Sunday Times 2
Foreign policy: A search for equilibrium, compromise
Book facts | Foreign Policy: From Conception to Practice – by Dr. Ernest Petric
The treatment of the subject therefore transcend the political and geographical boundaries of the Balkans and Eastern Europe and provide many an insight, which are of relevance to foreign policy-making and implementation in general and in particular of small developing states grappling with foreign policy issues in an increasingly antagonistic world. The book consists of five chapters covering varied aspects of the theory and practice of foreign-policy making. Chapters two to five covering, ‘The International Environment and Foreign Policy’; ‘Decision Making in Foreign Policy’, ‘Means of Foreign Policy’ and ‘Features of Foreign Policy of Small States’ , respectively, constitute the core of the work.
Theoretical aspects of foreign policy
In the treatment of the theoretical aspects of foreign policy, the author’s starting point is what he refers to as the ‘certain restrictions’ which confront the foreign policy-making process or what is referred to as ‘foreign policy ambitions’ of every State. He points out that these restrictions are both internal and external. The internal restrictions arise, according to the author, from factors such as the socio-economic structure of the State, from its size and power, from the degree of its development, and from the political and social stability of the State etc. External restrictions arise from factors such as characteristics of the international environment, conditions in the international community, the geopolitical position of the State, relations with neighbours and relations within the region etc. From this standpoint, the author makes the pertinent observation that “In achieving its goals and interests, every foreign policy has to adapt, like it or not, to the reality that such restrictions, both domestic and international, exist”. Thus the twin factors of, on the one hand, domestic compulsions, and on the other, the compulsions of geopolitical realities, combine to shape the foreign policy making process of all countries. These observations act as a caution against a process of foreign policy-making in isolation, or in a vacuum, paying scant regard, sometimes to the domestic environment, but more often to the international environment, for which many a State has had to pay a heavy price.
A constant theme that underlines the author’s treatment of the subject of foreign policy making, therefore, is the need for a careful and calibrated approach that balances national priorities, mainly those that guarantee the security and welfare of its people with the reality of the international environment. This in turn calls for inevitable compromises and concessions, where policy makers need to engage and understand the interests of other countries, with which it is required to interact. The need for mutual accommodation and understanding in the effective implementation of foreign policy is succinctly captured by the author in the following words; “In short, only a foreign policy that stems from an understanding of reality, and at the same time, of a country’s own long term interests can succeed. Conversely…..there is nothing more dangerous for any State or Nation than a foreign policy that is not based in reality. Foreign policy that is based on ambition only, or even led by the desires and pressures of public opinion, i.e. controlled by emotion rather than reasoned judgement, can rarely succeed. More often than not, it ends in failure and disappointment.”
The essential distinction between and the challenges involved in the implementation of the domestic policies and the foreign policy of a State, is also dealt with perceptively by the author. While domestic policy is essentially directed towards, recipients within the State, prime recipients of foreign policy are other sovereign nations. A further point of departure is presented from the perspective of implementation and enforcement of domestic and foreign policies respectively. As the author points out, domestic policies are implemented through legislative, executive and administrative acts of government, and there is ”a strong hierarchy that gives the decision makers the power to enforce their decisions”.
In contrast, the author, pertinently points out, that foreign policy, which is concerned with relations between sovereign subjects, must of necessity depend on other means of implementation, since sovereign States will not accept obligations under compulsion, or accept being directed by other sovereign entities.
“Foreign policy is a search for equilibrium and compromise and alliances, influencing events and implementing objectives through discussions, proposals, initiatives and negotiations, leading to agreement”.
In these words, the author captures that vital element of consensual engagement in diplomacy that is a must for the successful implementation of foreign policy. In underscoring the importance of reaching a compromise, in the solving of inter State problems and conflicts, the author takes the view that finding compromise solutions is the essence of foreign policy and “is usually the only realistically achievable goal”. He recalls in this context the views of Bismarck, Statesman and Diplomat ‘par excellence’ and Unifier of Germany, that ”foreign policy is the implementation of the possible, while the possible in foreign policy in most cases is a compromise”. The hypothesis that the author presents to underline the importance of reaching consensus and compromise is the fact that the international community which generally operates in terms of a balance of power is a “meeting place of sovereign States”. Accordingly he argues that in such an environment, unless a State has the means at its disposal to enforce a decision, then foreign policy decisions must always aim at reaching a mutually acceptable compromise.
Pragmatism in the conduct of foreign policy, even conceding short term goals, to ensure the achievement of long-term objectives, is a constant theme that emerges from the author’s work. Drawing from experiences of his own region, the author cites as examples of such an approach, the acceptance by the Kosovo Albanian leadership of the proposed Peace Agreement formulated in Rambouillet in 1999, and later of the Ahtissari Plan.
He states; “In these and many other cases, difficult compromises in fact opened the way to long-term strategic goals of those who accepted prima facie unacceptable goals”.
(More next week)
(The writer is a retired Sri Lanka Foreign Service diplomat, an International Legal Consultant and member, International Law Commission (2007 – 2011)
About the author
Dr. Ernest Petric is the President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia and a Professor of International Relations at the University of Ljubljana. He has had a distinguished career as a diplomat having served as ambassador in New Delhi, Washington, Vienna and as ambassador to the United Nations in New York.
Dr. Petric also served as Chairman of the International Law Commission (ILC) in 2009, having being elected in 2007 to that body, which is the principal legal organ of the United Nations. He continues to serve as a Member of the Commission.
The above brief description, while helpful in giving a glimpse of the multi-faceted personality of Dr. Petric, it fails however to capture the rich personality of a man who has imbibed deeply in the teaching and practice of International Law and International Relations, a man whose warm and sincere friendship I was fortunate to have cultivated during my own tenure in the ILC during 2007-2011 and from whose knowledge and experience, in matters of law, diplomacy and politics, I have been able to gain many an insight.
Dr. Petric had spent his early childhood amidst the tragedy of World War II then sweeping across Europe and in the early post-war years of Former Yugoslavia. These experiences had left an indelible impression in the mind of young Ernest. His deep commitment to human values and human dignity are a constant theme in his approach to law, politics and diplomacy and has been clearly influenced by these experiences of early childhood.
Dr. Petric’s diplomatic career is unique in that it has been shaped by the unprecedented challenges that occurred in the context of the process of disintegration of Former Yugoslavia which had been set in motion in the late 1980s. Dr. Petric’s first ambassadorial assignment was as ambassador of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to New Delhi, when Yugoslavia was the Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement, in which both India and Yugoslavia were playing a pro-active role as founding fathers of the movement.
What is less known is the fact that Dr. Petric had been proposed for the diplomatic assignment, by Slovenia, at that time still within the Yugoslav Republic, under the ‘Slovenian quota’ for such appointments, to the Federal Government in Belgrade. However as the Yugoslav drama unfolded and the conflict in Slovenia resulted in the emergence of the new Republic of Slovenia, it was ‘decision time’ for Dr. Petric. In June 1991, Dr. Petric opted to be attached to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the new Slovenian Republic and in September 1991, he was appointed as the “Slovenian Representative to the United States of America”. These were difficult, yet challenging times as the United States had not yet recognised Slovenia and had not yet established formal diplomatic relations with that entity. However, Dr. Petric’s tenure as “Representative” had paved the way to the formal recognition of the Republic of Slovenia by the United States. With the establishment of formal diplomatic relations between the two countries, Dr. Petric finally emerged as the ‘Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary’ of the Republic of Slovenia to the United States of America.
Upon the successful completion of his assignment, Dr. Petric was appointed State Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the Foreign Ministry. Thereafter his next assignment as the Permanent Representative of Slovenia to the United Nations in New York, proved to be equally challenging. This period witnessed the culmination of Slovenian efforts to secure recognition of Slovenia’s international legal status in the various United Nations agencies and bodies. During his next diplomatic assignment as Aambassador to neighbouring Austria, a relationship steeped in history, Dr. Petric also served as the Permanent Representative to the International Atomic Energy authority, (IAEA) and as the Chairman of its Board of Governors.
Against this rich and varied background, Dr. Ernest Petric occupies a special vantage position to deal with the foreign policy decision making process and synthesise the theoretical concepts of diplomacy with the hard realities of diplomatic practice, paying particular attention to the challenges facing small developing countries and new States, in the contemporary legal order. In his own words;
“The book is an attempt to synthesise the theoretical knowledge of and research of a professor of International Law and International Relations who was also given a chance in his long diplomatic service, to put theoretical knowledge to the test.”
Follow @timesonlinelk
comments powered by Disqus