Significance of Transnational Actors and Processes on the Foreign Policy - Essay Example

Significance of Transnational Actors and Processes on the foreign policy Analysts Significance of Transnational Actors and Processes on the foreign policy Analysts Introduction In the same way that the area of the real world that deals with international relations is currently becoming globalized at an increased rate hence more interactive so is the scholarship in Foreign policy analysis, which is also undergoing the same. For this reason, the Foreign Policy analysis, which is a sub field of the International Relations (IR) is mainly centered on the actor. It mainly focuses on the decision making process that is found within the foreign policy. A great challenge ins posed in this field with regard to the way that individuals make foreign policy decisions. It is mainly the role of the foreign policy analyst who is expected to take into account the transforming nature of the statehood which has been experienced and witnessed in the second part of the 20th century. This is derived from the different insights collected from a number of disciplines that include anthropology, sociology and social psychology. From one of the aspects of IR researchers have questioned the happenings during the last two decades. It has resulted in the argument by various scholars that the processes of privatization, internationalization and trans-nationalization have in a great way resulted in the transformation of how international politics are currently conducted. However, there is great level of competition that is faced by the privileged actors and the foreign offices. These are increasingly faced not only from the available ministries but also the agencies in the governments as well as the non state actors and the international organizations. In this paper, the trends that have resulted to the role and behavior of these actors as well as their processes on the foreign policy analysts and practitioners will be discussed. In addition, it will also analyze the role of the researchers in these activities. Therefore, in this case, a question is presented on the extent to which foreign policy analysis, the sub field of International relations that are actor centric has taken the various related accounts of non states actors who have currently become of growing importance to this subject. Role of Foreign Policy Analysts The Foreign Policy analysts have made a disapproval of viewing the state as a unitary actor. Because of this the scholars within the field of foreign policy analysis should make appropriate analysis in decision making to involve the non state actors within the first elements of international relations. However, most of the studies have revealed that foreign policy analysis is still focused on the state actors while it tends to mostly ignore those involved in private transnational and international sectors. Therefore, in one way or the other, foreign policy analysis still remains a state centric component. There has been an immense focus on the actors and processes that are related to the foreign policy activities. It is because of the way the scholars in foreign policy analysis have included the non state actors within their different frameworks. However, from an in-depth nature of a meta-analysis of the different processes, it has been shown that research on foreign policy analysis give very minimal attention on the associated changes. It has been found to be mainly a result of the position of FPA for a long time as a state centric. However, this is not in the sense that it takes the states as unitary actors but in the major fact that its main focus is on the governmental actors and the private actors in the domestic sector. As a result, there has been the neglect of transnational and actors who are not within the state hence the resultant emergence of new and important players in the game of foreign policy analysis. Transnational Actors and their Processes Immense importance has been linked to Foreign Policy Analysis and the non state actors. With globalization, the non state actors have been brought back to the agenda that is based on International Relations. Owing to the issue of globalization, a great shift has been witnessed from the authority of the state to the non state actors. However, this concept is still highly debatable. In this regard, most of the empirical studies place their focus on domestic issues although they present a good reason to make the assumption that foreign policy analysis is also affected by this trend. It is for this reason that non state actors have been found to be autonomous actors in the aspect of politics all around the world. The recent debate in globalization has taken about two decades and has brought back the attention of the non state actors (NSAs) back into the view currently. There was an importance on NSAs during the 1970s ad it was shown by the interdependence exhibited by the literature. Nonetheless, according to Keohan and Nye (2001), it was only during the 1990s that NSAs were studied on a serious basis in the traction of international relations. This was the period that took place after a decade that was filled by a lot of neo synthesis (Waever, 1996). Globalization is related to this issue in the sense that it refers to the extensions within which the boundaries of social tractions are done beyond national borders thus bringing about the question about security and authority within the states (Zangl & Zurn, 1999). In turn, the ability for them to claim the right to regulate different functions such as the regulation of rules and the monitoring or enforcement of rules as opposed to the SAs that include multinational enterprises (MNEs), international organizations (IOs)and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The debate has been on for almost two decades now. However, it is now beyond any doubt within the international relations fields that there is an extremely significant role that is played and the impact that is created by the NSAs in the area of world politics. In particular, it is considered that NSAs have been in existence for a long time and in fact they are still highly relevant in various fields as though they were still new. There are three principle groups that are involved in the debate regarding denationalization. Their argument depends on their position in relation to statehood. The first group argues that there should be a retreat of the states since the power of the state is waning due to the shift in power. However, this concept is strongly opposed by the hyberglobalizers or the state centrists who claim that the nation state will become obsolete if it is not yet obsolete in relation to the economic factors. They argue that the flow across the borders is what brings about interdependence thus signifying that the effects and extent of globalization have been overstated (Soensen, 2004). In the privatization arena of foreign policy, there are lesser private actors who are bound by the nation in number. This figure is lower than that of the transnational or international actors. However, contrary to the fact and assumption that foreign policy is led by the national interest it is the private actors and their interests that play extremely vital roles in the foreign policy analysis. During moments of crisis when the international politics are moved up the public agenda, most of the citizens embark on the media as their source of information. Thus, apart from the fact that it plays a key role as being a neutral observer, it can also bear a great effect on the politics of a particular region as indicated by Hass (2009). In turn, the same media that provides information also interviews most of the experts in foreign policy to bring out some of the important interpretations of the current events. They thus act as the makers of crucial opinions since they represent a number of problems that crop up within the areas of foreign policy in certain ways. The most common ways include recruitment from think tanks, academic research institutes, NGOs, or the news media in itself. This is in the way that they influence the way with which the public gets to know about and understand particular problems. With this, even those who are involved in policy making are capable of making great input from the experts (Milne, 2010). Nonetheless, a great problem is presented in the sense that the representatives from Non Governmental Organizations and experts from the think tanks usually have an agenda for themselves. It can lead to a substantial bias within the way that events are perceived in the public domain. Additionally, there is a drawback in the area of foreign policy knowledge with regard to the public and the relative indifference that opens up the possibility towards relevant interest groups so as to make the public opinion more solid behind their position. They are in a position to do this through the framing of their parochial interests that are portrayed as national ones according to Davidson (2006). Though still debatable and prone to argument, the most proper example of this is the prominent role played by the neoconservatives who take part in the global war against terrorism. This is according to a number of observers hijacked by the foreign policy of the United States. It is done in the effort to promote their project which is mainly aimed at forcefully making the Middle Eastern region a democratized area (Buchanan, 2004). Basing his argument on the same idea, in 1997 Samuel Huntington stated that under the administration of President Clinton, the United States foreign policy had become a tool that generated special interests. This is because, according to his argument, the particularism that it defines in the economic and ethnic area is the current role that is played by America towards the entire world. Additionally, as reflected by Metzges (2005), the public opinion can also be influenced by different NGOs through the lobbying or convincing of the different decision makers or those who act as the third actors of the different causes. However, the NGOs are only able to emerge successful in their efforts during the rare cases that they are able to form transnational alliances. It is in this relation that most of the transnational firms that operate on a private basis become relevant to foreign policy. Actors in varied business sectors are also able to develop an interest in foreign policy and especially its economic aspect only if they have the plans to make an investment outside of their home countries, which refers to the point where they are considered to be transnational actors. The other actors who have become significantly important in the area of foreign policy through their processes and hence important to the foreign policy analyst are the transnationalization actors. This is especially in the area of international politics where they have become a great force to reckon with. The transnational networks that are engaged with NGOs are mainly involved in lobbying for various causes that include the women’s’ rights and the protection of the environment. They are also concerned with the provision of advice for national governments and the international institutions in addition to the participation in international conferences and networks of global public policy. For instance some of the private citizens who include Bill Gates and Al Gore have been engaged in the promotion of different solutions towards some of the major world problems like global warming and the ways with which to stop some of the deadly diseases from spreading. This is shown by Cohen and Kupcu (2005). With this, the transnational actors have become increasingly influential especially in the area of international politics. Besides this, they have also been involved in the making of foreign policies for different states. The most notable step has been their engagement in the implementation of the foreign policies. NGOs are a crucial part of the governments that greatly rely on them and work with them to accomplish some of the goals placed within the foreign policies. Governments also work with private companies to help them distribute their development aid and to help in the settlement of armed conflicts that erupt in different areas (Stoddard, 2006). At times, some of their duties and roles have included the hiring of private consultants to assist the opposition parties to win the elections in foreign countries as well as assign crucial roles to private businesses. These include the effort to promote democracy across many different countries as is depicted by Cohen and Kupcu (2005). A proper example of this is in the year 2000 when there was great opposition against Slobodan Milosevic who was the president of Serbia. He had the support of a consultant who was working with officials in the United States. At this time, he had used a lot of time polling for the populace in the effort to increase the odds that the opposition party would attain victory (Cohen & Kupcu, 2005). There is a famous incident that proves this point and element. This is the controversial example where privatized military firms (PMFs) shipped troops from Europe to Afghanistan. They prepared the army from Croatia for the military offense that it performed against Serbia in 1995. It provided the necessary logistics for the British and the army in the United States. In Iraq, the activities and actions of the PMF have been received in a public way since more and more of the PMF have become increasingly active than in any other part of the world. In 2005, it was noted that there were about 20,000 private personnel who were employed in several firms. They were employed in over 60 firms in order to provide their military services. Although they were intended to provide a number of the related functions the indicated numbers did not include the other large number that was meant to provide non military oil services and reconstruction. It is probable that the same number of people is involved in the provision of all the partners of the United States when combined (Singer, 2005). Moreover, the transnational actors also provide essential services that involve and influence most of the processes of decision making within the nations. There are also times when they are able to change the cost benefit analyses that are done before the crucial processes of decision making. For example, when the PMFs are made available, they allow the policy makers to act down on the costs of an impending war. In this sense, the policy makers are able to get sufficient breathing room politically thus they gain the capability of supporting the military operations that are considered unpopular. Furthermore, the idea of transnationalization can transform the dynamics available within the institutions of foreign policymaking since it strengthens the executive branch against that of the legislature. For example, while the congress in the United States is responsible for making approval of the military budget, it is not responsible for making every decision that involves the appointment and hiring of the PMFs, which is the main basis for the oversight that hampers the congress (Avant, 2004). Another proper example of the significance of actors and their processes towards the foreign policy analysts and analysis is presented by Shaun Breslin (2004). This is the British policy that has been in existence since 1997 towards China. The key point of the British policy was to facilitate the investment made by the British towards China. It was also meant to protect the changes in the social and political realms. The British government largely based their assumption on the fact that China had a great investment in the increased economic status, which would lead to networks within the transnational societies that were increased and would ultimately lead to the generation of pressure towards democratization (Breslin, 2004). He additionally presents an argument that some of the actors who have become increasingly important towards the British foreign policy are the private business firms. He goes ahead to provide the best example in the form of the China Britain Business Council or the CBBC. This is a business led partnership business that is both public and private to facilitate the access through which most businesses in Britain can access the Chinese market. Although it is mainly private CBBC is not only engaged in the functions of an official advisor of the Trade partners who are mainly public in the UK. Nonetheless, most of its key activities are intentionally linked to the formal agencies in the UK. In particular, Breslin depicts the CBBC in China as a part of the official diplomatic activities of the British government. As such, the line that is existent between the private actors and the government of the UK for the Chinese actors is greatly blurred. Therefore, this is an indicator that the private actors who are the de facto group have taken over the key responsibilities that were initially meant for the public in the form of the British Trade international and the FCO. Consequently, they have been capable of attaining the objectives of the government in both the economic, political and social spheres. This is because several of their activities and functions are now in the hands of the private organizations and are handled according to their interests as Breslin indicates. In this case, the non state actors assume the authority that is related to decision making as well as the power of an organization. Nonetheless, the transnational actors are not only engaged in helping the government to implement their policies but also to pursue the various goals that they have set up in relation to foreign policies. In essence, the political consultants are in a special way controlling and taking care of their own foreign policy since they take part in decisions that involve how they are expected to work in the first place as is shown by Cohen and Kupcu 2005. Conclusion The state centrism that is exhibited by FPA should be given up in order for different nations to experience a large number of changes. It is mainly because, if it is eliminated, then there will be an easier grasp of the patterns applied in the governance of denationalizing of different nations in the world. In addition, it also has a significant role in contribution of the research body that deals with globalization and the transformation of states. References Avant, D. D. (2004). “The Privatization of Security and Change in the Control of Force”, in: International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 5 (2): pp. 153-157. ---. (2007). “Contracting for Services in U.S. Military Operations”, in: PS: Political Science & Politics, Vol. 40(3); pp. 457-460. Breslin, S. (2004). “Beyond diplomacy? UK relations with China since 1997”, in: British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol. 6; pp. 409-425. Cohen, Michael A. & Küpçü, Maria F. (2005), “Privatizing Foreign Policy”, in World Policy Journal, Fall 2005; pp. 34-52. Davidson, L. (2006). “Privatizing Foreign Policy”, in Middle East Policy, Vol. 13 (2); pp. 134 147. Huntington, S. P. (1997). “The Erosion of American National Interests”, in Foreign Affairs , Vol. 76(5), pp. 28-49. Keohane, R. O. & Nye, J.S. (2001). Power and Interdependence. New York.: Longman Metzges, G. (2005). NGO-Kampagnen und ihr Einfluss auf internationale Verhandlungen. DasMultilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) und die 1997 OECD Anti-Bribery Convention imVergleich, Baden-Baden: Nomos. Singer, S. (2004), “War, Profits, and the Vacuum of Law: Privatized Military Firms and International Law”, in Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 42 (2), pp. 521–549. Sørensen, G. (1997). “An analysis of contemporary statehood: consequences for conflict and cooperation”, in Review of International Studies , Vol. 23 (3), pp. 253-269. Wæver, O. (1998). ‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations’, International Organization, Vol. 52 (4):687 727. Zangl, Bernhard & Zürn, Michael. (1999). “The effects of denationalisation on security in the OECD world”, in Global Society , Vol. 13 (2), pp. 139 – 161. Read More