The State in the International System
- Alternative Theoretical Frameworks
Dr. Rosemary Hollis

Almost by definition, "foreign policy" is an attribute or characteristic of a state. The term is used to describe both the statements (in effect preferences) of policy-makers/statesmen, and the behavior of states in relation to others.

Clearly there is a distinction here between what statesmen say they are doing or intend to do and what they are actually doing, as judged by the outcome of their actions in the international setting. Was, for example, US policy in the 1990-91 Gulf crisis intended to uphold international law or to guarantee control over access to Gulf oil resources? US statesmen said the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was a violation of international law. Yet, to conclude that the US-led military action that liberated Kuwait is proof that the US policy was to uphold international law does not demonstrate the entire truth.

Any analysis of the foreign policies of states must involve an evaluation of outcomes as well as statements of intent. Similarly, anyone involved in foreign policy formation must weigh up what is possible as well as what is desirable. The two major goals that we need to consider are to define some tools with which to analyze the foreign policies of Arab states, and to define guidelines for effective foreign policy making.

The study of politics, whether at the domestic, state, regional or global level is essentially the study of power. What are the sources of power (natural resources, skilled manpower, guns, money, etc.)? Where or with whom does power reside (e.g., Washington, London, the military, multinational corporations, etc.)? How is power being used (to coerce, to liberate, to develop/create jobs, etc.)?

Another question is what it is that makes a person, institution or state more or less powerful? Does it depend on the context and issues in question? In addition, how can one compare the power of a bank with that of an armored division?

Of principal importance is the role of power in the international world economy, as defined by international political economist Professor Susan Strange. Here, power has the following four basic facets: security, knowledge, production, and finance/credit. All states possess some or all of the aforementioned attributes, but so too do other actors in the international system. This can be seen clearly in the case of finance/credit: states cannot develop without borrowing and investment. Thus, they must turn to sources of foreign capital, which gives great power to those states with the ability to grant or deny credit.

The case of the US-Iran relationship is a good example. The US does not want its allies to re-negotiate Iran’s debts, and it demands that Iran pay now. Iran, therefore, does not have the money to buy arms, while, at the same time, its standard of living deteriorates and the government is subjected to additional pressure. The use of sanctions against companies that invest in Iran despite the existence of legislation prohibiting trade is another unique tool of US foreign policy.

Knowledge can be another form of power. Paul Kennedy, in The Rise and Fall of Powers, for example, points out how the US maintains its power due to its knowledge and experience in areas such as high-technology.

Worthy of consideration is the fact that the nature of power is changing. There are many other actors in the international arena with key roles, such as multinational companies. In the future, governments and states will have less control as modern means of communication, such as the Internet, will be used to a far greater extent.

When attempting to understand international relations, three major theories are applied: Marxism-Leninism, Liberalism, and Nationalism/Mercantilism.

Marxism focuses not on actors, but on means such as productivity. The Marxist theory is based on the fundamental notion that states are merely temporary arrangements that will eventually be succeeded by historical materialism. The underlying evolutionary or revolutionary process follows a given pattern that leads from a new synthesis to dialectic feudalism (dynamic and conflicting), then to industrial revolution and capitalism and, finally, to Communism. In particular, Marxism also helps to lay the ground for the understanding of imperialism, neo-imperialism and the constraints within which states (especially developing states) operate. For example, life in the Gulf states has been dictated for decades by the oil consumption patterns of the industrial world.
The nationalist/mercantilist approach gives the state a primary role in international politics and stands in direct contrast to the Marxist analysis. According to the nationalist/mercantilist theory, the state-building process is given priority over economic activities. Accordingly, the interests of the state are put above the needs of individuals. The significance of national security and power is emphasized and it is the state’s military force that dictates global politics. International competition is for wealth and power, and conflicts are more likely to emerge than cooperation. With regard to the actions of the US during the Gulf War, this approach would have anticipated the US’s objective to control the access to Gulf oil.

The liberalist model is based on the following assumptions:

There is a need to separate politics and economics.
The economy is based on the logic of the market, which is scientific and neutral.
Human existence is all about meeting individual needs.
Individuals behave rationally - they aim to maximize benefits and minimize costs and they relate means to ends.
Progress is linear, gradual and continuous towards the greater good of all individuals.
There is a need to reduce state intervention and remove economic barriers.

According to this model, the US did not need to liberate Kuwait because market forces would have limited Iraq’s control. The market would have determined the demand for oil and limited the amount of power Iraq ultimately stood to gain. The US intervened ostensibly to prevent an Iraqi monopoly, i.e., in the name of the market, but it was ultimately trying to safeguard its interests, which is more in line with the nationalist or mercantilist approach.

The Realist Theory is perhaps the most American of the approaches to international relations. It combines elements of the liberal and mercantilist approaches and has the following main aspects:

Anarchy predominates at the systemic level, since there is no international body capable of enforcing law on all states.
States are the most important actors in the international arena.
States are unitary, rational actors, engaged in a struggle for power, which dictates foreign policy accordingly.
Security exists only within the state.
It is assumed that the units (usually states) in the system act rationally and calculate forces.
The power of force is one of the most decisive powers.
National ambitions and threats to survival are permanent.
The imperative factor is the balance of power.
It is impossible to operate on the basis of ethics or "peace of law."
Power is used rationally, not morally.
The goals of states are based on national interests.
Geopolitical factors play a key role in the definition of states’ goals.
The "personified state" is what international relations is all about - not class, ideology, law, or the bureaucratic process.

Discussion:

Participant: We should also include the Dependency Theory by Samir Amin.

Dr. Hollis: Korany, who is one of the neo-realists, considers realists very sloppy in their neglect of economic forces. Neo-realists try to use a methodological structure. Such approaches are very successful in Europe and Western countries, where bureaucracy works, but not in Palestine.

Participant: What do we need states for?

Dr. Hollis: Here we come to the question of symbolism versus material facts on the ground, i.e., perceptions inside the country.