Is British Foreign Policy Mainly Conducted by the Prime Minister - Essay Example

Is British Foreign Policy mainly conducted by the Prime Minister? Introduction Foreign policy/foreign relationspolicy is made up of strategies and processes set by a sovereign country in its interaction with other states. The world has transformed in the past few decades particularly in terms of technology, economic activities, and international boundaries and so on. All nations seem to have a well planned and clear rules and policies that guide that country on how it interacts with the other states. This is where foreign policy comes in place. Foreign policies help nations solve crisis, trade among other interactions. Despite that, the question that many will ask is who really foreign policies interest works for. Ideally, the foreign policies are supposed to protect the interests of the citizens of a particular nation. This has not always been the case. According to Steiner (2004, p. 21) the state has collective representation on different fronts. These include, Heads of state, Prime Ministers, Presidents, commissioners and ambassadors among others. It becomes a bit difficult in understanding that realy plays the leading role in foreighn policies. The making of UK foreign policies According to Williams (2004, p. 910) the British foreign policy is not a product of political vacuum but rather a product of domestic factors such as the current public opinion on certain issues, pressure from global emerging issues like technology, interactive, activities from regional organization like the European Union and other transnational forces like the NGOs and other lobby groups. Ideally speaking, the ministers, government officials and other outsiders who are experienced and informed on particular issues are the ones who are supposed to formulate policies. This is on the basis of informed talks of any possible alternatives and putting into considerations relevant historical background and presidents. They also put into account the positions of any involved institutions and the legality of the proposed policy. After the formulation, the policy is interpreted by officials who later implement in order for it to attain the objective intended for. During the whole process, there are other interested parties that need to go through the policy. These are both in UK and abroad. In general the process of policy making in UK is made up of the following steps; Formulation, Interpretation, Implementation and Presentation. The process of policy making in the UK at some point seems to be very wide and may involve all government officials and a huge number of outsiders from both foreign states and NGOs. Despite that is said that this remains to be one of the most secrets in the government. The public finds it difficult to understand when and also where a particular policy was made. Even on very important policies, the public is left in the darkness (Williams 2004, p.915). In general, when addressing the issue of foreign policy in the UK, it is unfair to think of it as a single entity. The government at any given time is pursuing multiple foreign policies that are involving many institutions and at the same time tacking different issues both locally and internationally. According to Steiner (2004, p. 16), it is not easy to ensure that the country has a joined-up foreign policy considering the so many actors and participant involved. High opinions of British Foreign Service have not been share either in UK or abroad. The Diplomats have always been questioned in terms of professionalism. Smith, Hadfield, & Dunne, (2012, p.47) argue that for effective process of policy making, it is important to first define and understand the problems with foreign affairs. This will form the basis from which policies will be structuralised UK Policy Actors The UK foreign policies are conducted by multiple people. They do this on different levels and situations. On official basis, the Foreighn Secretary has been mandated with all the powers to carry on the foreign policing. This has not always been the case. The UK Prime Minister has the power to declare war and also in case of war deploy military troops. Williams (2004, p. 923) says that Britain was involved in several international military operations under the leadership of Tony Blair. He ordered the intervention of troops in Sierra Leone and Iraq. While making this military decisions, Blair did not consult with the Cabinet but rather decided to work with advisors and experts in the international relations. In as much as this might have been a good move for a better decision, the cabinet minister might doubt that and start adopting negative attitude towards the prime minister’s office. The Queen also has a role to play in foreign policy. The UK is a parliamentary monarchy and this makes the Queen the official ruler in UK. Her powers are, mainly ceremonial but nonetheless she plays a very vital role in representing UK at various levels. This include the UK itself, the Commonwealth and also internationally. The Queen is not actively involved in the UK politics but she has been consistent on how well she wants the UK to improve her foreign policy in order to keep up with the fast changing and developing world. Little & Wickham-Jones (2000, p.147) says that the Queen actively participated in finding a long-term solution for the conflict and rivalry between India and Pakistan. On her visit to India, she held a series of meetings and talks to try come up with a solution. Factors that Shape the British Foreign Policy The European Union Britain joined the EU in 1973. After joining, it was clear that there was a need to reform some of her foreign policies in order to accommodate the regulations of the EU and also create good relation with member states. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) were impressed by the reforms but had mixed feelings of anticipation and session for a stronger and more developed Europe. According to Steiner (2004, p. 17) the FCO seem to have lost some of its powers to the EU in relation to policy making towards the European states. The FCO is a useful short hand that covers both members of the UK foreign secretary mad members of the UK Foreign Service working in the UK and in foreign nations. Initially, the FCO was the sole determinant of the UKs national interest. The FCO is led by the Permanent Under-secretary whose role is to coordinate the FCO operations and administration. Within the FCO, there is another key role of a Political Director who plays a role of ensuring that the interests of the UK are represented at the European Political Cooperation (EPC). The Political Director is an important role as is the top policy advisory post. The FCO is automatically a target for criticism. This is because of economizing politicians. The department is not highly funded but a small cut will call for an alarm Steiner (2004, p. 23). According to Williams (2004, p. 925) the role of FCO outside EU has been on international forums which include the UN and Commonwealth. However, under the leadership of Clare Shorts, the Department of International Development (DfID) started to play front roles in specific aspects of UK foreign affairs. The European Union is not a sovereign state but rather an organization of foreign states. This does not give the EU powers to have foreign policy. The Maastricht Treaty of 1993 enabled the organization to set its own foreign policies. The member states became committed to a common European and Security policy. This allows the member states to pursue their own individual state interest but most importantly coordinate them on the European level. Issues that are of importance to this integration are economic relations, political and also security questions. The EU has been very keen and strict to its policies with the member states. The line between domestic and foreign among the member states has become difficult to distinguish among the member states. Since its establishment, the organization has had very high influence on the member state. This aspect has been referred to as Europeanization. The EU has come up with policies that have affected the member states in terms of economic actives, political set ups, the military, health and environmental policies. It’s quite evident that UKs foreign policy has been affected by Europeanization. This effect varies depending on the issues. Particularly, the European policies have been affected ideologically in regard to foreighn policy making and the close relation with the agenda and partly the contents of the policies. Britain on the other hand has taken advantage of Europeanization. The UK governments over the past years have been using the foreign policies in Europe to achieve her on objectives. This has helped Britain avoid unnecessary need for integration and participation of policy makers back at home. In the recent years, the British policy makers have been having a high priority to the transatlantic security relations than to reactions with the European partners. This has not been welcomed by the EU. The UK has been enjoying more success in the EU considering they have been shaping actions and decisions made by the EU. In 2010, Tony Blair played a key role in developing EU agendas for crucial decisions based on Europes defence, energy and environmental policy. This should have attracted more loyalty from the UK. The foreign policies of USA, Britain and the European Union were great transformed after the 9/11. This happened so fast than anybody expected. Being a global event that posed future threat to human lives and national security of many nations, the EU consequently passed a declaration on European warrants of arrest and measures to curb and fight terrorism. The EU has affected the legislation in UK more than any other area. Forster & Blair (2002, p. 234) say that Britain’s National is over stepped by the EU laws. This is mainly because the legality of EU legislation is distinctive and for that reason requires a response because legislation agreed at the EU level is absolutely biding in nature and once it has been agreed on in its headquarters in Brussels it becomes very difficult to amend. For that reason, we can conclude that the EU laws actively takes precedence above the UK national law by direct effect. This means that laws from EU do not have to be transferred to UK national laws. In general, the EU provides a very noble and unique platform for discussions regarding foreign policy process. This is because the international relations among the EU members states have slowly grown to become domesticated other than foreign relationship. This has in return produced large documentation that explains the extent to which the foreign policies for EU policies have been Europeanized. Through the Prime Ministers office, UK has adopted new labour policies that were made though the EU (Williams, 2004, p. 915). Generally, UK remains euro-sceptic towards increased integration in the European Union. Britain has been criticizing the economic weaknesses in Europe and has not been contented with being a member of the top three major states. This means that as major state, they have to help weaker countries. At times this means that Britain has to use her own funds. Despite that, globalization is inevitable and with time UK will continue to be affected by Europeanization. According to Gaskarth (2013, p. 144), UK has for a long time been a vital and significant voice in the world politics in the last two decades the effect and the impact has been greater than before. But the impact has been limited lately in the EU. UK is no longer feeling as the source of change and slowly is losing its influence. Anglo-American relations The UK is one of the worlds few countries that have special and unique relationship with the USA particularly when it comes to matters of foreign policy. The British Foreign policy has for a long time privileged the concept of working closely with the USA. This has been effective especially in the areas concerning international security. Britain and the UK have been allies for a long time and they have been acting in ways that brings mutual benefit to both countries. Britain in particular holds the relationship with the USA at high regards. UK considers the relationship between USA equally important as that with the European Union. The two countries may seem to have equal roles in their long term relationship. However, the situation from a distance suggests that Britain has been taking directives other than supplementing each other. The US and the UK have for a long-time been having mutual benefits. The two nations have worked on their indivdual foreign policies to ensure that their relationship is protected. Recently there has been a concern and speculation on whose benefiting more from this relationship. The US has been accused of taking the leading role and to be the leader in the relationship giving instructions to the UK Viotti (2010, p. 89). In 2011, Britain together with USA and other NATO members intervened in Libya. The fact that this was a US led mission forced UK to participate because of their relationship. The UN Security council resolution 1973 called for an immediate cease fire in the Libya. The Civil war led to massive destruction of property and death of innocent civilians. The US decided to embark on Operation Odyssey Dawn. This put pressure on UK to attack the Libyan Sea vessels. Later the rest of the member states of NATO were divided on whether to do the attacks on not. Some member states like Belgium threatened to withdraw from the organization. The UK had to make a very sober decision in order to avoid making wrong moves like the one did during the Iraq invasion. In a joint statement before the intervention in Libya, Obama, Cameron, & Sarkozy (2011, par.1) said that in conjunction with NATO, US, Britain and France have always been united from the beginning in responding to the civil war and crisis in Libya. They seemed convinced about the success of the military action in Libya and were hopeful that the people of Libya would soon be enjoying peace like in other nation in the world. The UK seems to be torn in its international relations and interest. One hand they have the EU and on the other hand are the USA. Britain has been a key ally for USA when it comes to USA making decisions in relation to Europe. Oppermann (2009, p. 934) says that the UK has been supporting US with such decisions and interventions. In return, the USA is to support UK in her decisions regarding Americas and the trans-Atlantic region. The two allies supported each other on different levels like defence cooperation, military nuclear cooperation’s and intelligence relationships. Like most of his predecessors, Tony Blairs regime decided that UKs interested would be vested with USA. Being the world super power, the interests seem secure. UK decided to make US a key ally and encourage effective leadership in the USA in order to empower international institutions. With good relationship with former American leaders like Bill Clinton and George W Bush, the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair seeks to be the trusted voice in the White House Williams (2004, p. 918). According to Held & Mepham (2007, p. 157) the post-Blair era took a different direction in terms of the foreign policy in the UK. Most people have been critical on Blair’s International policy. Others argue that he made so many wrong decisions that saw UK involved in unnecessary global warfare like in the Iraq. Others say that his decisions were mainly intended to protect the interest of UK in the global level. Foreign Policy Analysis In matters to deal with foreign affairs, decisions are made based three basic models. These models were suggested by Graham Allison (1971, p. 124). The first model is Rational Actor Model (RAM). The model works with the assumption that one state makes decisions ones they have projected possible outcomes and therefore making the decision a rational reaction to a specific situation. This can be summed up as states make decisions or actions in line with the national interest in order to reduce damages and losses and instead maximize on possible profits and benefits. The second model is known as organizational Process Behaviour (OPB. This model is characterized by decisions made by multiple organizations. Their decisions are mainly based on previous experiences and they seek to come up with preventive measures. This model tries to bring a central control to all decisions pertaining foreign policies and other international relations. The third model is the Bureaucratic politics. The model is mainly controlled by the government depending on how best they feel a certain issue should be handled. Developing new foreign policies largely relies on analysis made concerning emerging trend in the rest of the world. If a certain issue affects the countrys interest directly, it calls for a new policy to be created. Research is done and an analysis is presented to the policy makers for scrutiny. One important factor important here is for the policy making agency to do further reach concerning that particular policy. The source of information given has to be definitely reliable and trustworthy. The role of the Public opinion Headley, Reitzg, & Burton (2012, p. 173) argues that experts from areas such as academia, NGOs, the government and trade unions have for long been lobbying for active involvement of public opinion in policy making in the UK. The analysis of involvement of the public in war against Iraq is clear indication that the public has little to say. The general public at times is expected to attach significance to foreign policies as well as security policies. When this happens, they often tend to start considering that foreighn affairs might be holding more tangible repercussions that affect their day to day lives. When a foreign policy issues are perceived to have a direct effect on the security, more attention is given and opinions start to be generated. The public seem to give specific attention to those international issues that their government is actively involved (Oppermann, 2009, p. 921). The public opinion plays a very significant role in the foreign policy making. The public opinion basically reflects the requirements and demands of the public to whom the foreign policy works for. Therefore, their opinion plays a vital role. In the UK, majority of the citizens were not impressed by Tony Blairs decision to take UK troops to Iraq. There was a huge outcry for the British troops and also for the innocent civilians in Iraq. The year 2003 saw the UK half the biggest ever public demonstration. The public was against the invasion in Iraq. These demonstrations might not have affected Britains foreign policy but in other countries like Canada, the government kept its troops away from Iraq. At the same time, majority of the citizens did not stop Tony Blair from making decisions that would lead to a different course of action. The public opinion should be in cooperated to ensure that their real/true interest is protected. When taking of public opinion, one factor is important to consider, the media. The media plays a crucial role in informing the public. Before an individual decides on who best to vote for, they analyze them depending on the information they acquired through the media. Matters of national and international concerns are ported to the citizens through the media. Basically, the media determines the public opinion. Events touching on foreign policy posses certain characteristics that condition their visibility in the news media and this in return intensify their perception in the public Oppermann (2009, p. 934). This therefore puts public opinion at a very grey region. Well developed and refined methods should be used to understand public opinion. With the advance in science and technology, communication has been improved. The use of social media, emails, polls and other online platforms may seem more reliable to collect public opinion. Currently, the UK cabinet office is trying to find new methods that will ensure involvement of the public in policy making. This is to be done both on the agenda of the policies and transparency in which the process is to be done. The involvement of the public will see reforms being implemented in the country. Conclusion From our discussion, it obvious that there is no definite office that conducts or runs the British foreign policy. Every actor plays their role on different levels. Together they ensure that the interests of the British people are well secured and protected. There are factor that make is really difficult to understand the extent of a person in handling the foreign policies. These factors include Europeanization, Anglo-American relation public opinion among other factors. The process of policy making is wide and has many participants like the civil servants, government officials and independent advisors, experts from with the UK and from other parts of the world. The prime minister in UK plays an important role among them decision making but his decisions are based on information and intelligence he acquires or given to him. The UK involvement in the EU has been in balance lately. These makes the country suffers from exclusion. The UK needs to reaffirm its position in the EU. Also the states foreign policy is directly affected by the economic circumstances. The current state will create a more negative impact on UK and this will cut UK economic stretch. This will eventually affect UKs ability to deploy economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool. According to Minford, Mahambare, & Nowell (2005, p. 128) with countries like France and Germany working for close ties within the EU, UK is threatened because this was never her initial anticipation. The question that still remains is whether UK has the same influence it had decades ago in the EU. Bibliography: Oppermann, K. a. (2009). The Public Salience of Foreign and Security Policy in Britain, Germany and France, West European Politics. In K. a. Oppermann, The Public Salience of Foreign and Security Policy in Britain, Germany and France, West European Politics (pp. 925-942). Steiner, Z. (2004). The Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Resistance and Adaptation to Changing Times, Contemporary British History. In The Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Resistance and Adaptation to Changing Times, Contemporary British History (pp. 13-30). Williams, P. (2004). Whos making UK foreign policy?. International Affairs. In P. Williams, Whos making UK foreign policy?. International Affairs (pp. 925-942). Birmingham: Birmingham University Press. Graham, A. (2009). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Newyork, NY: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Incorporated. Forster, A., & Blair, A. (2002). The Making of Britain’s European Foreign Policy. London: Longman. Gaskarth, J. (2013). British Foreign Policy: Crises, Conflicts and Future Challenges. Chicheste: John Wiley & Sons. Headley, J., Reitzg, A., & Burton, J. (2012). Public Participation in Foreign Policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Held, D., & Mepham, D. (2007). Progressive Foreign Policy: New Directions for the UK. London: Polity. Little, R., & Wickham-Jones, M. (2000). New Labours Foreign Policy: A New Moral Crusade? Manchester: Manchester University Press. Minford, P., Mahambare, V., & Nowell, E. (2005). Should Britain Leave the EU?: An Economic Analysis of a Troubled Relationship. Camberley: Edward Elgar Publishing. Obama, B., Cameron, D., & Sarkozy, N. (2011, April 14). Libya’s Pathway to Peace. Retrieved March 24, 2015, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/opinion/15iht-edlibya15.html?_r=0 Smith, S., Hadfield, A., & Dunne, T. (2012). Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Viotti, P. (2010). American Foreign Policy. New York: Polity. Read More