well as the vices of the adopted foreign policy by the various US Presidents that America today shares cordial relationship with many nations, but excluding a few contributing to global political imbalances2. Many criticisms have surmised the efficiency of these policies to assure the nation with a global leadership position without any ill effects to its moral image. However, it is worth mentioning that even those foreign policy adopted by the 44th President of the US, sounded quite promising in the polls, which had its own loopholes3.
In the simplest words, foreign policy can be defined as the measures taken by any nation to gain benefits from international peace relations, suffice its developmental needs and assisting in the advancement of other nations by sharing resources as per the need. The underlying assumption to this particular theory asserts that nations with greater availability of developmental resources should assist nations having limitations, empowering them to advance and suffice their needs for existence. It also acts as a prospect for greater democracy in the wider scale of the international platform4. On the flipside, inflicted with self-sufficing objectives of many nations, the theory is also assumed to treat greater availability of resources as equivalent to greater political power. This in turn is supposed to reward few nations with more control on international politics as compared to nations witnessing limitations of insufficient resources. However, considering the basic tenet of macro-economy advocating continuous flow of resources, it becomes rational that the channelization of global power keeps on shifting it base and thus, to preserve their international role, nations need to emphasise changing their foreign policies5.
Many causes lead to changes in the foreign policies adopted by any nation. At the base, the changes in foreign policies mainly occur due to the influence of ‘exigencies and opportunities’ existing within the