Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 26

Analyzing Pakistans Foreign Policy

By: Masoud Amin


M.Phil. (IR)

NATIONAL DEFENCE UNIVERSITY,


ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN

SECTION 1
AN UNDERSTANDING FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS

Introduction
Foreign policy analysis as a field of study is categorized by its actor-specific focus. It is the study
of the procedure, outcomes, origins, or outputs of foreign policy decision-making in either a
comparative or case-specific manner. The underlying and generally tacit argument cause
conjectures that human beings, while acting as a group or within a group, concoct change in
international politics.
Foreign Policy Analysis bestows an accessible opportunity of research publication which boosts
communication through theoretical, methodological, geographical and disciplinary limits,
exposing the divergent, comparative and multidisciplinary nature of the field. The assessment
process stresses on convenience of content for scholars of all standpoints and methodologies, so
that Foreign Policy Analysis provides an outlet for theoretical and methodological consolidation
that expands the conceptual debates throughout the study of international politics.
This paper reviews applied foreign policy, realism, the Levels of Analysis by Kenneth Waltz,
and decision-making units to focus on the theoretical and analytical foundations of Pakistans
foreign policy. Levels of Analysis and realism are defined so that the entire face of the
argument may be understood in its true perspective. It identifies decision making units in
Pakistan as well as in the US and their interaction in the light of Waltzs Levels of Analysis.
Keeping Pakistan and its armys approach towards India in view, neighbouring relations are
based on the norms of survival, jealousy, power, identity, and comparison. Therefore, the realist

school of thought and Kenneth Waltzs Levels of Analysis are applied to the South Asian
regional foreign and security policy paradigm as well as the Pakistan Armys relationship with
the US policy-makers.

Foreign Policy: Applied


It will be pertinent, in the beginning, to bring in the dossier on academic foreign policy. A brief
definition of foreign policy can be given as the sum of official external relations conducted by
an independent actor (usually a state) in international relations. The ideal world as a
homogenized entity is much divided into real but separate and characteristic countries with their
own sanctified communities. The term foreign policy is a nineteenth-century expansion of the
idea of policy, which had been in use since Chaucer to denote a governments conduct of affairs.
Foreign policy is also seen as attempts by governments to influence or manage events outside
the states boundaries. Mostly, the relations formed with external countries are formulated in the
Foreign Office of the country with the final verdict of diplomatic staff. However, in a world
where important international disputes occur over the price of bananas or where, for the price of
F-16s, the nation is forced to purchase soybean oil, it would be absurd to concentrate foreign
policy analysis on relations between national diplomatic services. Foreign policy is, therefore,
both more and less than the external relations which states generate continuously on all fronts.
In simple terms, foreign policy is constituted by two fundamental elements: the objectives of a
state and the means required for their accomplishment. Hence it aims at the benefits of the state
which conducts it. However, this is not a complete explanation of the term because it does not
refer to the many different national objectives that a state may set itself and the variety of means
which can be employed. For example, a state may pursue its regional objectives by achieving

international support over its regional neighbours, and it may want to secure greater foreign
military and economic assistance. So in order to achieve these objectives, a state can use
traditional diplomacy through bilateral meetings and agreements, or join regional security blocs
sponsored by a greater power. In serious cases, a national military can also influence the foreign
policy of a country for its institutional benefits and may cause a military coup to control the
government and have military agreements. One understanding of the above discussion is that the
study of foreign policy is not an easy task. There are no clear-cut dimensions, patterns or lines,
and, therefore, conclusions should be drawn very carefully. Foreign policy as a subject has been
extensively studied by historians, at first through detailed accounts of diplomatic historians and
then through the scope of domestic history which strove to relate diplomacy to its domestic
roots, whether political, social, economic or cultural. Indeed, one finds a synergy of foreign
policy studies for historians increasingly interesting as international relations move towards its
own discipline. The tools of decision-making analysis are readily adaptable to detailed cases, and
opening up many state archives has made it impossible to avoid the evidence of such pathologies
as bureaucratic politics or small group dynamics. National Archives London and the US National
Archives in Washington DC are the few such examples. In the United States, in particular, there
has been a deliberate encouragement of links between historians and political scientists, with
much useful cross fertilization.

Impact of History on Foreign Policy


For a policy-maker, history offers some lessons for his education. If policy-making is not limited
to public servants, bureaucrats, diplomats and politicians, academia may serve as a think tank to
advise the government or concerned departments of policy making in the light of history and its

lessons. Social scientists in particular spend their lives analysing history and seeking to discern
patterns in it. In the absence of such an advisory class, policies become person-oriented, which
proves Hegels statement that we learn from history that we do not learn from history. This is
true with respect to the US-Pakistan collaboration against the former Soviet Union during the
1950s and 60s which benefited the US at the cost of Pakistans interests. In the later part of
Pakistans history, no lessons were learnt from such individualistic policies and the mistakes
were repeated again during the 1980s Afghan Crisis, as well as in the post-9/11 scenario
during the War against Terror in its relations with the US. Repetition of mistakes forced
Pakistan to face the worse security, regional and political crisis of its history. Decision-makers
simple historical comparisons and analogies end up in difficulty.1 Every historical study varies
from issue to issue and, hence, must be analysed individually to learn for the future. But if
history is ignored, it punishes a nation by repeating itself. In the absence of lessons from history,
refuge is usually taken behind the term national interest to pursue violent, peaceful and abrupt
policies. But can there be any interest that is not national for a country? Hence, declaring any
policy as a national interest in the foreign policy of a country is overemphasis. If for a policymaker something is national interest, then what is not national interest? One might not be
against the use of the phrase national interest but against confused use of the term.
Interestingly, there is no straightforward antonym to the term national interest which further
favours the limiting of its use in the foreign policy formulation process.

Foreign Policy and Realism


1

Michael Howard. (1991). The Lesson of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press,p97.

For a country like Pakistan, foreign policy needs to demonstrate political will and military power
to have friendly relations in order to keep a check, for example, on a hostile India, the former
Soviet Union, and present day terrorist threats. It also needs to perfect democratic practice. This
can be synchronized by a foreign policy with a prudent realism. It is the traditional way in which
practitioners have thought about international relations, emphasizing the importance of power in
the region.2 Realism became the orthodoxy in academic writing after the discrediting of the
legalistic-moralistic approach of the inter-war period. Realists maintain that definitions of
morality must change too. As George F. Kennan writes in Morality and Foreign Affairs, the
primary obligation of a government is to the interests of the national society it represents, not to
the moral impulses that individual elements of that society may experience. 3 In the Cold War, it
seemed self-evident that states and military force were the main features of the international
system. Much realist thought was more subtle, as any encounter with the work of E.H. Carr,
Hans Morgenthau, Reinhold Niebuhr, Martin Wight and Arnold Wolfers reveals. Christopher Hill
says: What realism did not do was probe into decision-making or other domestic sources of
international behaviour in general 4and in the mirror of history in particular. However, the entire
course of the history of relations between the US and Pakistan was a manifestation of the
application of realism, both at a South Asian regional as well as at a global level. Realism is
state-centric but with rational motives and ideologies. However, realism can be justified if all
those who believe that states are of continued significance in international relations are deemed
eo ipso realists. Realists were advanced by Kenneth Waltzs formation of neorealism in the late

Henry Kissinger. (2001). Does America need a Foreign Policy? New York: Simon and Schuster,p4.

George F. Kennan. (1985-86). Morality and Foreign Affairs. Foreign Affairs, vol.64, no.2, 206.

Christopher Hill.(2003). The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

1970s. Neo-realism5 is a systemic approach in which the international structure acts as a


constraint on state behaviour so that only states whose outcomes fall within an expected range
survive. However, the neo-realist theory could not deal with a foreign policy that could also
influence domestic policy. Realists were not sure of the origin of power from the level of
analysis human, state, or the world. Hence, Waltz came with compartmentalization of the
levels of analysis,6 along with the logic of Balance of Power to curb the logic of anarchy. 7
Though levels of analysis deal with the foreign as well as domestic policy of a country like
Pakistan, the neo-realist theory is limited only to the levels of analysis without any direct impact
on the decision-maker and domestic politics of a country.

In an international environment, every nation has its state-centric foreign policy values which
usually confront with the supra-national values. The supra-national values include peace,
freedom, democracy, humanity, etc. Nations join international forums and get into relationship
with other nations to abide by such values. However, every nation gives more weight to its
national state-centric values and interests than the supra-national values. The latter must be in
conformity with the former and when a major clash occurs between the two, the former
dominate.8 Whenever there is a clash between the two sets of values and interests, it reveals the
egocentric character of the foreign policy- a realist approach. The foreign policy of a state can be
called realist-egocentric only when it pursues the national progression or at least defends its

Kenneth N. Waltz. (1990). Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory. Journal of International Affairs, 44(1).

K. N. Waltz. (1959). Man, a State and the War : A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.

Barry Buzan and Richard Little. (1993). The Logic of Anarchy in International Relations: Neo-realism to
Structural Realism. New York: Columbia University Press,132-154.
8

Joseph Frankel. (1963). The Making of Foreign Policy; An Analysis of Decision Making. London: OUP, 119-20

interests against an international system of states whose policies have the same character. 9 Here a
state contradicts its own ethics that exists within a state. While inside, the state calls upon the
individuals to act as a community and accept sacrifices for the sake of the common good; in
external affairs the state acts as a selfish individual which has the right to pursue the national
interests whatever the cost to the international community.10
Realism was applicable during the East-West tension, when the Cold War imposed security needs
upon the leadership of the third world countries. This imposition was especially for those situated
on the periphery of the Communist world. These third world leaders maximized their power by
aligning themselves with either of the poles the US or the former Soviet Union to maintain
their own independence. But David Lake considers this view an oversimplification. He says:
there is no necessary reason why the interests of self-seeking politicians should coincide with
the national interest. However, contrary to what Lake said, the Cold War history is full of the
combination of personal and national interests. Its manifestation is that the Pakistan Army
achieved its goals of the countrys security against hostile neighbours and internal governance
through foreign policy without any hindrance and objection. The C-in-C Mohammad Ayub Khan,
who was to retire in 1954, remained the focal point of Pakistan in the politics of the Containment
until 1969. During this span of time, he remained the leader as well as the policy-maker of the
country. Similar was the case with General Musharraf who remained Chief of Army Staff for
almost nine long years as well as a foreign policy pronouncer of the country later on. Thus
personal and national interests did coincide in South Asia.
State

David Vital. (1968). The making of British Foreign Policy. The Political Quarterly, 39 (3)(18).

10

Peter Calvert. (1986). The Foreign policy of New States. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books,p25.

State is defined as a large social system with a set of rules that are enforced by a permanent
administrative body (government). That body claims and tries to enforce sovereignty. That is, the state
claims to be the highest source of decision-making of the social system within its jurisdiction, and it
rejects outside interference in making or enforcing its set of rules. The many smaller systems within the
state are not sovereign, nor are large international organizations like the United Nations, since states
routinely reject their authority. The state is a political concept that refers to the exercise of power or the
ability to make and enforce rules.
Relationship of State with the IR as a Unit
The state is central to the study of international relations and likely to remain so into the
foreseeable future. State policy is the most common object of analysis. States decide to go to
war. They erect trade barriers. They choose whether and at what level to establish environmental
standards. States enter international agreements, or not, and choose whether to abide by their
provisions.
Similarly, states are a common unit of analysis in theories of international relations. Many
analysts focus on states and their interactions to explain observed patterns of world politics. The
state is fundamental to neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism . Even critical, postmodern, or
feminist theories, which have arisen in opposition to existing forms of social power, often focus
on problematizing states and state practice. Both as objects and units of analysis, international
relations is largely about states and their interactions.
States have been and are likely to remain central actors in world politics. As such, they are
necessary to any explanation of international relations. Yet, given the evident importance of
domestic politics in many issues and the continuing growth of transnational actors, the role and,
therefore, likely explanatory importance of states are increasingly qualified.

What are International Relations?

International Relations is defined as the branch of political science that is concerned with the
foreign affairs of and relations among countries. International relations refers to the collective
interactions of the international community, which includes individual nations and states, intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations, non-governmental organizations like
Doctors Without Borders, multinational corporations, and so forth. The term is also used to refer
to a branch of political science which focuses on the study of these interactions. As an academic
discipline, international relations encompass a wide range of academic fields, ranging from
history to environmental studies, and there are a number of areas of specific specialty, for
academics who are interested in them.
The term 'International' was used for the first time by Jeremy Bentham in the later part of the
eighteenth century with regards to the laws of nations. 11 Consequently, the term international
relations were used to define the official relations between the sovereign slates. However some
scholars even included the economic, social and cultural relations amongst the states also within
the purview of the subject.
Types of Bureaucratic System
There are two main types of Bureaucratic System, for foreign policy;
Open Bureaucratic System
Open Bureaucracy or Participatory Public Administration is new to many countries, including
Thailand which stems its public service from a central command paradigm. However, with the
open door policy to involve those related and the other sectors, it will pave way to a better
quality service and it will be a big leap to the development of the civil service system.
Participatory management, by definition, is an administration whereby government officials
allow those involved to participate in the decision making process both directly and indirectly.
The primary aim of this deed is to serve the real needs of the citizens. In practice, direct
involvement can be done through referendum or public hearing while indirect participation can

11

Parkinson, F. (1977). The Philosophy of International Relations. London: Sage Publications.

be done through various networks such as the citizen network, academician group,
representatives from the private sector, mass media and other social or benefit groups.
Closed Bureaucratic System
This is a system in which only officials are involved in the policy making process. In this system,
only those persons are involved in the process of foreign policy making, which are concerned
directly and only government officials participate in the policy formulation of the country.
Foreign Policy
A policy pursued by a nation in its dealings with other nations, designed to achieve national
objectives is called Foreign Policy. A countrys foreign policy consists of self-interest strategies
chosen by the state to safeguard its national interests and to achieve its goals within international
relations milieu.
Foreign Policy as a concept can be traced back to the earliest human societies. It has evolved
over time through an interactive feedback, from the ever-changing external environment and it
shapes politics among societies and is also shaped by what it itself creates.
Foreign policy arises from the vital principle of the state but it is much older than the state. Even,
stateless societies had a kind of foreign policy as they too had to react to other societies in the
framework created by their vital but different, if not also conflicting interests. When in course of
time, some of these societies evolved into states, they did not invent foreign policy. Indeed, they
had benefit of millennia of inter-societal contact and the customs that had emerged from that
interaction. Foreign policy has changed since then but only in its forms, not in its nature.12

Factors on which foreign policy depends

12

Muhammad Yunas. (2003).Foreign Policy A Theoretical Introduction. Karachi: Oxford University Press.

i. Environment
The external environment of the country is also an important factor that has influence on the
formulation of the foreign policy of a country. The incidents that are taking place all around the
world, with the passage of time, the circumstances are changed, especially in the region, and in
the neighboring countries, they also affect the foreign policy and it is dependent on the external
environment of a country. We have moved beyond Cold War definitions of the United States'
strategic interests. Our foreign policy must now address a broad range of threats--including
damage to the world's environment--that transcend countries and continents and require
international cooperation to solve.
Environmental problems such as global climate change, ozone depletion, ocean and air pollution,
and resource degradation--compounded by an expanding world population--respect no border
and threaten the health, prosperity, and jobs of all Americans. All the missiles and artillery in our
arsenal will not be able to protect our people from rising sea levels, poisoned air, or foods laced
with pesticides. Our efforts to promote democracy, free trade, and stability in the world will fall
short unless people have a livable environment.
We have an enormous stake in the management of the world's resources. Demand for timber in
Japan mean trees fall in the United States. Greenhouse gas emissions anywhere in the world
threaten coastal communities in Florida. A nuclear accident in Ukraine kills for generations.
Over-fishing the world's oceans depletes resources for future generations. Our children's future is
inextricably linked to our ability to manage the earth's air, water, and wildlife today.
Hence, the environment is an important factor in the foreign policy of a country, on which, the
foreign policy is dependent.
ii. Domestic Political System
Political system can be defined as a set of formal legal institutions that constitute a government
or a nation-state. It can also be defined over a broad range of categories. For example, a country
with no ruler can be called one with Anarchical system and one with a single ruler, Feudalism.
However, this is a very simplified view of a much more complex system of categories involving

views such as who should have authority, how religious questions should be handled, and what
the governments influence on citizens should be.
The following is a range of political systems and the kind of leadership followed in each.
Sometimes there can be a blend of two systems in a country where as a few are very far apart in
ideals.

Democracy has rule by majority.

Republic is rule by law.

Islamic Democracy is also rule by majority but in Islamic context. It combines aspects of
Theocracy and Democracy.

Anarchism has rule by all or in other words no one.

Monarchy is ruled by one person who is absolute leader.

Meritocracy means rule by the best.

Technocracy is rule by scientists/intellectuals.

Sultanates are an Islamic political structure combining features of Monarchy and


Theocracy where it is believed rule is by Allah.

Westminster system is rule by republic and representative democracy through parliament.

Feudalism is also rule by lord or king.

The head of the government has to consider domestic sentiments as well as the international
situation. If there is a conflict between domestic and international interest the head of the
government will probably give emphasis to domestic interest, or surpass the situation altogether.
The behavior of a country towards other country, in international relations depends on the kind of
political system that a country has adopted or the people of that country has chosen or adopted.13

13

Rosenau, James N. (1965). Ed. Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy. New York: The Free Press.

iii. Elite Perception


Scholars have become increasingly interested in the nature of potential linkage processes
between public opinion and foreign policy. The literature on elite beliefs suggests that the beliefs
decision makers hold concerning public opinion may have an important influence on this
relationship.

SECTION 2
PROCEDURE OF FOREIGN POLICY DECISION MAKING
Formulation of Foreign Policy
The process through which countries make their foreign policy decisions14 should be discerned
from the analysis of foreign policy behavior. Research in the nature of foreign policy focuses on
the precursors that lead to foreign policy behavior. It is concerned, not with what specific foreign
policy decisions are made by a state but with why and how they are made. In recent years, the
importance of the latter question has been augmented by the realization that the why and the
what of foreign policy decisions are at least in part, dependent on how they are made.
However, in the general context of the daily routine of foreign policy and in the particular
context of the foreign policy of the U.S and several other countries, Rosenaus emphasis 15 on the
policy process rather than the policy maker is quite sound. According to Rosenau, even the role
of policy maker is derived from the organizational process which seems to be the case in many
countries, though there are exceptions.
Role of External Affairs Ministry
The Ministry of External Affairs(in some countries called as Ministry of Foreign affairs), the
State Department or the Foreign Office, as the case may be has grown in size and function over
the year. It is in almost all countries among the largest and most important offices of the
government. At present, that ministry in various countries is responsible for providing the
essential continuity to the foreign policy of the country. It ensures informed continuity and
strategic consistency in the foreign policy of a country. In performing their functions, the
ministries of external affairs off all the states while working in their own capitals, create a
predictable external environment.
14

Zimmerman, William and H.K. Jacobson. (1969). The Shaping of Foreign Policy. New York: Atherton Press.

15

Rosenau, James N. (1965). Ed. Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy. New York: The Free Press.

A countrys external affairs ministry is staffed with trained bureaucrats, who are usually best in
the country. Diplomats are selected in most countries from university graduates on the basis of a
arduous procedure of testing and examination. They are provided proper training so that they
may be able to assume their responsibilities and then form a stable cadre that serves as the
backbone the countrys diplomacy.
The archival function of the foreign office or the ministry of external affairs restricts policy to
those options that would pass the test of continuity and consistency. Though most Ministers for
external affairs appreciate this role, to some, it can appear to be bureaucratic pressure or even
bureaucratic politics. Bureaucratic persuasion, on the basis of archives often influence policy
making. This persuasion, usually replicates the standing assessment of national interest by those
who have had a life-long involvement with it at the bureaucratic level and it is a vital part of
process, lacking which the decision is more probably to be quite unstable. 16 However, it does not
mean that ministers and leaders never set aside the bureaucratic recommendations. Independence
of a minister from bureaucracy depends on his own competency and knowledge. However, it is a
fact that this occurs more often in other ministries than in the External Affairs ministry as the
archival positions in foreign policy have far deeper roots, going further back in time and lasting
much longer than in internal policy. The bureaucrat is necessary for consistency as well as
continuity in the behavior of stats toward each other.
Role of Parliament
As in any other Parliamentary form of government, the Parliament in Pakistan, besides acting as
the legislature, elects the Prime Minister through a majority vote in the National Assembly. The
executive, that is, the Cabinet headed by the Prime Minister, is responsible to the National
Assembly which can remove the former through a vote of no confidence. Thus, the executive and
its internal and external policies must enjoy the confidence and support of the National Assembly
to remain in power.

16

Bacchus, William I. (1974). Foreign Policy and the Bureaucratic Process. New Jersey: Princeton University
Press.

The Parliament can pass a bill in respect of any aspect of Pakistan's external relations as provided
for by the Constitution in the Federal Legislative List, thus, giving it the force of law. In practice,
however, in a parliamentary form of government that exists in Pakistan, the initiative for such a
bill would normally come from the executive which, because of the support of the majority in the
National Assembly and possibly in the Senate, would normally succeed in getting it adopted by
the Parliament. Certainly, a private bill relating to Pakistan's external relations can also be moved
by any member of either House. But the possibility of its adoption by the Parliament without the
executive's support is almost nil because of party discipline.
The Parliament can influence the foreign policy formulation and implementation process by
adopting non-binding resolutions on foreign policy issues; by holding hearings on crucial issues
in the Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs and by asking questions on foreign affairs in the
House.
Historically, the Parliament in Pakistan has failed to play its due role in the foreign policy
formulation primarily because of the frequent military take-overs. As a result of these takeovers,
the Parliament ceased to exist for long intervals and its authority and position was undermined
even when it was functioning.
Role of Prime Minister
Prime Minister, in a parliamentary form of government has the ultimate constitutional
authority in all matters related to Foreign Policy. The prime minister and his cabinet have
the authority to commit Pakistan to any international agreement without even informing
the parliament. Parliament has no constitutional role in any aspect of this vital area of
policy making In Pakistan, the standing committees of the Senate and National Assembly
of Pakistan are the most that democratic constitution of Pakistan provides by way of
parliamentary concern with foreign policy. The Cabinet being elected by the people means
at least the final authority lies with the representatives of the people. And by extension
to the parliament as the Cabinet is responsible and answerable to it. In a democratic
country, Foreign policy

is formulated by the cabinet with the approval of a sovereign

body, comprising of the elected representatives of the people, and implemented by

seasoned diplomats who can from their vantage points, offer their own observations and
proposals. Formulated

and put into practice in this manner, the foreign policy of a

democratic country is based on a national consensus.


To view the boost that Prime Ministers position received as a result of the 18 th'
Constitutional amendment as strengthening of the political control of the state would be
too simplistic. The strengthening of the personal powers of the prime minister is not the
same as the strengthening of the office of the prime minister. Moreover, so long as the
Prime Minister presides over divided and mutually hostile political forces, he will have to work
in harmony with the President - and the military establishment. While the final authority
technically lies with Foreign Minister or the Prime Minister on various issues, however,
bureaucracy has a subtle way of influencing and determining what the final decision
would be. Due to the reliance of the political leadership on state agencies for
information along with possible policy responses, the choices before the political
leadership are limited.
Role of Intelligence Agencies
In any country, the Security/Intelligence Agencies play an important role in the formulation of its
foreign policy by gathering information relevant to it through overt and covert means, and
presenting their assessment to the policy makers. The effectiveness of these assessments depends
upon the objectivity and quality of the intelligence gathering and assessing process as well as on
the system of government in the country.
These Security/Intelligence Agencies in Pakistan, especially those connected with the military,
have acquired a predominant role in the foreign policy formulation process because of the
fragility and weaknesses of the civilian institutions and the frequent military take-overs. It should
not be surprising that on the matters of policy formulation, the military rulers of the country felt
more comfortable with
Intelligence Agencies having military background. Consequently, these Intelligence Agencies
have acquired a more predominant role in the formulation of Pakistan's foreign policy than
would be the case in a normal democratic country. This has worked to the disadvantage of the

Ministry of Foreign Affairs whose role has been marginalized in the process particularly in the
consideration of issues of critical and strategic importance to the country.
Role of other Ministries
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the focal point for the initiation of all proposals relating to the
conduct of Pakistan's foreign affairs with the exception of any matters that may be assigned to
other Divisions/ Ministries of the Government. At the same time, the Inter-Division consultation
procedures require the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to consult other Divisions in the conduct of its
business when a matter concerns them. Not only that, several Divisions e.g., Aviation,
Commerce, Communications, Culture, Interior, Defence, Defence Production, Economic Affairs,
Education, Finance, Food, Information, etc., have been assigned subjects which relate to
different aspects of Pakistan's foreign relations. These Ministries/ Divisions, therefore, play a
role in the formulation of Pakistan's foreign policy. However, as stated above, the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs remains the focal point in the foreign policy making field.
At the Departmental level, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is headed by the Foreign Secretary
who is in turn assisted by Additional Secretaries. At present, there are eight Additional
Secretaries looking after different areas of Pakistan's foreign relations. They are supported by
Directors General, Directors and Section Officers in a descending order. The Ministry of Foreign
Affairs is also assisted by the Pakistan Ambassadors and other Heads of Pakistan Missions
abroad who both receive instructions from and submit their views and recommendations to the
Ministry.
Proposals relating to Pakistan's foreign policy are generated at the level of Section Officers in
response to new developments or at their own initiative and occasionally in response to
instructions from above. Sometimes, they may be initiated at a level higher than that of the
Section Officer if the situation so demands. They are refined and modified as they travel up the
ladder to Directors and Directors-General.
Where necessary, there would be horizontal consultations with other Directors and DirectorsGeneral. Depending upon the requirements of the situation, the Foreign Office may also consult

the concerned Pakistan Missions abroad and other Ministries/Departments. If the proposal falls
within the parameters of an existing policy, the matter would be decided at the level of the
Director General concerned or may go up to the Additional Secretary concerned for approval
depending upon its importance. In very important cases, the file may travel all the way up to the
Foreign Secretary who may consult the Foreign Minister and the offices of the Prime Minister
and the President if the situation so demands.
Where a foreign policy proposal attempts to break new ground, it would invariably travel all the
way up to the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister through the Foreign Secretary for
approval.

However,

the

Foreign

Office

would

certainly

consult

other

Ministries/Departments/Agencies, if the matter concerns them, before submitting it to the Prime


Minister/Cabinet for a decision. Where required under the Rules of Business or by the
importance of the matter, it would be placed before the Cabinet for its consideration and
decision. In the case of very important matters, the President would also be consulted formally or
informally before a final decision is taken. Further, the Foreign Minister or the Prime Minister
may also take the Parliament into confidence by consulting the parliamentary leaders or by
having the matter debated in the Parliament. Where a foreign policy proposal attempts to break
new ground, it would invariably travel all the way up to the Foreign Minister and the Prime
Minister through the Foreign Secretary for approval. However, the Foreign Office would
certainly consult other Ministries/ Departments/Agencies, if the matter concerns them, before
submitting it to the Prime Minister/ Cabinet for a decision. Where required under the Rules of
Business or by the importance of the matter, it would be placed before the Cabinet for its
consideration and decision. In the case of very important matters, the President would also be
consulted formally or informally before a final decision is taken. Further, the Foreign Minister or
the Prime Minister may also take the Parliament into confidence by consulting the parliamentary
leaders or by having the matter debated in the Parliament. In the consideration of foreign policy
issues in the Foreign Office, the views of the media, civil society, etc. are generally taken into
account. Once a decision has been taken by the competent authority, the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs would assume responsibility for its implementation with the help of the personnel at the
Headquarters and/or Pakistan Missions abroad.

Diplomacy
Diplomacy is a principally political pursuit and well-resourced and skillful, a major ingredient of
power. Its major purpose is to enable states to secure the objectives of their foreign policies
without resort to force, propaganda or law. It follows that diplomacy consist of communication
between officials designed to promote foreign policy, either by formal agreement or tactic
adjustment.17
Diplomacy is not merely what professional diplomatic agents do. It is carried out by other
officials and by private persons under the direction of officials. It is conducted through many
different channels besides the traditional resident mission. Together with the balance of power,
which it both reinforces and reflects, diplomacy is the most important institution of our society of
states.
Realist importance on survival and Self Help
Realism or political realism prioritizes national interest and security over ideology, moral
concerns and social reconstructions. This term is often synonymous with power politics. Realism
is the view that world politics is driven by competitive self-interest.
It depicts international affairs as a struggle for power among self-interested states and is
generally pessimistic about the prospects for eliminating conflict and war.18 Realism dominated
in the Cold War years because it provided simple but powerful explanations for war, alliances,
imperialism, obstacles to cooperation, and other international phenomena, and because its
emphasis on competition was consistent with the central features of the American-Soviet rivalry.
Structural Realism
Realists believe that power is the currency of international politics. Great powers, the main actors
in the realists account, pay careful attention to how much economic and military power they
have relative to each other. It is important not only to have a substantial amount of power, but

17

G.R.Berridge. (2002). Diplomacy, Theory and Practice. New York: Palgrave.

18

Lauren, Paul Gordon. (1979). Ed. Diplomacy. New York: The Free Press.

also to make sure that no other state sharply shifts the balance of power in its favor. For realists,
international politics is synonymous with power politics.

There are, however, substantial differences among realists. The most basic divide is reflected in
the answer to the simple but important question: why do states want power? For classical realists
like Hans Morgenthau (1948a), the answer is human nature. Virtually everyone is born with a
will to power hardwired into them, which effectively means that great powers are led by
individuals who are bent on having their state dominate its rivals.
For structural realists, human nature has little to do with why states want power. Instead, it is the
structure or architecture of the international system that forces states to pursue power. In a
system where there is no higher authority that sits above the great powers, and where there is no
guarantee that one will not attack another, it makes eminently good sense for each state to be
powerful enough to protect itself in the event it is attacked. In essence, great powers are trapped
in an iron cage where they have little choice but to compete with each other for power if they
hope to survive.
Structural realist theories ignore cultural differences among states as well as differences in
regime type, mainly because the international system creates the same basic incentives for all
great powers. Whether a state is democratic or autocratic matters relatively little for how it acts
towards other states. Nor does it matter much who is in charge of conducting a states foreign
policy. Structural realists treat states as if they were black boxes; they are assumed to be alike,
save for the fact that some states are more or less powerful than others.
There is a significant divide between structural realists, which is reflected in the answer to a
second question that concerns realists: how much power is enough? Defensive realists like
Kenneth Waltz maintain that it is unwise for states to try to maximize their share of world
power, because the system will punish them if they attempt to gain too much power. Offensive
realists like John Mearsheimer

take the opposite view; they maintain that it makes good

strategic sense for states to gain as much power as possible and, if the circumstances are right, to

pursue hegemony. The argument is not that conquest or domination is good in itself, but instead
that having overwhelming power is the best way to ensure ones own survival.

SECTION 3
CONCLUSIONS

Conclusion
To conclude, it can be argued that one countrys domestic problems can be another countrys
solutions. History is full of many dictatorial regimes which helped the US in the pursuit of its
long term objectives. Domestic politics is the reflection of a countrys foreign policy. Another
country might be gaining a lot from a particular regime while the indigenous people governed
under that regime may ultimately be suffering. This is particularly so where states are intensively
connected, whether through security alliances or strategic partnerships. The institutional
interaction between the US and Pakistan is the best example to quote here. The Pakistan Army
was hard in domestic politics but was soft in its terms with the US, apart from those two periods
earlier mentioned i.e., during the first half of 1960s and the post-Musharrafs era of today. It
joined the US sponsored alliances to have a check on Indias growing power and the war on
terror against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and to have a strong bargaining position in Pakistans
domestic politics. In this sense, domestic and foreign policy developments are often intimately
connected. After debating on policy-maker, foreign policy, decision-making, and the theory of
realism, one may say that the countries action-oriented policies are based on the behaviour of
decision-makers. A general openness of thought and process gives more space for manoeuvring,
but that is only possible if we go for analysis of the multi-layered politics of the country and the
country in focus. However, a sense of direction is the pre-requisite of any planned and successful
foreign policy. This can be achieved if the policy-maker keeps his options open to have plans

B and C always ready in case plan A does not work. Throughout this process, the sense of
rationality is not to be abandoned; otherwise, it will give an unnatural look to the phenomenon of
foreign policy.

Bibliography
Bacchus, William I. (1974). Foreign Policy and the Bureaucratic Process. New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
Berridge G., R. (2002). Diplomacy, Theory and Practice. New York: Palgrave.
Frankel Joseph. (1963). The Making of Foreign Policy; An Analysis of Decision Making.
London: OUP, 119-20.
Hill Christopher.(2003). The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Howard Michael. (1991). The Lesson of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press,p97.
James N., Rosenau. (1965). Ed. Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy. New York: The Free Press.
Kennan F. George.. (1985-86). Morality and Foreign Affairs. Foreign Affairs, vol.64, no.2, 206.
Kissinger H. (2001). Does America need a Foreign Policy? New York: Simon and Schuster,p4.
Lauren, Paul Gordon. (1979). Ed. Diplomacy. New York: The Free Press.
Little R and Barry Buzan. (1993). The Logic of Anarchy in International Relations: Neo-realism
to Structural Realism. New York: Columbia University Press,132-154.
Muhammad Yunas. (2003).Foreign Policy A Theoretical Introduction. Karachi: Oxford
University Press.
Parkinson, F. (1977). The Philosophy of International Relations. London: Sage Publications
Waltz N. Kenneth . (1990). Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory. Journal of International
Affairs, 44(1).
Waltz N., K.. (1959). Man, a State and the War : A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Zimmerman, William and H.K. Jacobson. (1969). The Shaping of Foreign Policy. New York:
Atherton Press.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi