Introduction

Foreign policy has been described as the courses of action adopted by a nation in the interest of
the welfare of its people. Professor Tunde Adeniran sees foreign policy as by and large the
policy pursued by a state in its dealings with other states. According to him, foreign policy by
itself consists of 3 elements. The first element is the overall orientation and policy intention of a
particular state towards another. The second element he identifies is the objective that a state
seeks to achieve in its relation with other states. The third element is the means of achieving that
particular objective. Policy as a term denotes planning which in turn suggests step by step
procedure towards a known and defined goal

For Professor George Obiozor foreign policy deals with how and why a nation state sets
particular goals, orders its own governmental policy making machinery utilizing its own
government policy making machinery, utilizing its own human and natural resources to compete
with other states in the international arena. Put differently, foreign policy could be seen as the
totality of all its actions, decisions, overtures or interactions between states in the international
arena. Such could be directed or based on economics, politics, culture or creating understanding
or cooperation (Adesola, 2004)

In describing foreign policy, three distinctive components are identifiable. These are one, actions
of an individual state, secondly, the domestic or national interests that influence the individual
state actions and thirdly, external influence or environment of a state towards which the state
machinery makes these actions. It’s from this perspective that the foreign policy of a state
continues to be a dynamic issue in the competitive and anarchic International system

Foreign policy making and formulation is thus a multi-faceted tug of war between different and
often diametrically opposed experts, interest groups, public opinion and emotions. The foreign
policy of a country is therefore influenced by many factors broadly categorized into domestic
and external categories.
Domestic Factors

1. Size and population

In the first place the size of a state's territory as well as its population greatly influences its
foreign policy. Generally the leaders and people of countries with small territory and population
do not expect their country to carry great weight in international affairs e.g. Togo. On the other
hand the leaders and people of large countries are ready to assume special responsibilities like
the US. However, the oil-rich countries of the Middle East, though small in size are playing a
significant role in international politics. On the other hand large states like Canada and Australia
have not been able to pursue effective foreign policy. This means that size is not an absolute
factor but gets influenced by other resources a state may possess.

2. Geography.

The geography of a country, includes its fertility, climate, location in relation to their land
masses, and water-ways etc. also influence the country's foreign policy. It is a major factor in
determining self-sufficiency of a country. Generally land-locked countries, nations in the tropics
and those bordering a superpower are less self-sufficient in comparison to the countries which
have access to warm-water ports or are located in the temperate zones and far removed from
superpowers. For example comparing Kenya and Uganda in the East Africa Community.

Though the importance of geographic factors is acknowledged in almost at all hands, its
importance has considerably declined due to technological and scientific developments. For
example, due to improvement in the means of transport and communication the world has greatly
shrunk and the perception of large bodies of water as natural barriers to military attack has
greatly diminished. But still geographical location of a country has a deep impact on the
determination of its foreign policy

3. Culture and History.

The cultural and historical background and traditions of a country also deeply influence the
foreign policy. Generally people possessing a unified common culture and historical experience
can pursue an effective foreign policy because of the support of all sections of society who share
the same values and memories. On the other hand, a country which is culturally and historically
fragmented cannot pursue an equally effective foreign policy. According to Roseau "the
influence of cultural factors is not limited to the impact of societal unity upon the formulation
and implementation of foreign policy. Equally important are the processes through which the
contents of Shared norms and practices of society, as distinguished from the degree of unity that
supports them shape the plans that are made and the activities that are undertaken with respect to
the external world

4. Economic Development.

The stage of economic development which a country has attained also has its impact on its
foreign policy. Generally the industrially advanced countries feel more deeply involved in
relations with other countries because they have to import different kinds of raw materials and
commodities from other countries. They are also on the lookout of latest knowledge and
technical know-how.

Again, an industrial country is expected to have a higher gross national product (GNP) and can
devote greater funds for external purpose, economic aid programme, military ventures and
extensive diplomatic commitments e.g. European states. On the other hand, industrially
backward countries are not able to actively involve themselves in external affairs. The lack of
scientists, engineers and other specialists in the country prevents them from taking advantage of
the technological break-through abroad. In recent years United States has been able to pursue
more vigorous foreign policy and secure its national objectives, mainly on account of its high
degree of economic development. It has made liberal use of foreign aid as an instrument for the
promotion of its foreign policy goals.

Economically developed countries possess greater military capability than the less developed
countries, and can exert greater influence on international relations. The decline of Russia's
economic power has considerably undermined her political role in the international arena.

5. Technology.
Advancement in technology, which affects the military and economic capabilities of a state, also
exercises profound influence on the foreign policy. It has been observed that countries which
possess advance technology are able to provide technical know-how to less developed and
developing nations and thus exert necessary influence on their foreign policies. Roseau has
rightly observed 'Technological changes can alter the military and economic capabilities of a
society and thus its status and role in the international system'. The dominant role which
countries like France, China, Germany and Japan have been able to play in recent years is largely
due to excellent technological developments in these countries.

6. National Capacity.
The national capacity of a state also exercises profound influence on the foreign policy of a
state. National capacity of a state depends on its military preparedness, its technological
advancement and economic development. It is well known that United States which continued to
pursue policy of isolation till the beginning of the present century got deeply involved in the
international arena in the present century mainly due to tremendous increase in her national
capacity due to rapid economic development. Similarly, the foreign policy of Britain underwent
great transformation in the post World War II period, mainly due to decline in her national
capacity.
7. Public Mood and Opinion
Public mood is another important determinant of a country's foreign policy. Though public mood
usually follows rather than guides the foreign policy making process, it can exercise lot of
influence on the determination of a foreign policy if the basic realignment in the prevailing great
power structure takes place and the state becomes more involved or more isolated from the world
affairs. It may be noted that generally in an authoritarian system the public mood does not
influence the foreign policy, but in a democratic system based on political accountability
considerable weight has to be accorded to the changing public mood and sentiments.
8. Political Organization.
The political organization found in a country also greatly influences the foreign policy.
Generally under authoritarian system quick foreign policy decisions are possible because the
decision making power rests with an individual assisted by his clique. But as the leaders under
this system are isolated from the operational environments and the subordinate policy makers
provide the information which is perceived by the superiors, there is every possibility of a
discrepancy between the psychological and operational aspects of the foreign policy. Further,
under this system undesirable opposition can be suppressed through censorship and
promulgation of regulations.

On the other hand in a country possessing a democratic structure the citizens can freely express
their opinion on the domestic as well as foreign policy which naturally leave its impact on the
foreign policy of the country. Under democratic system there is very little discrepancy between
what the officials want to believe about the state of world politics and the actual position because
the subordinate policy makers make available critical and detached information. Within the
democratic system itself the difference in a political structure has its impact on foreign policy.
For example, under a parliamentary system of government based on co-operation between the
Legislature and the Executive, the cordial relations between the two wings have an impact on
country's foreign policy. On the other hand under presidential system based on the principle of
separation of powers, the relation between the two wings are likely to be more strained, which
affect the ambiguity or continuity of foreign policy.

9. Role of Press.
The press also plays a vital role in the foreign policy formulation process. The press contributes
to this process by supplying factual information on the basis of which the people take decision by
publishing specialized articles on current international developments which enable the people to
understand the significance of developments in their country in relation to the past developments
and by analyzing the policy of the government in regard to foreign affairs. The press also plays
an important role in publicizing the foreign policy of the country. The role of the press, however,
depends on the political system prevailing in the country, the rate of literacy as well as the
attitude of government.
External Determinants

1. International Law

The existence of international law and international norms acts in great extent to limit the
freedom to maneuver of states in the system. It is important to note that international law does
not flow from the enactment of a body with authority to make laws as its common in parliament
and therefore not enforceable through judiciary in the state, domestically. Since it is constituted
by agreements and treaties, it does not entirely favour every interest a state may have, it limits
states in one way or another. It is however the responsibility of every state to observe the norms
and laws failure to which there are consequences.

2. International Organizations

A states foreign policy option is also often affected by its membership of international
organizations since they surrender partially their sovereignty to these organizations e.g the
United Nations. The member states policies are obviously affected by the nature of the particular
institution be it economic, political or peace and security. This is because their operations will be
guided by the constitution of the organization.

Models of Foreign Policy Formulation

How and why governments follow certain policies and reject of fail to consider others are
reasons why analysts have presented different models to explain foreign policy behavior. Some
of the models that have been put forward are; the power balance model, status quo or revisionist
model, the great individual model and the interdependence explanation.

The Power Balance/ or Realist Model

This model views foreign policy as essentially shaped by one’s relative power within the
International System. It sees states as monolithic actors who simply react to shifts in the regional
or global power balance. In this model, domestic or national politics play no significant role in
shaping foreign policy.

Whether a state is democratic, authoritarian, communist or capitalist, its internal organization

and ideology are unimportant in explaining why states do the things they do. The most important
factor here is power. States constantly and continuously try to increase their power and influence
and offset the rising power of other states in the international system they operate in. To this end,
the behavior of policies or states thus changes with shifts in the international power balance.

People who make foreign policy decisions are assumed and the word here is assumed, to be
rational because in real world they are not. There are also assumed to have access to enough
information to make rational decisions and then choose that option which best advances the
states national interests within the prevailing power balance at that particular time or period.
Critics view this model or the realist view of states foreign policy as not realistic as it may appear
after all. As much as foreign policy decision makers do constantly attempt to rationally make
decisions, they can rarely do so because real policy making is not a rational process. This is
partly because states are not unitary actors in that it is composed of different human individuals
and institutions which are incapable of flawlessly gathering and processing information needed
for every decision and then rationally make and implement the best decision for a given
situation.

In real life, policy makers and institutions concerned are forced to make dozens of important and
routine decisions daily and its not so common that they have the time, information or ability to
rationally evaluate the options.

Henry Kissinger is of the opinion that policy makers are locked in an endless battle in which the
urgent constantly gains on the important. In his words, “The public life of every political figure
is a continual struggle to rescue an element of choice from the presence of circumstances”.
(Kissinger, 1979)

Ted Sorensen (1963) revels that,, “ each step cannot be taken in order”. The facts may be in
dispute. Several policies, all good, may conflict, started goals may be imprecise. To this regard,
there may be many interpretations of what is right, what is possible and what national interest is.

The realist explanation does not explain why states do not always or even usually follow the
dictates of power politics as much as it offers a strategy for governments. An example is given
that Great Britain and France ought to have intervened against Hitler in 1936 when German
troops marched into the demilitarized Rhineland rather than waiting until Poland was attached in
1939. This model only points out that Great Britain and France should have intervened but
doesn’t or cannot explain why they did not.

The Great Individual Model

Some analysts argue that the character of those in power is decisive in shaping a nation’s foreign
policy. Leaders make decisions and their decisions reflex a complex mix of their personality,
intelligence, knowledge, view of history, fears and ambitions and because all individuals are
different, their decisions on same topical issues will be different.

For example, the positions held by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Winston
Churchill to Hitler’s rise. During the Czechoslovakia crisis of 1938, while Churchill was
advocating for a strong British response, Chamberlain remarked,” How horrible, fantastic,
incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying gas-masks here because of a quarrel
in a far away country between people of which we know nothing (Winston, 1948) And what
would have been the fate of Germany and the world had Hitler been killed rather than spared in
World War 1.

A leader is only as powerful in international relations as his own state. United States Presidents
have previously and in present times been viewed as powerful as the state itself, so is Russia.
However as in the case of former Libyan Leader the late Muammer Qadhafi who was so
passionate of creating a North African empire and by large also a United States of Africa with
himself as the head, his ambition never came to be because his state lacked the strength, military
power, technology to take over the region. Other Arab states, the US, Britain and France
continuously thwarted these attempts to the very end.

Status quo/ Revisionist Model

This model holds that states either hold a status quo or a revisionist orientation towards the world
or act accordingly. While all states strive to protect their national interests, most are contented
with the international status quo and their place in it. War is caused by a few trouble makers who
try to revise the power balance in their favour. In the case of the world wars, it is the ambitious
authoritarian governments of Japan, Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union that sought to expand
their power

What causes a state to be revisionist or a status quo may not as clear but some argue that a state’s
ideology is the most important and that democratic states are naturally peace-loving while
authoritarian or revolutionary states are inherently aggressive. George Kennan argues that; “A
democracy is peace loving, it does not easily go to war, it is slow to rise to provocation. When it
has once been provoked to the point where it must grab the sword, it does not easily forgive its
adversary for having produced this situation. The fact of provocation then becomes itself the
issue. Democracy fight in anger, it fights for the very reason that it was forced to go to war. It
fights to punish the power that was rash enough and hostile enough to provoke it to teach that
power a lesson it will not forget, to prevent the thing from happening again. Such a war must be
carried to the bitter end. (Kennan, 1951)

Revolutionary states are naturally aggressive and they seek a revolution without borders in which
their ideology is imposed everywhere. Revolutionary France, the Soviet Union and Iran all
dispatched their agents to former revolution elsewhere

At the end, the fires of revolutionary ardor burn out and the revisionist states becomes a status
quo state. The French were exhausted by a decade of a revolution and eagerly accepted
Napoleleon’s dictatorship in 1799 although, that did not inhibit the emperor from attempting to
conquer Europe. In Iran, a decade of revolution and foreign war reduced the government and
people’s revolutionary fire. Following the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, the successor president
Rafsanjani attempted to re-establish normal relations with other states.

This model is limited in that few states in history have been revisionist in the revolutionary sense
of trying to overthrow and change the entire world order. Virtually all states are revisionist in the
sense that they want things from each other territory, open markets, finance and so forth.
Governments believe that their interest in a conflict is worth going to war to protect or enhance
the interest and some of these wars like the world wars led to sweeping changes in the power
relations among states.

The Inter-dependence Model

This element combines elements of International and national perspectives and maintains that
growing interdependence between states and democracy within the state will bind them to the
point where power politics becomes impossible. International relations will increasingly be
shaped by shared interests and negotiations rather than force and those foreign policies will be
based on global interest rather than national interests.

Conclusion
It is not un-common to hear foreign policy makers having different opinions and perceptions on
policy objectives as well as of the realities of the environment. Policy makers are cognizant of
any possible outcomes in the policies arrived at in whichever environment. Considering this,
efforts are made to narrow any gaps by ensuring that they have as much information as possible
by relying on one source of information

It is also with no doubt that each of the models is provocative and flawed to a certain degree.
They however provide a good guide for an adequate understanding of the diverse and complex
intricacies of foreign policy decisions of nation states.

There is no hard and fast rule model or explanation that explains the type of level of analysis tha
one adopts in analyzing the foreign policy formulation of a state, but it all depends on what an
analyst wishes to study.

In every state, each policy is shaped by an often vastly different constellation of internal and
external forces. Further, the theory that guides an analyst into knowing these variations in order
to understand foreign policy also varies. Therefore, there is no level of explanation or model that
is all exhaustive, it augurs well to take knowledge and data from each model and that will
significantly assist in understanding analysis of states’ foreign policy.

References

Adesola, The Structure of International System 2004, National University of Nigeria, Lagos

George F. Kennan, America and The Russian Future 1951

Henry Kissinger, White House Years 1979, London

Hool, Lance (Winston 1948) Review of Winston Churchill Speeches from the Hansard.
Retrieved from hansard.millbanksystems.com