrock of stabilization of nuclear security in east Asia which has been maintained for decades. These acts has left the world unprepared as every step trump takes has always been unexpected and new to the world . The only thing the rest of us can do is hope there will not be a world war three and be prepared for the decisions trump has saved for the later years.

This book centers around U.S. foreign policy towards the important locales of the world which incorporates Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, Russia, Eastern and Western Europe. This book particularly focuses on the areas that are in dispute. The needs of U.S. regional policy are shifting off from Russia and Europe and moving towards Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia. The writer of the book, Howard J. Wiarda, examines the challenges faced by the U.S. in those locales and also examines how the U.S. has responded to and should respond to the problems or issues that form up these crucial policy relationships.

This book deals with all the significant regions of the world that would be significant in formulating American’s foreign policy. These may include Russia, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa, Middle East, Latin America and Asia. U.S. has good relations with all the other remaining regions so that is the reason only those areas or regions would be studied that are in strife. The methodology that have been used by the U.S. while formulating its policy is of positive sum which means absolute gains or mutual benefit. The foreign policy of the U.S. isn’t just for United States yet also in benefit of those regions that are incorporated in the dispute. A better understanding of these regions would be developed by understanding them in their own geographic, social and cultural context. Watching these regions from the lenses of US and imposing its solutions on world is not constructive at all. Knowing about the history and background of these regions and US interests and policies, will keep up a methodology of comparative politics.

The United States and the Western Europe are isolating their paths gradually. Their relations aren’t as stronger as their partners during the great wars and cold war era. Although majority of the American values have been derived from the Western Europe but now the ties between them are debilitating. The bond is weakening between the two additionally because of end of the reason of their alliance, containment of Soviet Union. The reasons are many. U.S. is multicultural and individuals from completely different communities live there. Western Europe joined United States within the war against communism by building coalition “Transatlantic Alliance” and “NATO”. United States might be partner with Western Europe in future for solving many economic, social and cultural hurdles yet for now it is paying more consideration on Asia and Middle Eastern regions. Since Europe is as stronger as America so it doesn’t need close ties with U.S. And with increasing military intensity of the U.S. Europe feels that it’s U.S. that should be quit knowing their intercession and reckless behavior in war torn states.

Eastern Europe was under the command of former USSR for a longer time. Eastern Europe was thought as under-developed part. Eastern Europe didn’t have any wealthy history like other sub areas of the Europe. It stayed as periphery to the core Western Europe and its boundaries kept fluctuating by the pressures of the powerful nations. It differs from remaining Europe culturally, socially, politically and economically. United States framed NATO with its other European allies while Soviet Union shaped Warsaw Pact in Eastern Europe and it came within the direct confrontation with United States. In resistance of every agency established by the U.S., USSR made their own institutions in Eastern Europe. To stop the further ascent of USSR and communism, America devised the arrangement of “Containment”. America’s policy of containment brought the deteioration of the Soviet Union as it wasn’t ready to help its tasks in the Eastern Europe. West provided Eastern Europe with proper framework of governance to avoid wasting it from moving into hands of Russia once more. Eastern Europe was then admitted in EU and NATO although they failed to qualify. US needed a steady and democratic Eastern Europe and by adding it into EU and NATO it has been achieved to some extent.

US approach for Russia from conflict to the deterioration of the USSR was of “Containment”. Albeit Soviet Union was collaborate with the U.S. during WWII but with the rising military abilities both confronted each other for a long period. Soviet Union after an extensive stretch of encounter couldn’t bear the expense of clash and was eventually shattered. The new U.S. strategy for Russia was promotion of democratic values and market economy which will amend the living conditions of its individuals and additionally its methodology towards the world. U.S. even had the designs to join Russia into EU and NATO and become an accomplice of peace. However the bitterness of the relations is yet there. Russian people is also living a low standard life however they have well prepared armed forces. The political and social framework of Russia should be changed to allow democracy and capitalism prevail which is new U.S. arrangement towards Russia however it seems not possible for now. United States could have diplomatic ties with Russia but the two offer tense relations most of the time.

The power in the international affairs has been kept on changing and now it is moved to Asia. Asia has increased a lot of significance in defining the American international strategy. Asia has developed as another region of enthusiasm for the US. The explanation is Asia’s quickly developing economies like China, Japan, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore. China is a significant purpose of center for US as it has immensely developing economy and is a socialist state politically, a structure which US went through years to contain. Asia is an area of contention with five atomic states and ever prepared militaries. Border disputes among many states are evident. America is following a balance of power strategy in Asian region as they are potential enough to crash each other as a result of war. Asian states balance each other’s power potential as they don’t have proper framework for settling their contentions like west has European Union and NATO. Additionally they need agreement on the issues of basic interests. U.S. have marked arrangements with abundant of the Asian states and is enjoying the job of the peacemaker.

The Middle East is the most dangerous region where Terrorism, war could break out at any time. Middle Eastern region is of more significance in formulating American foreign policy because US beside many European states relies on oil of Middle East for their enterprises and trade. With atomic states like Pakistan and Israel there is constantly a risk for war in the locale which could enormously influence the Middle East. Economies of US and other western nations can dive deep down if the district goes into war or some sort of transformation. The US arrangement in Middle East is to create framework and advance majority rule government. Helping Middle Eastern nations with administration issues, overhauling their ways of life and improving their human rights circumstance is likewise on the list. Majority rules system can’t be pushed into these Middle Eastern states as there is still inadequacy of certain essentials. For instance states like Afghanistan which is very different from west. Destabilized Middle East would be destabilized economy so the significant arrangement of US is wipe out strains among the clashing gatherings.

Latin American nations are becoming financially breaking the older picture of underdeveloped and incapable area. A large portion of the Latin American states have accomplished the status of ‘upper middle class’ which is an prerequisite to advancement. These zones have turned out to be significant for US with their sizable locations advanced with assets particularly Brazil and Mexico. These countries give market to US items and are pivotal for its economy. The manner in which entire locale is developing, US needs to end its carelessness of the area. US is associated with worldwide governmental issues where stability of every region is fundamental. America ought to keep up stable relations with the Latin American region by settling the issues and giving the rising regions much required consideration as they share same social and cultural qualities too.

African region is the most underdeveloped region one will consider.. All the problems that are destructive for any framework are available like corruption, lack of education, diseases, poverty, war and violence, harsh climate and plenty of additional uncountable indecencies. With numerous problems harming the region, U.S. is fascinated by serving them and lifting them out of this hopeless life. That’s why America has antecedently helped African countries in any possible way and is prepared to have its impact within the present and future. Though U.S. has provided these states with all the help they have in terms of funds further however the corruption and political insecurity didn’t let any improvement to occur. Not solely U.S. however African region could be an obligatory a part of foreign policies of alternative states and many human rights agencies are operating within the region for the reduction of financial condition and economic development. African region is wealthy in natural assets like oil and diamonds that is why it’s significant for U.S. interests and will be a trade accomplice. Alternative rising states are operating within the region that’s why it’s within the interest of America to assume its role.

At this point the conclusion can be drawn that all the world regions have their significance which is shifting relatively. Presently the strategy of U.S. is no more Europe and Russia focused. These are as yet significant areas yet have lost their essentialness in contrast with the others where US may have new exchange opportunities. Asia and Middle East are notable in these areas. Asian region isn’t just rising economy yet in addition unsteady with atomic abilities. Middle East has its own significance. The focal points to US here are numerous from atomic weapons and oppression to oil. Latin America additionally comes as a vital locale alongside African region. Both these regions have emerged during the previous couple of years. Latin America shares social, cultural and economic ties with the United States. US international strategy in these two regions is more of opportunity based rather than based on threat like in other regions. Overall we can say that four regions Asia, Middle East, Latin America and Africa are raising as important actors in the U.S. foreign policy making. They have picked up significance since they are rising economies as well as on the grounds that they are key and increasingly inclined to viciousness and flimsiness. Subsequently Europe and Russia have lost their essentialness when contrasted with different regions.

The author of the book clearly explains all the issues and challenges that the U.S. is confronting in formulating its policy in a good and understandable way. The author is not biased towards anything. He clarifies the things in an appropriate way.

The writer audits the political circumstances in every locale of the world. Individual countries of particular essential to U.S. international strategy are canvassed separately in more depth at the end of each provincial chapter. Wiarda takes exceptional consideration to characterize ranges of influence and future difficulties in every area, which moves the content from a negligible useful vehicle to a powerful guide for international actors. I would prescribe this book to any individual who wishes increase a fair and exhaustive perspective on the present global political circumstance. At around 200 pages, the book can without much of a stretch be read and immediately comprehended.

The essay progresses as follows: First foreign policy is described which will be linked to foreign policy analysis, then followed by an analysis of major approaches within the topic from foundational texts to the more contemporary texts and then finally an evaluation of FPA.

To understand foreign policy analysis, one must comprehend what foreign policy means as the two concepts co-exist together. Foreign policy is how states, institutions and people engage with each other in the International system which is shaped by history and institutional practices (Alden and Arnan, 2017, p.11).

Many criminal organizations, leaders, bureaucracies, non-governmental organizations influence the foreign policy that is adopted by the state which is important for decisions (Alden and Arnan, 2017, p.11).

Foreign policy analysis (FPA) further illustrates the idea of foreign policy, as FPA is the study of conduct and practice of relations between different actors which are mainly states in the International system (Alden and Arnan, 2017, p.13).

By investigating the decision making, the individual decision makers, process and conditions that affect the foreign policy and outcomes of these decisions, shows FPA is involved with not only actors concerned in the state’s decision making but also with different sub-national sources of influence upon state foreign policy (Alden and Arnan, 2017, p.13).

FPA focuses on the foreign policy process rather than the foreign policy outcomes, which is based on the belief that close inspection of actors, the levels of decision making and the wider context within which foreign policy choices are expressed would offer greater analytical purchase that can be discovered in using an IR approach (Alden and Arnan, 2017, p.13).

IR scholars have struggled with the agent-structure problem (Hudson, 2005, p.5).The agent-structure problem originated from the belief that human beings and their organizations are actors whose actions help transform society and society is made up of social relationships which structure interactions between actors (Wendt, 1987, p.337-338).

This incorporates both neo-realism and world system theories in which Neo-realists conceptualize system structures in individualist terms as limiting the choices of pre-existing state agents, whereas world-system theory conceptualize system structures in structuralist terms as generating state agents themselves (Wendt, 1987 p.338). This has created the agent-structure problem which is a two interrelated problem (Wendt, 1987, p.339).

There are three paradigmatic works which were developed in the 1950’s and 1960’s built the foundation of FPA which are Decision making as an approach to the study of international politics by Snyder, Bruck and Sapin (1954) which Snyder basically emphasizes on decision making as organizational behaviour by being determinants of actions adopted by officials(Hudson, 2005, p.5-6). This work is still evident today as one of the main characteristics of FPA is decision making as it affects outcomes in foreign policy however foreign policy is not all dependent on decision making as FPA has many determinants and has a complex nature.

Pre-theories and Theories of Foreign Policy by Rosenau(1966) encouraged the development of the actor specific theory in which he states that FPA is devoid of general theories and was a theory that mediated between grand principles and complex reality(Hudson, 2005, p.5-6). Rosenau(1966) insisted on the need to integrate information at several levels of analysis from individual leaders to the international system (Hudson, 2005, p.6).

The last paradigmatic work was Man–Milieu Relationship Hypotheses in the Context of International Politics by Sprout and Sprout (1965) which they suggested that analysing power capabilities within an interstate system, without reference to foreign policy undertakings which are associated with strategies, intentions and decisions were misguided (Hudson, 2005, p.6). Foreign policy undertaking is explained by the concept of psycho-milieu which is the international and operational environment or context as it is perceived and interpreted by these decision makers (Hudson, 2005, p.6).

Incongruities between the perceived and the real operational environments can occur, leading to less than satisfactory choices in foreign policy (Hudson, 2005, p.6-7).

However, these paradigmatic works might be seen as dated and not as relevant today because of the new approaches in FPA which have been brought by changes in history and time eg the end of the cold war increased integration and globalisation among the world powers through formal institutions, trade etc.

The origins of FPA come from its reaction towards the dominance of realism and its view of the state and its interaction with other states through bilateral relations and through institutions and a dissatisfaction with realism’s ability to provide explanations of foreign policy outcomes (Alden and Arnan, 2017, p.15).

This is further illustrated as realism has three main assumptions which one of them is groupism which focuses on the main notion of survival, in which humans survive by uniting together which in turn these human groups form a nation-state and the most important group cohesion is nationalism, however this causes potential conflict as realism claims that human beings put self-interest first which might differ from another human’s interest (Smith, Hadfield and Dunne, 2016, p.36).

The second is Egoism mainly focuses on the notion that self-interest influences political behaviour, which is because of selfish human nature (Smith, Hadfield and Dunne, 2016, p.36).

Power centrism is an important feature in international politics, this is because the survival of the state in the international stage of politics and also how the state conducts its relations with other states, this two reasons can be explained through inequalities of power through human affairs which the powerful states have a great social influence on weaker states and also powerful states have better resources than weaker states (Smith, Hadfield and Dunne, 2016, p.36-37).

The realist approach develops an orientation towards the most powerful groups in IR in which the main component for decisions in foreign policy is national interest (Smith, Hadfield and Dunne, 2016, p.37).

However the lack of realist seeing cooperation in institutions and among states as a way of achieving foreign policy which their main critics are liberalists who mainly critic the realist pessimistic doctrine.

National interest is seen as decisions taken by leaders who promote a state’s prosperity and needs in international politics, the main assumption is that leaders act towards achieving the long term national interests of the state (Naeck, 2019, p.17).

According to Naeck (2019) as cited by Morgenthau (1949) assumes that” statesman act in terms of interest defined as power”(p.17). This is further illustrated by Morgenthau explaining that states need to acquire economic and military power to ensure the state’s survival, however he added that do not always pursue national interest which states can also act on moral grounds, this creates the tendency of states to achieve national interest defined in terms of power is more universal than their inclination to achieve interest in terms of common moral purposes (Nau, 2002 ,p.17).

However, not all decisions in foreign policy can be determined by National interest as today’s world is complex and interconnected through institutions which may sometimes require a state to compromise their national interest perhaps due to a lack of power by the states to reinforce their interests or a larger threat that looms which binds states together.

The second classical FPA is behaviourism and rationalism which was conducted in the 1950s and 1960s that challenged some realist assumptions in IR (Alden and Arnan, 2017, p.16). Behaviourists sought to understand the process of foreign policy-making rather than examine the outcomes of foreign policy which scholars such as Robert Jervis and Harold Sprout examined the role of individual decision-makers and believed that decisions makers can unload the key variables that are linked to human agency which contributes to foreign decision making (Alden and Arnan, 2017, p.16).

Rational choice implies that no matter how actors behave they are expected utility maximizing agents which stems from microeconomics (Morin and Paquin, 2018 p.215). Rational choice, when applied with FPA, explains the position adopted by states e.g. when states who are subject to environmental deterioration and the least affected by abatement costs call for the adoption of international standards are those who gain the most (Morin and Paquin, 2018, p.215).

Rational choice theory considers that actors behaviour which integrate their own standards which determines the advantages and disadvantages of each option which results in rationality being broken down into three assumptions which the first is actors are conscious of making choices which are not bound to routine as some times routine in IR might not fulfil the state interest which shows rational choice has elements of realism, the second different actions by order of preference and lastly rational choice presumes actors act in accordance with the option that maximises their utility in IR by considering information available and the associated risks (Morin and Paquin, 2018 p.216).

Last Classical FPA is the Bureaucratic politics model in the 1960s was researched in Harvard on how institutions work and how they affect foreign policy outcomes (Qingmin, 2016, p.438).

[bookmark: _Hlk7450798]The main features are Political power is widely allocated among institutions at the state level, Within these institutions are participants in the policy process that have conflicting views on what they would like done on any given issue, Political leadership within or across institutions is used mainly through persuasion and Policymaking is a political process of building consensus and support for a policy among those participants who have the power to affect the outcome and who often disagree over what they think that the outcome should be(Qingmin, 2016, p.438).

Unlike their western counterparts they have been a scarcity in Chinese foreign policy study from bureaucratic politics is due to China’s belief that it is at the centre of the world which influenced China’s international behaviour because of this foreign policy making was made by structural factors which were implemented during the period of the cold war (Qingmin, 2016, p.440). It also was a closed society with one political party system (Qingmin, 2016, p.440).

Another approach that was proposed during the 1960s in which Rosenau advocated for this is contemporary foreign policy, which the main belief was through the use of natural science (which shows an aspect of behaviouralism) methodology FPA could lead to general theory (Smith, 1986, p.17).

Comparative foreign policy (CFP) rejected a case study approach in understanding FPA because most of the traditional theories focused more on the external environment of how states conduct foreign policy (Smith, 1986, p.18).

It is stated to be interdisciplinary in nature which dismisses the notions of realism as it believes foreign policy derives from many sources such as individual decision makers and organizational framework in which decisions are made (S. Lantis and Beasley, 2017, p.3).

However there was a decline towards CFP in the mid ’70s which was because of the increased role in economic factors in IR due to the rise of economic interdependence, there was a decline in the role of the state as an actor in IR this because non state actors in this time was as equally important in influencing foreign policy decisions and no general theory of FPA could emerge from CFP (Smith, 1986, p.19-20).

Globalisation theory became popular in the 1980s, the first great debate of globalization focused on the three main approaches hyper globalist which advocated for the rise of the single market, global sceptic which mainly focused on the internationalization of states and transformational thesis which mainly centred around the transformational thesis which is mainly driven by a shift in space-time constitution of human civilization (Alden and Arnan, 2017, p.112-116).

In conclusion, FPA has contributed to the understanding of world politics due to many theories that were adopted or created in the eras of the cold war, the era of globalisation and integration which has helped various scholars to further understand and appreciate the multi-faceted of explaining foreign policy.

Foreign Policy is the strategy or approach chosen by the national government to achieve its goals in its international relations with the external entities, “foreign policy is both the broad trends of behavior and the particular actions taken by a state. A country’s foreign policy is described in two environments. They are the domestic and external environment. The domestic environment determines the role a nation plays in the international system. The domestic source plays a crucial role in the way the actions of other states are interpreted. The cooperation within partner countries is affected by the domestic factors if foreign policies develop commonly. The traditional foreign policy is an area of domestic factionalism accepted to the interests of national security. The realist perspective on foreign policy and the communitarian pull of nationalism obscures both the complexity of decision making and the centrality of domestic factors in shaping the aims and outcomes of that process.

The authors, Christ Alden and Amnon Aran said that the investigation of the individual decision-maker and the role of bureaucratic influence in the implementation become extensive in the sources of foreign policy decision making. The formal and casual guidelines of political lead inside a given state are basic for molding the way. The role of elites and even class factors access and structures foreign policy expect. One methodology sees the principal source of domestic impact in the real basic type of states. A subsequent methodology sees foreign policy-making as being driven by the idea of the financial framework inside states. A third approach considers a foreign policy to be as the result of an aggressive pluralist condition as communicated by the interchange between interest group politics and state chiefs and structures. The state and local conditions need an examination of the idea of the state and society. There should be some acknowledgment that what establishes the domestic condition and its variety of actors and interests is to an enormous degree and ingenuity which can be penetrated by ‘outside’ powers.

The role of the nation depends on the domestic factors because of these mirror upon the features of the nation. Then it concerns the community. The state characters make foreign policy legally. Based on the domestic actors actively seek to capture the policy debate on foreign policy from the dispensing of financial largesse to political mobilization strategies. Even those structuralist accounts which resist ascribing any autonomy of the state from societal interests concede that factionalism within elite groups produces competition over foreign policy. In the 1970s, Peter Gourevitch recognized the possibilities of external influence over the shape and tenor of debates in relation to foreign policy issues. He suggested that Waltz’s ‘second image’ is the state level of analysis as the domestic setting to the external environment. There are some identifying characteristics of the international political method for quotation to the enduring saliency and principal of the domestic environment in the foreign policy procedure. The basic factor of the foreign policy is the official significance agreed to the concept of authority. This delivers to the state fundamental fact over a fixed area and its people. The official structures of states provide formal status to corporative entities ranging from businesses to NGOs. The positive situation of the foreign policy decision-makers obtains its strong legitimacy from the internal community.

The type of domestic structure of the state political institutions is vital for an important source of foreign policy. The design of the state is vital because it is a critical fact in the decision making of foreign policy. The normal politics and the effort of political groups are dominated by the regulations of political joining in connection to international problems. Customarily, the leader awarded by the constitution or convention has the power to create and develop foreign policy. The number of points of access between societal groups and decision-makers determines the degree of public input to state foreign policy. In the US, there are many approaches to the leader concerned with a foreign policy which is ‘society dominated’. The public has many chances to impact foreign policy. The domestic structure affairs dominate foreign policy which is the political regime type. Authoritarian regimes that do not have the right to elect have used external causes to divert from internal issues. The concept of the domestic sources of foreign policy has the democratic peace dispute emanated from Kant’s ‘ perpetual peace’ theory. Michael Doyle indicates to critical separates constitutional liberal democracies with one another. His logical basis is immovable democracies that settle the conflict through cooperation and collaboration. The connection between political regime and foreign policy behavior is presented as a different alternative by the middle power. Middle power foreign policies are related to the development of norms. And Middle power foreign policies are normally multilateralist, bridge-building. The effect of systems on foreign policy underscores the local foundational examples and nearby points of interest of history and society in molding foreign policy lead.

Among structuralist compositions in the Marxist convention, we can discover the underlying foundations of foreign policy in the idea of the entrepreneur’s monetary framework. As indicated by Karl Marx, the state makes a basic capacity by masterminding the premiums of capital in connection to work and markets. A restricted social class overwhelms the economy to sure that international strategy sees its interests. For structuralists, the fundamental fringes between the progressive system of the states fitted inside the universal political economy are the indispensable order to foreign policy activities. Robert Cox and Hein Marais, contend that the low created countries have a transnational entrepreneur class. They convey their frameworks as universal establishments as they seem to be. There is a strand in the writing on class and tip-top foreign policy hypothesis that portrays foreign policy as directed by and for the tip-top inside society. Skidmore and Hudson describe that the authority of society centers around ethnic gatherings. This builds up the power to team up tip-top and consistent internal atmosphere.

Pluralism is maybe the most generally recognized way to deal with surveying the job and effect of local factors on foreign policy. Pluralism incorporates the horde of sub-state and non-state on-screen characters inside the residential field and their endeavors to apply impact over state foundations and basic leadership forms. The pluralist approach is essentially on electoral democracies and the job of sub-state and non-state on-screen characters, mainly interest gatherings, public opinion and the media, informing the foreign policy decisions of chiefs. Interest groups are recognized by their wellsprings of help and the idea of their inclinations. Interest groups can activate and introduce their situations, at any rate in ideological terms, as receptive to group concerns. Interest gatherings can be ordered generally as anteroom gatherings, single-issue developments, voting public based gatherings and specific vested parties. Interest gatherings’ impact on foreign policy centers fundamentally around monetary and political perspectives. Public opinion is an expansive term that includes the mass, mindful open and different interest gatherings and entryway gatherings. Public opinion sets the parameters to foreign policy choices and can be viewed as a ‘foundation’ restriction on foreign policymaking and execution. The idea of general feeling is dangerous since it requires the meaning of who is the public and includes debate on the techniques embraced to advance the open’s perspectives. Almond–Lippman’s conception holds that popular supposition ought to have no job or impact over foreign policy. The media assume a critical job in the foreign policy process as a scaffold for the section of data between the general population, the state, and the global field. Another wellspring of data on universal undertakings is non-state actors whose command is to shape popular sentiment on foreign policy issues. The media as an administration purposeful publicity apparatus holds to deal with the progression of data to their residents in light of a legitimate concern for system security. New media, particularly personal computers empowered media, have furnished non-state actors and people with various stages, for example, ‘blog’ destinations and interpersonal organizations, to associate individuals and give data.

The foreign policy detailing and the decision has propelled various ways to deal with displaying this procedure. Robert Putnam, Robert O. Keohane, and Joseph S. Nye have created ways to deal with a foreign policy that tries to represent the intricacy and interaction between the domestic and external powers. Hagan returns to the job of leaders in equitable governments as the central purposes of foreign policy basic leadership. The duty of the leader gets one of making and keeping up alliances of help for the particular foreign policy motivation. Hagan posits this is accomplished through the use of one of three methodologies, settlement, protection or activation. An assembly system is sought after to win support for a foreign policy position by convincing adversaries of the arrangement. Pluralist investigations of foreign policy perceive the effect of an assorted variety of on-screen characters, notable global organizations and a changing domain on foreign policy basic leadership. This developing unpredictability presents huge difficulties to the more regular clarifications of foreign policy direction in FPA. Putnam’s way to deal with displaying foreign policy basic leadership – which centers around exchange issues. As indicated by Putnam, chiefs need to work inside two contending systems with various standards and distinctive operational rationales so as to accomplish a ‘win-set’. Keohane and Nye proposed a model of foreign policy basic leadership which echoes the very intricacy it tries to clarify. ‘Complex between reliance’ enables the state to hold a proportion of organization in surveying and activating state and sub-state on-screen characters, NGOs and worldwide foundations for its very own closures.

Hagan and Hilsman neglect the part played by ideological groups in this procedure. In numerous regards, ideological groups can be viewed as the key site for various exercises ascribed in FPA to domestic sources of foreign policy. A state’s foreign policy is the result of the choices and contributions at the ideological group level and not the formal government. Ideological groups use their universal systems in manners that complement, supplement or even contradict the formal strategic two-sided state device. Any foreign policy has a local source since foreign policy is the mean of the endurance of states in international anarchy. Subsequently, a local source will be characterized as a material or insignificant driver of a state’s international strategy situated inside the country’s worldview barring the widespread drivers, for example, insurance of its populace or riches. The foreign policy represents a significant test as it includes a mind-boggling, two-level game broadly delineated by Robert Putnam (1988). Understanding the sources that encourage participation and weight sharing among member states and improved joint effort with accomplices, for example, NATO appears to be especially appropriate in a quickly changing and reliant condition opens the black box of local inclination development.

Derek Beach said to go beyond the ‘black box’ of the state to call attention to how associated with the social sources of input, for example, public opinion and interest groups, governmental actors, and societal identities- a matter for what states want in foreign affairs by this factors. Domestic actors matter when they can give an adequate result to strategy producers in the event that they build arrangements in the ideal course, or to force adequate punishments on the off chance that they don’t. At the point when an administration is defenseless, residential on-screen characters can maintain a strategic distance from the thrashing (Ripman 2009:181).

According to The Domestic Sources of European Foreign Policy(Omar Serrano), in economic interest, Andrew Moravcsik’s liberal intergovernmentalism (li) has featured the job of economic interest. LI accepts that a portion of the fundamental requirements looked by national leaders exude from positive or negative economic effects on specific constituents. In this sense, EU incorporation can be comprehended as ‘a progression of judicious decisions made by national pioneers. These decisions reacted to limitations and openings coming from the monetary interests of amazing domestic constituents’ (Moravcsik 1998: 18). By differentiating the job of economic interest with that of other cultural on-screen characters, LI become greater with the guide of relative governmental issues, which considers both the information and yield sides of the political framework by taking a gander at on-screen characters, for example, the broad communications, ideological groups or public opinion, and institutional settings (Easton/Dennis1969; Geddes 1991). The input side is shaped by ideological groups, pressure gatherings, constituent conduct, and mass attitudinal arrangements (Peters et al. 1977). The yield side comprises of institutional components incorporating administrative and institutional arrangements (Peters et al. 1977). In building up a residential examination and accepting liberal intergovernmentalism as the purpose of flight, right off the bat incorporated a few measures to represent the interests of monetary gatherings, by looking at costs of and open doors for financial additions emerging from security and protection approaches. Proof of the impact of domestic legislative issues in international strategy-making has been found in different cases than the United States. European foreign policy shows that a principal factor upgrading the effect of popular supposition and the media over foreign policy has been the finish of the Cold War.

Theories concentrated upon domestic cultural components can be partitioned into public opinion or interest groups, and government-situated hypotheses concentrated on administrative on-screen characters’ needs. The state-level explores the aggressive domestic battle between various cultural gatherings and contending bunches inside the government over characterizing the state’s outside objectives.

According to the structuralist approach of Christ Alden and Amnon Aran, they said rich people can influence foreign policies but I think that we should not determine for only rich people. Although a person who was born of a commoner, he becomes a famous person in the world. And in the domestic structures approach, state and society should negotiate for constitutional arrangements because negotiation and cooperation is the best way to gain good result such as peace, democracy and so on. Some people think politics doesn’t concern them and is the job of the government of the state. To be peace and develop, all people in the country must integrate with the government such as to emerge domestic sources of foreign policy.

According to Christ Alden and Amnon Aran, they point out that political parties are not important in making domestic sources of foreign policy. But in my opinion, we should not neglect political parties because they will support the required main data for foreign policy decision making. And I think that they only emphasize the political matter so they can have more detail factors to be effective foreign policy.

According to Derek Beach, countries should not restrict social sources of input such as the public opinion in decision making to emanate foreign policy.

According to The Domestic Sources of European Foreign Policy of “Omar Serrano”, we should not neglect the opinion of the public, we have evidence, European foreign policies show that the main factor enhancing the impact of public opinion and the media over foreign policy has been the end of the Cold War.

Traditionally, academics have regarded foreign policy as an area of “high” politics (Almond, 1950). However, the possible effects of media, with the complex influence of public opinion, have garnered scholarly attention and debate for several decades now, without a clear consensus ever truly emerging. As Steven Livingston summarized: “The impact of these new global, real-time media is typically regarded as substantial, if not profound.” He pointed to two key factors in particular: the first factor was the conclusion of the Cold War, in 1989. The second factor refers to the incredible progressions within “communications technology” which have allowed us to “broadcast live” across the world. (Livingston, 1997, p.1).

This essay seeks to analyse several interaction theories on this subject, to understand whether any singular theorem is sufficient enough to determine whether elite interests are able to mediate the impact of media and public opinion on foreign policy. Firstly, I will analyse the indexing theory, which holds that editors and journalists are likely to “index” media discourse according to the viewpoints expressed by elite policymakers about a given topic in order to “keep the news compatible with the shifting political and economic interests of the state” (Bennett, 1990). During this analysis, I will also explore the “manufacturing consent theory”, which has a similar basis to the concept of indexing. Finally, I will critique the “agenda-setting theory”, alongside the “CNN effect”, which explores the close relationship between the influential coverage of the news media and subsequent key foreign policy decisions made by elites (Nitoiu, 2015). First, I will begin by defining the parameters of the terms “public opinion”, “media” and “elite.”

“Public opinion” is a disputed concept between different ideological stances. This essay will utilise the liberal school of thought for which “public opinion” signifies the aggregate of society’s opinions surrounding a public interest related issue. (Yeric & Todd, 1989). With regards to the term “media”, the definition for this essay encompasses the main means of mass communication: broadcasting and print newspapers (legacy media), but also the internet – including social media. When referring to elites, it must be noted that this encompasses economic and media elites, as well as government elites, for the purpose of this essay.

In recent years, the importance of “public opinion and media”, within the realm of foreign policy, has become a polemic issue amongst academics (Knecht & Weatherford, 2006). A particular outlook, the “elite-centric model”, suggests that when it comes to foreign affairs the general public as a whole are “ill informed”, and are therefore easy to manipulate (Almond, 1960; Mearsheimer, 1990; Knecht & Weatherford, 2006). Consequently, these characteristics are often proffered by realists as grounds for establishing foreign policy decisions for the sake of “national interest”, instead of fluctuating public “preferences” (Kennan, 1951; Knecht & Weatherford, 2006). The seminal work of W. Lance Bennett (1990) introduces the best-known “indexing hypothesis”, building upon the foundations laid by Bernard Cohen (1963) and Daniel Hallin (1986). As aforementioned, the indexing hypothesis maintains that opinions presented in news coverage are “indexed” by media corporations “to reflect the range of opinions that exist within the government” (Gilboa, 2005; Bennett, 1990, p.106). Essentially, the news media parrot the opinions exhibited during government debate, usually with the aim of garnering “political support” (Gilboa, 2005, p.32). Thus, critical coverage will only feature in the media if there is elite dissensus, or if political uncertainty arises. As stated in Berry’s works, (1990, p.xiii), “to a far greater extent than with domestic politics, the press is at one with the foreign policy establishment.” Policy-makers in particular are “prime sources for indexing” because they can spread their ideas and opinions in several ways, such as “speeches, planting stories, releasing negative stories which might overshadow other bigger news items, [or] feeding articles to the media” (Nițoiu, 2015).

The main reason given for this particular policymakers-media interaction theory, is the existence of journalistic behavioural norms that appear to be embedded in political culture, particularly the US (Bennett, 1990). The media “often rally along with the public”, essentially parroting information obtained by decision-making elites, because of their reliance on “authoritative sources” for news resources, for instance the press office at the White House (Baum & Potter, 2008, p.51; Zaller & Chiu, 2000; Cohen, 1963). Furthermore, journalists aren’t only reliant on government elites for information, rather it is not uncommon for journalists to leave the private sector to take on high-level government roles, as exemplified in the case of Jay Carney, who left Time magazine in 2011 to become the White House Press Secretary for the Obama administration (McCarthy, 2018). However, although media may “index” their coverage to fit elite rhetoric, we cannot assume that the public are always responsive to elite manipulation. A large percentage of the public have been shown to not change their attitudes frequently in accordance with news media positions. It may be that the public are more rational and less open to manipulation than the hypothesis asserts (Shapiro & Page, 1988; Risse-Kappen, 1991). Moreover, in today’s climate, political communication systems are less coherent, and the legacy press are unable to set agendas, and produce effects to the same degree. Certainly, the extent of indexing for legacy press, like print newspapers and broadcasters, may “expand during crisis events such as wars, natural disasters or economic upheavals”, when governments monopolise information, but it is becoming more and more commonplace for “authoritative political information” to fail to reach as far as it once did, and/or is “drowned out by alternative sources of uncertain credibility” (Bennett, 2018, p.248; Bennett, Lawrence, & Livingstone, 2008). Hence, I believe it would be unsuitable to say that the impact of media upon foreign policy appears to be categorically mediated by elite interests, and also that the indexing hypothesis fails to consider public opinion as an independent entity.

A similar, although far more polemic theory, is the “manufacturing consent” theory, a structural approach to media/state relations. Several academics have suggested that media output is controlled by powerful groups who are consequently able to garner support with the aid of the media (Iyengar & Simon, 1993; Mermin, 1999). The “manufacturing consent” literature highlights the influential power of government elites in regard to media output and the “tendency of journalists to both self-censor and perceive global events” from an elite standpoint; the marginalisation of these journalists ends up forcing most to generate propaganda (Robinson, 2002, p.12; Nițoiu, 2015). During the Bosnian war, for instance, Kent found that there was a tendency for editors to work within a “sphere of consensus”, thus editorial pieces outside of this “sphere” were unlikely to be published (Kent, 2006, p.346). Editorial pressure forced reporters to print the words of State Department officials even when they knew the information was inaccurate (Kent, 2006; Pedelty, 1995, p.87). Through a Marxist lens, the inherent need for the media to generate profit “generally derails [them] from acting in the public interest”, since the discourse favoured by the elite owners is usually reflected within the news reporting (Stier, 2015, p.1275). Likewise, the most explicit “manufacturing consent” theory, developed by Herman and Chomsky (2002), is a “propaganda model”, presenting the media as an instrument of propaganda, with no influence or power over decision-makers, “that cannot foster public debate by providing free and unconstrained access to news and information” (Nitoiu, 2015, p.26). This “propaganda model”, or the “manufacturing consent” theory, helps to build the content of the news media, and is supported by “structural factors” (Herman & Chomsky, 2002). Moreover, the implementation of propaganda aids in mobilising “support for the special interests that dominate the state and private activity” (Herman, 1993; Herman & Chomsky, 2002).

According to Herman & Chomsky, elite-oriented news production is affected by several principal “filters” (Herman & Chomsky, 2002, p.2). Firstly, the “dominant media firms”, aiming to make profit, often have personal vested interests in other “major corporations” (Herman & Chomsky, 2002, p.13). These “symbiotic” relationships tend to restrict the type of content that is broadcast because of these particular conglomerates (Herman & Chomsky, 2002, p.13). Secondly, it is undeniable that the media is dependent on dvertising. In television particularly, as advertising slots inevitably increase, broadcasts with noteworthy “public-affairs content” will be either marginalised or eliminated entirely (Herman & Chomsky, 2002, p.17). I believe it is also salient to highlight that media firms often maintain particular stances to appease, attract, advertising investment. Thirdly, much like the indexing theory, high-ranking government elites are relied upon by media corporations for sources that are “credible”, and therefore reliable (Herman and Chomsky, 2002, p.19). Herman and Chomsky claim that these three “filters” allow the elites to secure control over the media (Herman & Chomsky, 2002).

Yet, it must be acknowledged that there are several problems with the propaganda model. Manufacturing consent theory is unable to adequately explain the relationship between “media coverage and any given policy process” (Robinson, 2001, p.528). Several years after the Somalian intervention, George Bush Sr. revealed that it was the media’s emphasis on the crisis which convinced him to send troops into the nation, upon seeing “heart-rendering” television footage of “starving waifs” in Somalia (Hines, 1999). Conversely, from a realist perspective, there is no reason to say that Bush Sr. didn’t have national interests or self-interests at play. Thus, we are unable to draw conclusions from this theory as to what role media performs in foreign policy (or any policy) formation, let alone whether elite interests have an overarching influence.

Other scholars contest the indexing and propaganda model theories, claiming that the media can have an influence on foreign policy formation. Perhaps this concept is best defined by Cohen: “the press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about” (Cohen, 1963). From a liberalist standpoint, consent of the mass public should be required to make any foreign policy decisions because of “democratic norms and the public’s restraining influence on elite choices” (Foyle, 1997, p142). Agenda-setting theory originated as an audience effect theory, although it evolved over time to become a “media-centric” theory (Bennett & Pfetsch, 2018, p.249; McCombs & Shaw, 1972). The hypothesis holds that the public agenda is determined by the deliberate efforts of editors, journalists and broadcasters, which can impact the importance attributed to different “issues” (McCombs & Shaw, 1972, p.177). “Readers learn not only about a given issue, but also how much importance to attach to that issue” (McCombs & Shaw, 1972, p.176). With the deliberately forced “attention to certain issues”, it seems inconceivable that the media would have no influence at all on setting the agenda for foreign policy issues (Lang & Lang, 1966, p.468).

To investigate the real-life application of this theory, McCombs and Shaw (1972) implemented a field work study interviewing the electorate in Chapel Hill during the run-up to the American presidential election in 1968. The aim of the investigation was to determine whether the media had a significant “agenda-setting capacity”, through comparing the topical media coverage with what the electorate claimed were “key issues” (McCombs & Shaw, 1972, p.177). After rigorous work to quash and/or limit any errors, the data collected between September 18th and October 6th suggested high correlation between the “emphasis” assigned to particular issues by the media and also by the voters during the campaign (McCombs & Shaw, 1972, p.177). Furthermore, the findings demonstrated that voter’s views even tended to match the views of the press, despite the fact that all three candidates running for office had completely different priorities. This suggests that voters follow politics via the news media, rather than following what their preferred candidates say (McCombs & Shaw, 1972, p.177-181). Thus, we have cause to believe that media has a strong impact on public opinion, although this evidence is inconclusive due to the limited research available.

While it has been proven that the mass media can have a big impact, it is largely subject to circumstances. Daniel Drezner of the New York Times (2012) suggests that only 5% of American people cast their presidential vote based on international affairs, perhaps signifying that the mass media isn’t as influential on public opinion in the realm of foreign policy. On the other hand, particular news events, or “windows of opportunity”, can empower the media to set the agenda and influence policy (Wolfe et al., 2013, p.182). Similarly, it is suggested that news items which evoke emotional responses from the public are more likely to encourage policymakers to react, such as features on genocide or war-stricken children (Gitlin, 2003). If issues viewed as salient by the mass public are ignored, public favour is affected, and re-election becomes less likely; some politicians may purposefully promote policies in order to get the electorate on their side (Jacobs & Shapiro, 2000). However, if a government is a policy dictator and is policy-averse, then it will always veto even if pressure is greater, like during the media coverage of a sensational issue (Jensen, 2011, p.144). Jensen also argues that a “focusing event” is required, in order for media and public opinion to actually have an input into government agenda, which was exemplified through a study on education policy in Denmark (Jensen, 2011, p.146-154).

The renowned “CNN effect” is possibly the most popular news media influence theory in the political world. Following the live coverage of the Gulf War in 1991, CNN emerged as a potent news organisation, changing the way in which we consume news. The term “CNN effect” was coined to explain the belief that global, 24-hour news channels had broadened their influence and become able to impact foreign policy (Livingston, 1997). The nomenclature here, however, is confusing, since the “CNN effect” is now not exclusive to CNN. The examples of crisis intervention in Iraq and Somalia in the 1990s are often cited as evidence of the “CNN effect”, because the devastating news coverage of these two events was, at the time, practically unavoidable (Robinson, 2002). Realist critics have historically denounced the “CNN effect” and emphasised the necessity of foreign policy decisions being made amongst elites (Robinson, 1999, p.302).

Yet, the precise application of this term remains unclear. Gilboa (2005) highlights the fact that the effect is sometimes used specifically to analyse issues relating to humanitarian intervention, whereas sometimes it is used in a much broader sense to refer to entire approaches within the domain of foreign policy making. As with the concept of agenda-setting, an emphasis on news items which the media consumer can feel empathy towards, such as mass starvation, governments are keen to be seen as doing something, can impact how policymakers prioritise certain issues as they are always conscious of re-election.

The “CNN effect” has been the subject of many debates over the years. Gilboa indicates three key groups: government elites, those working in news media corporations and academics. Neither these separate actor groups, nor individuals belonging to the same group, can agree on the “CNN effect”. The first main stance holds that the “CNN effect” has had an obvious impact in the field of foreign policy decision making, and that interventions would never have happened without it. The opposing stance states that the “CNN effect” has not had any significant effect on decision making, and that any contrasting claims will have been grossly overexaggerated. It is acknowledged, however, that the “CNN effect” may be valid in the absence of a reliable leader (Gilboa, 2005, p. 335-336).

Nonetheless, the majority of studies surrounding the “CNN effect” take root in American politics, and American foreign policy. This, unfortunately, means that it is essentially invalid when pertaining to other case studies in other parts of the world. It may also depend on whether the particular case involves an autocratic or democratic regime. Democratic governments are often thought to be more “malleable” than autocratic regimes, however a case study of Nigeria indicates that there is substantial evidence to show that “non-democratic regimes, like the military in Nigeria, are malleable to public opinion in foreign policy decision-making” (Ojieh, 2005, p.31). Although the “CNN effect” was a popular scholarly theory surrounding several occasions of humanitarian interventions in the 1990s, the popular belief today appears to be that the phenomenon, if it existed or not, was short-lived. It has been suggested that the “CNN effect” was able to exist due to the overlap of advancements within telecommunications with the stability of the global political system (Baum & Potter, 2008). Consequently, the CNN effect seems to have had a “significantly less transformative effect than early scholarship anticipated” (Baum & Potter, 2008, p.53), which I believe is due to the growth of news media online, which has facilitated the proliferation of non-mainstream media agendas combined with the help of social media.

In conclusion, it seems to me that media undeniably holds significant power in its intermediary position between the mass public and elite policymakers. This position will always be fluctuating due to several factors, such as the type of policy issue, whether there is elite consensus, and the growth of digital news media. Consequently, specific ideas like the “CNN effect”, or the manufacturing consent theory are insufficient to conclude whether or not the impact of public opinion and media on foreign policy is mediated by elites. As Somalia demonstrates, public opinion must not be underestimated, because the media is able to bolster the strength of the public’s views. However, as Bosnia demonstrates, elites can censor the media and coerce the public consensus. Nowadays, thanks to technology, the public are more politically savvy than in the past, thus it seems inconceivable that public opinion would not influence the foreign policy agenda. As Bennett aptly argues: “Foreign policy, once the private domain of pinstripe bureaucrats and business elites, that gray world of threats, promises, wars, espionage, and diplomacy, may have become transformed by a combination of new communications technologies and global media systems” (1994, p.12).

The series of anti-government demonstrations, known as The Arab Spring, resulted in regime changes in various Middle Eastern and North African countries including Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. Similarly, what started as nonviolent protests in Syria escalated quickly into a seemingly endless civil war when the regime forces used force to suppress the protesters. The Syrian Civil War gave rise to security and humanitarian concerns such as refugee crises, the emergence of radical terrorist groups and the issue of foreign terrorist fighters.

The Syrian Civil War did not only have an immediate impact on the Middle Eastern countries, but it also provided a playground for the regional and global powers to engage in a power play. This gave the US the opportunity to become one of the influential leaders in the Syrian conflict.

Council on Foreign Relations marks the situation in Syria as critical to the US interests. The focus of this research paper is to examine the US foreign policy in Syria by contrasting the strategies formulated under the administrations of the presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump. After elaborating on the background of the Syrian conflict and its implications for the US interest and foreign policy objectives, the paper presents a brief historical background of bilateral relations between Syria and the US. The report concludes by discussing the continuities and changes in the US foreign policy priorities and strategies after the election of Donald Trump as the President of the US.

U.S. interests in Syria date back to the nineteenth century, however, the US became a significant player in the region following the Second World War. The United States acknowledged the state of Syria and established diplomatic relations in 1944 when Syria gained its independence from the French mandate.

Since the recognizing of the state of Syria, the US-Syrian relations never reached the point of a friendly and allied nation. The Council of Middle East summarized the relation between two countries as, “No U.S. administration will befriend Israel’s principal Arab enemy.”[footnoteRef:2] The relations between the two countries were hurt further due to the Arab- Israeli Wars in 1967. The US supported the Israelis against the Arab states; Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. The relations worsened when Syria was listed as a sponsor state of terrorism in 1979 by the US. The US accused Syria of financing and harboring terrorists, contributing to the spread of mass destruction weapons as well as occupying Lebanon and adding to regional instability. Likewise, Syria was against the invasion of Iraq by the US forces. The US imposed economic sanctions to restrict trade relations and prohibit direct aid to Syria. In 2003, President Bush authorized additional economic sanctions under the Syria Accountability Act. The previous aid ban was also supported by the Bush administration. In 2006, the US officials accused Syria of logistic support for Hezbollah and thereby enabling Hezbollah to stage military operations against the Israeli forces.

When President Obama took office, he aimed to restore relations with Syria. His effort, however, did not lead to positive outcomes. For instance, when Obama nominated a career diplomat to serve as the US ambassador in Syria, the Congress blocked his nomination. There were “tremendous pressures in Congress, various branches of government, and at every level of U.S. society to punish Syria for its enmity toward Israel.”[footnoteRef:4] During the first months of his administration, several conferences were arranged in Damascus between high-ranking U.S. military officers and their Syrian counterparts. The purpose of these military meetings was “to draw the contours for possible future military cooperation and fixing the border,” since cooperation between two countries could lead to valuable intelligence sharing in contribution to counterterrorism efforts. [footnoteRef:5] However, with the outbreak of the conflict and civil war, the US increased its criticism of the Syrian president and called for his overthrow. Eventually, the relations between the two countries grew worse compared to the past. ‘The U.S.-Syria Relationship: A Few Questions | Middle East Policy Council.’ Homepage | Middle East Policy Council. Web.

The series of anti-government uprisings, known as the Arab Spring, also sparked protests and demonstrations in the Syrian land as early as January 2011. The protestors demanded democratic reforms, the end of corruption and lifting of the state of emergency as well as the release of the political prisoners.

In March 2011, a group of teenagers was arrested for writing political graffiti on the walls of the Southern city of Daraa. People took the streets to protest the brutal treatment of teenagers by the regime forces. When the Assad regimes used force to suppress the protesters, the tension heightened, causing protests to spread to the rest of the country. Assad blamed the protestors for being a tool of external agents and then declared to crush the anti-regime protestors. Troops and tanks were sent into the cities to suppress the protests.

Soon after, the use of force by the regime triggered violent unrest and the protests transformed into armed conflicts nationwide. In July 2011, a group of former Syrian Armed Forces officers joined to bring the opposition forces together under the Free Syrian Army in order to fight against the Assad regime. In December 2012, countries including the US, Turkey, and the UK recognized the opposition under the Syrian National Coalition as the “legitimate representatives” of Syrian people. [footnoteRef:7] Moreover, President Barack Obama warned the Assad regime on the use of chemical weapons, quoted as saying, “that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized” and thereby he signaled for a US military response in case of a chemical attack by the Assad forces.

The Assad regime continued its bombardment of the opposition forces in various cities while thousands of people took the streets of many cities including Aleppo. Due to the intensified armed conflict, the International Committee of Red Cross declared the situation in Syria a civil war when Spokesman Hassan regarded the Syrian conflict as a ‘non-international armed conflict’ in 2012.

In September 2013, UN inspectors released a report stating that the regime forces utilized chemical weapons such as sarin nerve agents against civilians in the city of Damascus, which resulted in the death of hundreds of people.[footnoteRef:10] The use of chemical weapons caused an international reaction against the Assad regime as many countries released statements condemning the use of chemical agents and raised concerns about the human rights violations in the international arena. However, the efforts of the countries did not result in a military response to the Assad regime as promised by the Obama administration.

By 2014, the civil war in Syria worsened, resulting in deaths of thousands of people, causing millions of people to be displaced within and beyond Syria and creating a power vacuum to be filled by terrorist organizations. By June 2014, the radical Islamist terrorist organization Daesh took over the northern part of Syria and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, declared the creation of a caliphate including regions from Iraq to Syria. Following the rise of Daesh, the US-led coalition forces started airstrike campaigns to target the terrorist organization. On 22 September, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby stated that the United States with other nations as part of the coalition forces conducted airstrikes in Syria “using fighters, bombers, and Tomahawk missiles in strikes authorized by President Barack Obama.”The Russian ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich warned against the US intervention in Syria, stating that airstrikes by the US “in the absence of a UN Security Council decision, would be an act of aggression, a gross violation of international law.” The rapid rise of the Daesh extended the US involvement in the Syrian civil war when the US provided aid to the opposition forces. The first aid packages included non-lethal military gear, food, and medical kits. Following the events, the US Congress authorized 500-million dollars to initiate a “train and equip” program to help the Syrian opposition in the fight against Daesh as Obama stated, “I’m pleased that Congress has now voted to support a key element of our strategy: our plan to train and equip the opposition in Syria so they can help push back these terrorists.” In addition, the US planned to send 400 troops to the neighbor countries of Syria to train 5000 opposition soldiers. The US also sent special troops into Syria in a rescue mission in July 2014 to save the Americans held captive by the ISIS. However, the rescue mission was aborted because the hostages were not present at Obama’s counterterrorism advisor Monaco stated.

With the 2019 Indonesian presidential election coming up, both candidates, which are Jokowi-Ma’ruf and Prabowo-Sandiaga, have been campaigning their visions and missions. The two candidates will be competing for the second time after the 2014 presidential election where Jokowi won as Indonesia’s current president. From economic, human rights, laws until international relations concerns have been stated toward their campaigns. Through the foreign policy offered by the two candidates, it shows that both side still use the ‘free and active’ doctrine as Indonesia’s role in international realm (Antara, 2018). In fact, Indonesian government has always generated this doctrine in its role in world’s affairs (Parameswaran, 2014). The use of free and active foreign policy itself, means that Indonesia would prioritize an impartial attitude towards certain blocks and be fully sovereign in determining its position in international politics and actively participate in maintaining world peace (Timorria, 2018). A significant example of this doctrine is by looking on how Indonesian government tries to stand up using their voice for Palestine’s right (Kuwado, 2018). Seeing the similarity between the two candidates by using the same foreign policy doctrine, the direction stated by each candidate indicates divergent priorities toward foreign affairs. Jokowi-Ma’ruf’s side seems to have outward looking in global politics by expanding relations with other states, whilst the Prabowo-Sandiaga’s side is more inward toward international affairs by prioritizing Indonesian prosperity first. Thus, I argue that Jokowi-Ma’ruf and Prabowo-Sandiaga’s foreign policy priorities for their upcoming presidency are different.

Prabowo-Sandi side would prioritize economic diplomacy, also strengthening the security and defense might be the candidate’s priorities in terms of foreign policy. Towards his campaigns, it is certain that Prabowo has determined his foreign policy priorities to be not far different from the 2014 election. From his previous attempt on presidential election, he was more focused on making government control greater and restructuring the management of natural resources. He stressed the importance of accelerating economic development (MP3EI) by needing the presence of foreign investment (Syailendra, 2014). By adopting Prabowo’s previous campaign for the 2019 election, Prabowo-Sandi’s concern over foreign affairs still puts economic as the focus, with security and defense as additions. With applying free and active policy in economic diplomacy, the candidate focuses on the sustainability of Indonesia’s diplomacy with two superpowers who are currently engaged in a trade war, the United States and China (Dante, 2018). The candidate would also like to strengthen the national defense system by increasing the annual budget for the subject. Other statement on security and defense that might be generated by Prabowo-Sandi is to build strong maritime sovereignty. (Antara, 2018). As stated by Timmoria (2018), the reason why the candidate pulls the concern on security on defense is due to the condition of the current defense industry which was considered still focused on assembling components, not yet targeting research and strengthening of production facilities. However, the candidate seems to slip human rights into their foreign policy, even if it is not prioritized. As it is stated by Prabowo, the candidate has also put concern toward Palestine by standing up for its justice (BBC Indonesia, 2018). Fighting for Uighur Muslims’s humanity in China would also be the concern for this candidate as the side said that Indonesian Government should take a firm stance towards the discriminatory (Prakoso, 2018).

On the other hand, Jokowi-Ma’ruf’s side seeks for political diplomacy and human rights in terms of foreign policy for their 2019 presidential election. It is assumed if Jokowi was elected for the second time to run for president, Indonesian foreign policy would not likely stray significantly from its current path. According to Lundry (2018), the candidate wants to recognize the value of multilateralism by continuing their support to Indonesia’s role in ASEAN. They also want to continue being active and participating in world peace by maintaining Indonesia’s position in both ASEAN and the United Nations Security Council as a non-permanent member. By borrowing the ‘Game of Thrones’ idea, if it is re-elected, Jokowi expects Indonesia to have the ability to unite the forces that are fighting and being calculated on the world stage (Antara, 2018). Another political diplomacy that would be generated by this candidate is to continue the cooperation with China by joining One Belt One Road (OBOR) agreement on letting China to help building infrastructure in the nation. However, in order to avoid Chinese intervention in national political policies, Jokowi would also maintain good relations with the US by joining the Indo Pacific, which is initiated by the states. Thus, the two countries would see Indonesia as a strategic cooperation partner (Hakim, 2018). In terms of human rights, the candidate puts concern on the protection of Indonesian citizens and workers abroad. Not only Indonesians’ human rights but also for the foreign peace and stability such as the conflict resolution in Rakhine, Myanmar and the dispute between Palestine and Israel. The candidate emphasizes that Indonesia would fight for Palestine’s humanity and justice since Indonesia has maintained a diplomacy with the nation (Timorria, 2018). This shows Jokowi-Ma’ruf’s concern on creating world peace by prioritizing both political diplomacy and human rights in terms of generating foreign policy for their candidacy.

Assessing Indonesia’s foreign policy under Jokowi’s presidency, there are some policies in which he has settled that are brought back into the 2019 election by both Jokowi-Ma’ruf and Prabowo-Sandi. Looking back at Jokowi’s foreign policy during his presidency, he implemented the Trisaskti principle, which was stated by Indonesia’s first president, Sukarno. The principle consisted of three basic propositions: freedom to proactively affirm the right of self-determination in the international scene; economic self-sufficiency; and building a firm national identity (Syailendra, 2014), which has yielded some gestures in many aspects such as security, defense, economy, human rights and political diplomacy. In terms of security and defense, especially in maritime, Jokowi has taken an aggressive movement toward illegal fishing in Indonesian territorial waters by capturing and bombing foreign fishing vessels (Lundry, 2018). Meanwhile, in economy, Jokowi has already brought Indonesia to maintain a good relations with China, through the Belt and Road Iniative, and India in Indian-Pacific cooperation (Perhimpunan Pelajar Indonesia, 2018). By analyzing Prabowo-Sandi’s side on foreign policy, it seems that the candidate would like to develop Jokowi’s presidential assessment in economy, security and defense. On the other hand, if it re-elected, Jokowi-Ma’ruf’s side would develop human rights and political diplomacy from his previous presidency. It shows on how a total of 51,088 cases of Indonesian citizens abroad were settled in order to protect their rights, and in terms of political diplomacy, under Jokowi, Indonesia was chosen as a non-permanent member of the UNSC for the period of 2019-2020 (Kuwado, 2018).

In conclusion, both of the candidates have different foreign policy priorities for their upcoming presidency although they still implement the same doctrine which is ‘free and active’. The divergence shows on how the Prabowo-Sandiaga’s side would like to prioritize economy, security and defense by launching some policies such as engaging with both the US and China in economy, building stronger maritime sovereignty and increasing military budget. Meanwhile, the Jokowi-Ma’ruf side would put concern over human rights and political diplomacy by generating some policies such as fighting for Palestine’s humanity and justice, participating more in ASEAN, maintaining its position in UNSC as the non-permanent member and forming cooperation with the US and China. However, by assessing Jokowi’s current presidency, it seems that the two candidates are trying to develop some of his achievements. As mentioned above, Prabowo-Sandiaga and Jokowi-Ma’ruf try to bring back some of the particular settlements, which the previous presidency has successfully settled with, for the 2019 presidential election. Considering that the global politics would face some challenges, such as the trade war between the US and China, would the foreign policies stated by Prabowo-Sandiaga and Jokowi-Ma’ruf remain the same or get developed? Would the difference on foreign policy priorities between the two candidates be emerged or would they stick on their own priorities?