Foreign Policy-Determinants-Political Science

 

Determinants of Foreign Policy

 

Determinants of Foreign Policy. It is a known fact that government formation is essential to run a state, and no state can live without maintaining interstate relations, which have become so essential these days. Every government has to formulate a foreign policy like internal and domestic policies, industrial policy, agricultural policy, defense policy, education policy, labor policy, etc.

 

A state gives special attention to the careful formulation and successful execution of its foreign policy. A successful foreign policy enhances a nation’s power and prestige in the comity of nations. Foreign policy gains also increase a government’s credibility in the eyes of the public internally and externally. Herein lies the importance of foreign policy. It has become one of the most important core fields of international relations now we discuss Determinants of Foreign Policy.

Definitions And Nature Of Foreign Policy:

Foreign policy, according to Hartmann,

“is a systematic statement of deliberately selected national interests.”1

Foreign policy connotes a greater degree of the rational procedure and planning involved in step-by-step progress to a known and defined goal.2

It is a relatively rational answer to prevailing external conditions. Though there are certain constraints, national and international, to any such well-thought-out planning, an endeavor is invariably made and will continue to be made.

Padelford and Lincoln observe that through foreign policy, every state decides.

“what course it will pursue in world affairs within the limits of its strength and the realities of the external environment.”3

It, therefore, gives a sense of direction to a state. It suggests adequate means for the easy journey in this direction. It creates a sense of purpose as well as the confidence to achieve that purpose. It becomes so indispensable that no state can operate at the international level without it. Foreign policy may be defined both in a narrow and broad sense.

Narrow definitions emphasize the action aspect of foreign policy. In  this sense, according to Schleicher,

“it refers to the actions (including words) of government officials to influence human behavior beyond the jurisdiction of their own state.”4

Therefore, foreign policy mainly implies a course of action. Padelford and Lincoln remark, Foreign policy is the key element in the process by which a state translates its broadly conceived goals and interests into concrete courses of action to attain those objectives and preserve its interests.5

In the broad sense, it includes, according to Schleicher, the objectives, plans, and actions taken by a state relative to its external relations.6

As every state has various political, economic, military, ideological, or cultural objectives, it has technically many policies. That is why it has been suggested that one should speak of foreign policies rather than foreign policy. But foreign policy and foreign policies have totally different meanings.

As Lercheand Said clarifies Probably the best way to avoid confusion is to keep in mind that foreign policy (singular) is usually phrased in terms of goals, whereas policies (plural) draw their relevance from objectives.7

Thus a broad definition of foreign policy contains three elements goals or objectives, policy plans, and actual actions undertaken by a state to regulate its external relations.

In the words of Rodee,

“Foreign policy involves the formulation and implementation of a group of principles which shape the behavior pattern of a state while negotiating with other states to protect or further its vital interests.”8

Model ski defines foreign policy as

“the system of activities evolved by communities for changing the behavior of other states and for adjusting their own activities to the international environment.”9

But Mahendra Kumar treats the Model ski definition as partially correct. According to him, foreign policy should regulate and not only change the behavior of other states.

Therefore, he modifies Model ski’s definition of foreign policy to include within its range all activities of a state to regulate the behavior of other states, either through change or status quo, to ensure the maximum service of its interest.10

He further defines foreign policy.

“as a thought out course of action for achieving objectives in foreign relations as dictated by the ideology of national interest.”11

Feliks Gross introduced another addition by holding that even a decision to have no relations with a state is also a foreign policy or, in other words, not to have a definite foreign policy is also a foreign policy.12

In this way, foreign policy has both positive and negative dimensions. It is positive when it aims at adjusting the behavior of other states by changing it and negative when it endeavors for such an adjustment by not altering that behavior.

In sum, every state decides its own course of action in international relations in the light of its means and ends. It conducts its foreign relations and behaves at the international level, and regulates the behavior and action of other states according to that action plan. This is what a nation’s foreign policy means.

Components of Foreign Policy:

According to Lerche and Said, normally foreign policy includes three elements. These are:

• Formulation of the objective in the most precise terms possible

• The nature of  the action to be undertaken, stated with sufficient clarity to guide and direct the state’s other officials and

• The forms and perhaps the amounts of national power to be applied in pursuit of the objective.13

Mahendra Kumar describes four components:

• Policymakers,

• Interest and objectives

• Principles of foreign policy, and

• Means of foreign policy. 14

According to Jangam, foreign policy is the policy of a nation towards other nations, and generally, it involves four factors:

• Principles underlying foreign policy.

• Problems faced by the nation.

• The particular way of making policy including the role of foreign policymakers

• The products or results of foreign policy.15

The above description renders the concept of foreign policy more clear.

Objectives of Foreign Policy:

Interest can be explained as the aims passed on to the policymakers by my community. It may also be defined as the general and continuing ends for attaining which a nation conducts its foreign relations. It includes security against aggression, the development of higher standards of living, and the maintenance of national and international Stability conditions. Foreign policy is inconceivable without national interest. Simultaneously, it must be clarified that national interest does not exclude the significance of international obligation, especially in the present-day world. 

On the other hand, objectives are the product of national interest. They are, in the words of Mahendra Kumar, interests spelled out and made more precise in the light of the present-day complexity of international relations.16

He further clarifies that a nation’s interests will not be regarded as objectives unless the political community strongly loves them. The same is prepared to make some sacrifice or take some risk for their realization. In this way, objectives are of a more specific nature than interests. 17

Common objectives of the foreign policy of all nations are:

1. Maintaining the integrity of the state,

2. Promoting economic interest,

3. Providing for national security,

4. Protecting national prestige and developing national power, and

5. Maintaining world order.

Specific objectives can supplement these according to the peculiar problems and conditions of a particular country. Pr-requisites of Foreign Policy Study of foreign policy necessitates that the following factors must be borne in mind.

 

1 . Foreign policy has many constituents, the most important of which are defense, diplomatic and economic interests. These Constituents, through singly salient, are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They often coexist and strongly influence each other.

2. Foreign policy is made in the name of a state, but the government really formulates and executes it. The government is not an inanimate body. It is a synthesis of organizations and individuals having their organizational and personal interests that are not necessarily similar.

3. Foreign policy never operates in a vacuum; rather, it is conditional by an environment, both domestic and external. The domestic environment consists of political parties, pressure groups, rival bureaucratic organizations, public opinion, political culture, etc.

The external environment comprises, among other sub-systemic actors neighboring states and others belonging to the region, superpowers, and international organizations, especially the UN, World Bank, IMF, and regional organizations like O. A. S. and SAARC.

4. In government, it is some individuals around Whom foreign policymaking revolves. It may be the President or Prime Minister or the King of a state and his foreign minister, advisers, and subordinates. Mostly the Head of the Government ( e. g., the Prime Minister in India and the President in the USA) plays a prominent role in this regard.

5. Foreign policy always involves both decision and action, with decision perhaps the more important element. Action on behalf of an objective can result from policy only if the decision itself indicates clearly what the policymaker had in mind both as to objective and procedure.

6. Foreign policy embraces both important and less important matters. The routine matters are dealt with at lower levels, whereas important things are sent to higher disposal levels. There is a linkage between the degree of the subject’s importance and the level of authority where it is disposed of.

7. Cost-risk factor in foreign policy also has its significance. A policy decision requires the commitment of resources, the assumption of risk, or both. One must keep in mind that, in foreign policy as in life, everything has its price. The most complex problem in policy formulation is how much effort should be made to pursue an objective because of competing claims of other goals and the resource crunches.

8. Foreign policy has to be examined from the states’ actual behavior pattern rather than exclusively from declared objectives or policy plans.

Instruments of Foreign Policy:

The instruments of foreign policy may be said to be those institutions or devices through which the national power or resources are used to accomplish the interests and objectives. These are as follows :

1. Diplomacy:

Good diplomats, ambassadors, envoys, ministers, etc. Through their art of diplomacy, they can effectively put the country’s viewpoint before the world and fulfill foreign policy objectives through mutual negotiations and thus spare their country from resorting to coercive methods. Diplomacy reduces the area of disagreement and misunderstanding with other states. It is instrumental in reaching out to agreements, treaties, and pacts with other nations. It plays its role both during war and peace.

2. Publicity and Propaganda:

These can be used steadily to combat and break down undesirable attitudes and opinions and create the desired attitudes and opinions. Propaganda can be used, as it was used by Hitler and later on by superpowers during the Cold War, for the systematic falsification of true propositions or positions and establishing suitable ones. Systematic and ceaseless propaganda by Pakistan has distorted India’s factually strong case on Kashmir, so much so that quite some people in the world may wonder as to what, after all, the facts of the case are publicity through radio, television magazines, and other literature is also used as an instrument of foreign policy.

Thus these three factors, diplomacy, publicity, and propaganda-are employed by a nation for building up its public relations, for removing undesirable or discreditable factors like embarrassment, misunderstanding, suspicion, fear, etc., between itself and other nations, and for projecting a favorable and acceptable image to other nations. These also help in increasing the power and prestige of a nation.

3. Balance of Power:

This method is used to avoid an imbalance of power and strengthening the position of given nations. For example, Britain employed the principle of balance of power for a long time in European power politics to maintain the status quo and prevent any particular power from being too strong.

4. Collective Security:

The principle of collective security is adopted to secure collective defense as threateningly posed or actually mobilized against a powerful nation or nations. Balance of power and collective security are beneficial as instruments for smaller nations with a limited capacity to defend themselves.

5. International Law and Organizations:

These are also used by nations whenever possible for advancing the objectives of their foreign policy. During the post War period, Britain and France used the League of Nations to maintain the status quo, which was in their favor. Now we see that several third-world countries are using the United Nations platform for some of the basic goals of their foreign policies: anti-racialism, disarmament, and so on.

6. Economic and non-political methods:

Various nations also adopt various economic methods to achieve their foreign policy objectives and harm opponents’ interests. Economic organizations are formed for this purpose, e.g., E.E.C., E.C.M., COMECON, MI-I. Economic methods have already been discussed in detail in the previous chapter on National Interest. Sometimes nations also exploit religious, cultural, and ethnic affinity to fulfill foreign policy objectives tag the use of Islam by many Muslim countries.

7. War and Peace:

The institutions of war and peace are a kind of ultimate answer to the problems of a nation’s foreign policy of the two; peace comes on the heels of war, generally inaugurating a basic change in nations’ foreign policies. But war is generally a devastating answer to the problems of a nation’s foreign policy. When foreign policy objectives cannot be achieved through other means, nations resort to war as an end argument.

Determinants of Foreign Policy:

Several factors determine the foreign policy of states. These important determinants having a bearing on foreign policy can be broadly classified into three categories:

• General or objective.

• Specific or subjective or internal.

• External factors.

The general and objective factors determine the framework in which policy choices are to be made and operated. These are the factors that are common to all the countries in determining their foreign policy. Simultaneously, the specific and subjective factors vary from country to country following their internal conditions and needs.

These specific factors determine the specific response of leadership to a particular situation. Therefore, they indicate the direction of a foreign policy: Some external factors also influence a country’s foreign policy. All these factors are of great significance, and they clearly indicate that any simple determinant can satisfactorily explain foreign policy. These are explained in detail as follows:

General and Objective Determinants:

These are of four types that play a role in determining the foreign policy of all the states.

1. Sovereignty and Integrity of the Slate:

The first factor that every state keeps in mind while formulating foreign policy is safeguarding its sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is the state’s main responsibility to safeguard the property of citizens and protect their interests whatsoever they are. This responsibility also involves the concept of security of national boundaries and, if necessary, to occupy other alien parts of the territory.

The states aiming at the protection of their own territory pursue the policy of status quo. The states endeavoring to subjugate occupied or non-occupied territory may be named as pursuing the expansionist policy. The policy of safeguarding the interests of the citizens inside or outside the state is known as prestige.

2. Inter-dependence of States:

All the states, big or small, rich or poor, are dependent on one another for one or the other reasons. This inter-dependence may result in -conflict or cooperation, so the states under these stresses attempt to create a situation under which international behavior may not be broken completely. Foreign policy is formulated in such a way as to maintain a balance with bargaining. For example, India did not recognize Israel for long to dissuade the Arab countries from siding with Pakistan in an Indo-Pak dispute.

3. Promotion of National Interest:

It is the primary duty of all states to promote and further their national interests through their foreign policies. There may be a difference between one state’s interests with that of another as they naturally vary according to time, place, location, and circumstances. Still, the interests as self-preservation, security, and well-being of its citizens are the common interests based on which foreign policy is generally made.

4. Internal and External Conditions:

Certain internal and external factors condition the foreign policy of every state. Internal factors include geography, population, economic needs, ideology, history and culture, military capacity, social structure, personalities, public Opinion, etc.

External factors are the global environment, great power structure, alliances, international organizations, world public opinion, other states’ reactions, etc. The degree of influence of these factors on foreign policy may vary from country to country. That is why they are discussed in detail in subsequent headings.

Specific, Subjective, or Internal Determinants:

Every state has its own specific interests that require specific decisions in foreign policymaking. A state may be facing certain problems and difficulties and, therefore, has to consider several internal factors while formulating its foreign policy. These internal factors are known as subjective or special factors and may differ from state to state. These particular or specific factors are under.

1. Geography:

A permanent and stable determinant of foreign policy is geography. It determines the temperature, resources, frontiers, and neighbors. The state’s size, topography, shape, location, and climate are important components of geography.

A size large enough to support a population sufficient to man an adequate military establishment a climate which is uniform and conducive to physical vigor, preferably either temperate or tropical highland, a topography offering boundaries with natural defense barrier such as mountains, forests, swamps, rivers, deserts and oceans and a shape which is compact rather than disintegrated or scattered and thus easier to defend, provide part of the necessary power potential allowing a state to pursue an independent foreign g policy.

Location is one of the crucial elements in molding the foreign policy outlook. The insular location of the United Kingdom has influenced the general character of the British foreign policy as decisively as the isolated geographic position of the United States in the case of the American foreign policy. The location has created a sense of security as the vastness of size has conferred the same sense upon Russia and China.

In the context of new technological developments, the importance of geography has suffered a setback. The coming of supersonic jets, inter-continental ballistic missiles, and rockets have made the mountains and seas vulnerable. Within a few hours, any distance can be covered, and heavy bombers can encircle the globe.

The possibility of offensive defense against nuclear missiles is remote. While formulating its foreign policy, a state takes a distant country as seriously as it takes a neighboring country. Notwithstanding the above developments, the importance of geography is still intact as every state’s foreign policy continues to be related to its geography, though partially.

2. History:

Another guide to foreign policy is the history of the country. From history alone, the nation inherits a style and culture, which in turn influences foreign policymaking. History is the record of the doings of a community, of its failures and successes. The experience, failures, and successes guide policymakers to deal with present problems.

If a specific policy had proved to be rewarding in the past, policy-makers would like to try the same policy for tackling similar situations in the future. On the contrary, if a particular policy had proved to be a failure to deal with a situation, the policymakers would try a different policy under an identical situation in the future.

History shapes the current tradition and the self-image of society, and therefore, the specific national style. The British habit of muddling through, the French concern with security, honor, and glory, the German ruthlessness, the Soviet obsession with secrecy, and the American habit to interpret international issues as moral issues, India’s policy of nonalignment and Panchsheel, have definite and specific historical roots. In every case, such a national style and character influenced the making and execution of foreign policy.

3. Population:

it, as a determinant of foreign policy, is relevant both in quantitative and qualitative terms. The political, economic, and military phases of a nation’s foreign policy are also molded by the size, character, and distribution of its population. It is believed that the greater the number population, the greater will be its power. The workforce determines the standard of living, values, way of life, and even a nation’s expectations.

The significance of China and India rests partly on the large size of their population. Besides the quantity, the quality of the population, as revealed in its educational level, skilled labor, technical know-how, health, and strong national character, is a determinant of foreign policy. The population’s quality also influences the quality of the political system, public administration, leadership, and even the execution of foreign policy.

4. Natural Resources:

Food, minerals, metal, coal, crude oil, and water resources constitute an important element of foreign policy’s national power and consequences. The availability of these resources in plenty definitely enhances the importance of a country. For example, petroleum has significantly strengthened the West Asian countries’ position in international relations.

They have used oil as a tool of their foreign policy. If natural resources are not locally available, they have to be procured through international cooperation. The availability of strategic and crucial raw materials will place a v country in an advantageous position in foreign affairs. On the contrary, a country lacking in these resources will follow a weak foreign policy.

5. Economic Factors:

Today, no state in the world can boast of economic self-sufficiency. Even the United States is greatly dependent upon world trade for economic prosperity. This mutual interdependence of the economies also works as a determinant of foreign policy.

Economic interdependence leads to international economic activity expressed in terms of tariffs, import quotas, trade agreements, and other financial arrangements. Sometimes adjustments in an international economic relationship create tension in the world, which further takes political and military action.

States are not equally gifted by nature with natural and economic resources, nor are they capable of utilizing available resources. Therefore, nations make their foreign policies so that the supply of war materials may not run short, and their trade may have a favorable balance. International economic activity also needs facilities and protection of foreign investment. All these economic factors have a bearing on foreign policy.

6. Development:

Usually, a developed nation tends to follow an independent foreign policy, whereas a backward nation is inclined to pursue a dependency policy. Due to its poverty and military weakness, the latter would rely on developed nations for economic development and or for its protection against a powerful enemy. Such compulsions do not normally perturb strong and developed nations.

However, security is a relative term, and even the most powerful nation perhaps does not feel fully secure. Many times developed nations like Britain and France are not able to follow independent foreign policies. They are often required to toe the line of NATO dictated by the United States.

Although Japan is an economic power and threatens to overcome the United States shortly, it is militarily weak. It depends on the US for its security vis-a-vis Russia and China. Japan is compelled to follow the dictates of the US in the realm of foreign policy. Thus, the foreign policy co-relationship between development and independence is indefinite and uncertain.

In general, developed states have a more active foreign policy than developing states. The former, due to their superior resources, can afford to be more involved in external issues. However, sometimes even developing states follow active foreign policies to intervene in other countries, directly or indirectly, e.g., Sukarno’s Indonesia, Nasser’s Egypt, Gaddafi’s Libya, Saddam’s Iraq, etc.

7. National and Military Capacity:

It includes the military preparedness of a state, its technological advancement, and modem means of communication. Economic development and enlightened political institutions are also associated with national capacity. States with adequate military capacity will have greater initiative and bargaining power in foreign policy matters. Only those states have adopted aggressive postures that feel militarily strong.

National capacity determines as well as executes foreign policy effectively. If the state increases its national capacity, its foreign policy will need a big change. It will strive to attain a distinction in international relations; if it decreases, the state will have to compromise with its poor status. For example, at the end of the Second World War, Britain became a less powerful state.

Change in its national capacity had considerably changed British foreign policy. The change in the US foreign policy after the war was due to the tremendous economic growth rate and military success in the war that encouraged it to pursue a policy of involvement instead of isolation.

8. Ideology:

There has been a great debate on whether ideology persecutes as a determinant of foreign policy. Some scholars say that democratic nations believe in peace while dictation regimes believe in war, But reality falsifies this hypothesis. America and Britain, by no means, are less wan-prone than Russia and China.

At times, a leader uses ideology merely to justify his policy or behavior in familiar terms that are acceptable to his countrymen. But on the other occasions, a nation goes to war, not for national security but only to compel others to subscribe to its ideology.

An objective view on this matter is that ideology alone is not a policy goal. This is proved by the fact that nations professing Opposite ideologies live in peace with each other for several years. However, there is another side of the picture.

The foreign policy of the Soviet Union cannot be fully explained if one ignores the ideology of communism. World revolution remained one of the chief objectives of the USSR’s foreign policy for many years. Russian expansion after 1945 aimed at establishing communism as much as her political domination.

However, the role of ideology as a determinant of foreign policy should not be overemphasized. Often ideologies are used simply to obscure the real facts of a situation or ambitious rulers’ real motives. Sometimes governments stand for certain ideas only to command popular support at home and preferably abroad also.

The foreign policy of India and many other countries, despite ideological overtones, cannot be explained except in terms of national interests. In short, it can be said that ideologies do not fully determine foreign policy objectives, although they influence to some extent their directions.

After 1986, the end detente has once again returned, and Super Powers like the USA and the USSR came closer. People have again started talking about the end of ideology. Even ex-President Gorbachev had stressed the need for the de idealization of international relations.

He is also of the opinion that nations with Opposite ideological systems should not merely co-exist peacefully but should move further in the domain of constructive cooperation. Ideological camps or blocks which emerged after the Second World War have almost disappeared now. No country is interested in ideological rigidities. All these recent developments have further lowered the role of ideology in the formulation of foreign policy.

9. Public Opinion:

Especially in democratic countries, public opinion cannot be ignored as one of the foreign policy determinants. It is often vague, volatile, amenable to quick changes, and difficult to mobilize. But once on a particular problem, public opinion is mobilized and expressed in clear terms. It becomes difficult for the government to overlook it while deciding on the issue in question. The force of the Public Opinion in the United States politics compelled the government to order the withdrawal of the American forces from South Vietnam.

Likewise, it was also under the pressure of public opinion that Krishna Menon had to resign in 1962 after the Chinese aggression. Thus generally, public Opinion acts as a determinant in shaping the foreign policy of a nation.

10. Decision-Makers:

The attitude of policy and decision-makers is also carried weight. Leadership determines the strength and direction of a foreign policy. The role that a country performs at a particular time and the foreign policy that will be pursued are the outcomes of the qualities of those who are in the position to make decisions.

How decision-makers perceive national interest and their image of the external and global environment has much to do with foreign policymaking as the final decision regarding foreign matters lies in their hands. In fact, policy decisions in external matters can never be separated from the psychological traits, the personality, or the predisposition of the leaders. They, and not the abstract state or organization, take the most crucial decision concerning foreign policy.

11. Domestic Instability:

Sometimes domestic instability also works as a determinant of foreign policy. Quincy Wright, an eminent scholar of international politics and war, has observed that a ruler prevents sedition by making external war. It is a common saying in India that Pakistan has been continuously following an aggressive and hostile attitude towards India as it has never been able to deal with numerous internal issues challenging its very legitimacy and existence. Some Pakistani also allege the same thing about New Delhi.

Many people suspected that the nuclear explosion of 1974 by India was primarily meant to divert the attention of Indians from domestic difficulties and enhance the image of Mrs. Gandhi who was then fishing in troubled water at home.

President Nixon’s opponents criticized that in October 1973, he overemphasized the Russian threat in the Middle East and resorted to nuclear alert because he wanted to escape from the Watergate, which was about to dethrone him. Thus it is the insecurity of the ruling elites often projected or taken as domestic instability that molds the foreign policy on several occasions.

External Factors:

Certain external factors and situations also influence and shape a nation’s foreign policy. These factors are as follows:

1. International Organizations:

These include international law, the U.N.O., and its activities, UNESCO, I.L.O, W.H.O., I.M.F., etc. The nations cannot completely ignore international law, treaties, and contracts so that their violations may not put in danger policies. Almost all countries are also members of the U. N O.

Its decisions and activities affect the foreign policy of many nations. Communist China, for a long time, ignored international organizations and consequently could not secure its due position in the sphere of international relations. In 1971 she became a member of the U.N.O., and this fact caused several shifts in China’s foreign policy.

2. World Public Opinion:

World public Opinion provides dynamism to the external environment. It is always changing. It is tough to know unless it becomes obvious and organized. Like a flicker of light, it influences foreign policy rarely. The characteristic of consistency is absolutely absent in it.

Only if the domestic public opinion of many countries combines it becomes an effective world public opinion. Then it also serves as a determinant of foreign policy. No country, howsoever powerful, can go ever-challenging world public Opinion.

3. Reaction of other States:

The states cannot always neglect the viewpoint of other states while making their foreign policies. Moreover, every state has some friendly nations or allies. Their reaction about a particular policy has to be given special attention States usually never attempt to pursue those interests that are totally Opposed to another state’s fundamental interests. If the police ignore the reaction of other states, it has little chance to succeed.

4. Other External Factors:

The other external factors that have a bearing upon foreign policy are general world conditions, whether tense or relaxed, cold warlike or detente-like, war-prone or peace-oriented. General regional environment, whether surrounded by hostile or friendly neighbors.

Special endemic problems inflicting the region like the Palestinian problem in West Asia. Political and economic global problems like an arms race, nuclear proliferation, economic depression, economic protectionism, economic inequalities e. g. The north-South problem, the refugee problem, etc. The prevailing alliance system and power structure in the world-bipolar or multipolar also influence various states’ foreign policy.

REFERENCES

1. FH. Hartmann, The Relations of Nations (New York, 1967) Third Ed.p, 6.

2. Ibid. 

3. NJ. Padelrord and CA. Lincoln, The Dynamics of International Politics (New York, 1961) Second ed., p. 197.

4. GP. Schlezchcr, International Relations (New Delhi, 1963), p130.

5. Supra, n3

6. Supra n. 4, p. 129.

7. Charles Lcrche, Jr. and Abdul A. Said, Concepts of International Politics (New Delhi, 1972) 2nd and., pl. 31.

8. Anderson C. Rodeo, Introduction to Political Science McCray Hill Co. 1112. 1957, 501.

9. George Modelski, A misery of Foreign Policy (London 1962) p 3.

10. Mahendra Kumar, Theoretical Aspects of International Politics (Agra 1972) 2nd Rev. ed., p. 259.

11. Ibid. p 262

12. Felik Cross, Foreign Policy Analysis (New York 1954), pp 47 48.

I3. Supra n. 7, p. 31.

14. Supra n 10, p 262.

15. R.T Sangam, An Outline of International Politics (Calcutta 1970)p-47

16.  Supra n 10, p 261

17. Ibid