Analyzing Pakistan’s Foreign Policy

By: Masoud Amin

M.Phil. (IR)

NATIONAL DEFENCE UNIVERSITY, ISLAMABAD,

PAKISTAN

SECTION 1

AN UNDERSTANDING FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS

Introduction

Foreign policy analysis as a field of study is categorized by its

actor-specific focus. It is the study of the procedure, outcomes,

origins, or outputs of foreign policy decision-making in either a

comparative or case-specific manner. The underlying and generally

tacit argument cause conjectures that human beings, while acting

as a group or within a group, concoct change in international

politics.

Foreign Policy Analysis bestows an accessible opportunity of

research publication which boosts communication through

theoretical, methodological, geographical and disciplinary

limits, exposing the divergent, comparative and multidisciplinary

nature of the field. The assessment process stresses on

convenience of content for scholars of all standpoints and

methodologies, so that Foreign Policy Analysis provides an outlet

for theoretical and methodological consolidation that expands the

conceptual debates throughout the study of international

politics.

This paper reviews applied foreign policy, realism, the “Levels

of Analysis” by Kenneth Waltz, and decision-making units to focus

on the theoretical and analytical foundations of Pakistan’s

foreign policy. “Levels of Analysis” and realism are defined so

that the entire face of the argument may be understood in its

true perspective. It identifies decision making units in Pakistan

as well as in the US and their interaction in the light of

Waltz’s “Levels of Analysis”. Keeping Pakistan and its army’s

approach towards India in view, neighbouring relations are based

on the norms of survival, jealousy, power, identity, and

comparison. Therefore, the realist school of thought and Kenneth

Waltz’s “Levels of Analysis” are applied to the South Asian

regional foreign and security policy paradigm as well as the

Pakistan Army’s relationship with the US policy-makers.

Foreign Policy: Applied

It will be pertinent, in the beginning, to bring in the dossier

on academic foreign policy. A brief definition of foreign policy

can be given as “the sum of official external relations conducted

by an independent actor (usually a state) in international

relations”. The ideal world as a homogenized entity is much

divided into real but separate and characteristic countries with

their own sanctified communities. The term foreign policy is a

nineteenth-century expansion of the idea of policy, which had

been in use since Chaucer to denote a government’s conduct of

affairs. Foreign policy is also seen as “attempts by governments

to influence or manage events outside the state’s boundaries”.

Mostly, the relations formed with external countries are

formulated in the Foreign Office of the country with the final

verdict of diplomatic staff. However, in a world where important

international disputes occur over the price of bananas or where,

for the price of F-16s, the nation is forced to purchase soybean

oil, it would be absurd to concentrate foreign policy analysis on

relations between national diplomatic services. Foreign policy

is, therefore, both more and less than the “external relations”

which states generate continuously on all fronts. In simple

terms, foreign policy is constituted by two fundamental elements:

the objectives of a state and the means required for their

accomplishment. Hence it aims at the benefits of the state which

conducts it. However, this is not a complete explanation of the

term because it does not refer to the many different national

objectives that a state may set itself and the variety of means

which can be employed. For example, a state may pursue its

regional objectives by achieving international support over its

regional neighbours, and it may want to secure greater foreign

military and economic assistance. So in order to achieve these

objectives, a state can use traditional diplomacy through

bilateral meetings and agreements, or join regional security

blocs sponsored by a greater power. In serious cases, a national

military can also influence the foreign policy of a country for

its institutional benefits and may cause a military coup to

control the government and have military agreements. One

understanding of the above discussion is that the study of

foreign policy is not an easy task. There are no clear-cut

dimensions, patterns or lines, and, therefore, conclusions should

be drawn very carefully. Foreign policy as a subject has been

extensively studied by historians, at first through detailed

accounts of diplomatic historians and then through the “scope of

‘domestic history’ which strove to relate diplomacy to its domestic

roots, whether political, social, economic or cultural”. Indeed,

one finds a synergy of foreign policy studies for historians

increasingly interesting as international relations move towards

its own discipline. The tools of decision-making analysis are

readily adaptable to detailed cases, and opening up many state

archives has made it impossible to avoid the evidence of such

pathologies as bureaucratic politics or small group dynamics.

National Archives London and the US National Archives in

Washington DC are the few such examples. In the United States, in

particular, there has been a deliberate encouragement of links

between historians and political scientists, with much useful

cross fertilization.

Impact of History on Foreign Policy

For a policy-maker, history offers some lessons for his

education. If policy-making is not limited to public servants,

bureaucrats, diplomats and politicians, academia may serve as a

think tank to advise the government or concerned departments of

policy making in the light of history and its lessons. “Social

scientists in particular spend their lives analysing history and

seeking to discern patterns in it”. In the absence of such an

advisory class, policies become person-oriented, which proves

Hegel’s statement that “we learn from history that we do not

learn from history”. This is true with respect to the US-Pakistan

collaboration against the former Soviet Union during the 1950s

and 60s which benefited the US at the cost of Pakistan’s

interests. In the later part of Pakistan’s history, no lessons

were learnt from such individualistic policies and the mistakes

were repeated again during the 1980s’ “Afghan Crisis”, as well as

in the post-9/11 scenario during the “War against Terror” in its

relations with the US. Repetition of mistakes forced Pakistan to

face the worse security, regional and political crisis of its

history. Decision-makers’ simple historical comparisons and

analogies end up in difficulty.1 Every historical study varies

from issue to issue and, hence, must be analysed individually to

learn for the future. But if history is ignored, it punishes a

nation by repeating itself. In the absence of lessons from

history, refuge is usually taken behind the term “national

interest” to pursue violent, peaceful and abrupt policies. But

can there be any interest that is not national for a country? Hence,

declaring any policy as a “national interest” in the foreign

policy of a country is overemphasis. If for a policy-maker

something is national interest, then what is not “national

interest”? One might not be against the use of the phrase

“national interest” but against confused use of the term.

Interestingly, there is no straightforward antonym to the term

“national interest” which further favours the limiting of its use

in the foreign policy formulation process.

Foreign Policy and Realism1 Michael Howard. (1991). The Lesson of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press,p97.

For a country like Pakistan, foreign policy needs to demonstrate

political will and military power to have friendly relations in

order to keep a check, for example, on a hostile India, the

former Soviet Union, and present day terrorist threats. It also

needs to perfect democratic practice. This can be synchronized by

a foreign policy with a prudent realism. It is the traditional

way in which practitioners have thought about international

relations, emphasizing the importance of power in the region.2

Realism became the orthodoxy in academic writing after the

discrediting of the “legalistic-moralistic” approach of the

inter-war period. Realists maintain that definitions of morality

must change too. As George F. Kennan writes in “Morality and

Foreign Affairs”, the “primary obligation of a government is to

the interests of the national society it represents, not to the

moral impulses that individual elements of that society may

experience”.3 In the Cold War, it seemed self-evident that states

and military force were the main features of the international

2 Henry Kissinger. (2001). Does America need a Foreign Policy? New York: Simon and Schuster,p4.

3 George F. Kennan. (1985-86). Morality and Foreign Affairs. Foreign Affairs, vol.64, no.2, 206.

system. Much realist thought was more subtle, as any encounter

with the work of E.H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, Reinhold Niebuhr,

Martin Wight and Arnold Wolfers reveals. Christopher Hill says:

“What realism did not do was probe into decision-making or other

domestic sources of international behaviour in general” 4and in

the mirror of history in particular. However, the entire course

of the history of relations between the US and Pakistan was a

manifestation of the application of realism, both at a South

Asian regional as well as at a global level. Realism is “state-

centric” but with rational motives and ideologies. However,

realism can be justified if all those who believe that states are

of continued significance in international relations are deemed

eo ipso realists. Realists were advanced by Kenneth Waltz’s

formation of neorealism in the late 1970s. Neo-realism5 is a

systemic approach in which the international structure acts as a

constraint on state behaviour so that only states whose outcomes

fall within an expected range survive. However, the neo-realist

4 Christopher Hill.(2003). The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

5 Kenneth N. Waltz. (1990). Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory. Journal of International Affairs, 44(1).

theory could not deal with a foreign policy that could also

influence domestic policy. Realists were not sure of the origin

of power from the level of analysis – human, state, or the world.

Hence, Waltz came with compartmentalization of the “levels of

analysis”,6 along with the logic of Balance of Power to curb “the

logic of anarchy”.7 Though levels of analysis deal with the

foreign as well as domestic policy of a country like Pakistan,

the neo-realist theory is limited only to the levels of analysis

without any direct impact on the decision-maker and domestic

politics of a country.

In an international environment, every nation has its state-

centric foreign policy values which usually confront with the

supra-national values. The supra-national values include peace,

freedom, democracy, humanity, etc. Nations join international

forums and get into relationship with other nations to abide by

such values. However, every nation gives more weight to its

6 K. N. Waltz. (1959). Man, a State and the War : A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.

7 Barry Buzan and Richard Little. (1993). The Logic of Anarchy in International Relations: Neo-realism to Structural Realism. New York: Columbia University Press,132-154.

national state-centric values and interests than the supra-

national values. The latter must be in conformity with the former

and when a major clash occurs between the two, the former

dominate.8 Whenever there is a clash between the two sets of

values and interests, it reveals the egocentric character of the

foreign policy- a realist approach. The foreign policy of a state

can be called realist-egocentric only when it pursues the

national progression or at least defends its interests against an

international system of states whose policies have the same

character.9 Here a state contradicts its own ethics that exists

within a state. While inside, the state calls upon the

individuals to act as a community and accept sacrifices for the

sake of the common good; in external affairs the state acts as a

selfish individual which has the right to pursue the national

interests whatever the cost to the international community.10

8 Joseph Frankel. (1963). The Making of Foreign Policy; An Analysis of Decision Making. London: OUP, 119-20

9 David Vital. (1968). The making of British Foreign Policy. The Political Quarterly,39 (3)(18).

10 Peter Calvert. (1986). The Foreign policy of New States. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books,p25.

Realism was applicable during the East-West tension, when the

Cold War imposed security needs upon the leadership of the third

world countries. This imposition was especially for those

situated on the periphery of the Communist world. These third

world leaders maximized their power by aligning themselves with

either of the poles – the US or the former Soviet Union – to

maintain their own independence. But David Lake considers this

view an oversimplification. He says: “there is no necessary

reason why the interests of self-seeking politicians should

coincide with the national interest”. However, contrary to what

Lake said, the Cold War history is full of the combination of

personal and national interests. Its manifestation is that the

Pakistan Army achieved its goals of the country’s security

against hostile neighbours and internal governance through

foreign policy without any hindrance and objection. The C-in-C

Mohammad Ayub Khan, who was to retire in 1954, remained the focal

point of Pakistan in the politics of the Containment until 1969.

During this span of time, he remained the leader as well as the

policy-maker of the country. Similar was the case with General

Musharraf who remained Chief of Army Staff for almost nine long

years as well as a foreign policy pronouncer of the country later

on. Thus personal and national interests did coincide in South

Asia.

State

State is defined as a large social system with a set of rules that

are enforced by a permanent administrative body (government). That

body claims and tries to enforce sovereignty. That is, the state

claims to be the highest source of decision-making of the social

system within its jurisdiction, and it rejects outside interference in

making or enforcing its set of rules. The many smaller systems within

the state are not sovereign, nor are large international organizations

like the United Nations, since states routinely reject their

authority. The state is a political concept that refers to the

exercise of power or the ability to make and enforce rules.

Relationship of State with the IR as a Unit

The state is central to the study of international relations and

likely to remain so into the foreseeable future. State policy is

the most common object of analysis. States decide to go to war.

They erect trade barriers. They choose whether and at what level

to establish environmental standards. States enter international

agreements, or not, and choose whether to abide by their

provisions.

Similarly, states are a common unit of analysis in theories of

international relations. Many analysts focus on states and their

interactions to explain observed patterns of world politics. The

state is fundamental to neorealism and neoliberal

institutionalism . Even critical, postmodern, or feminist

theories, which have arisen in opposition to existing forms of

social power, often focus on problematizing states and state

practice. Both as objects and units of analysis, international

relations is largely about states and their interactions.

States have been and are likely to remain central actors in world

politics. As such, they are necessary to any explanation of

international relations. Yet, given the evident importance of

domestic politics in many issues and the continuing growth of

transnational actors, the role and, therefore, likely explanatory

importance of states are increasingly qualified.

What are International Relations?

International Relations is defined as the branch of political

science that is concerned with the foreign affairs of and

relations among countries. International relations refers to the

collective interactions of the international community, which

includes individual nations and states, inter-governmental

organizations such as the United Nations, non-governmental

organizations like Doctors Without Borders, multinational

corporations, and so forth. The term is also used to refer to a

branch of political science which focuses on the study of these

interactions. As an academic discipline, international relations

encompass a wide range of academic fields, ranging from history

to environmental studies, and there are a number of areas of

specific specialty, for academics who are interested in them.

The term 'International' was used for the first time by Jeremy

Bentham in the later part of the eighteenth century with regards

to the laws of nations.11 Consequently, the term international

relations were used to define the official relations between the

sovereign slates. However some scholars even included the

economic, social and cultural relations amongst the states also

within the purview of the subject.

Types of Bureaucratic System

There are two main types of Bureaucratic System, for foreign

policy;

Open Bureaucratic System

Open Bureaucracy or Participatory Public Administration is new to

many countries, including Thailand which stems its public service11 Parkinson, F. (1977). The Philosophy of International Relations. London: Sage Publications.

from a central command paradigm.  However, with the open door

policy to involve those related and the other sectors, it will

pave way to a better quality service and it will be a big leap to

the development of the civil service system.    Participatory

management, by definition, is an administration whereby

government officials allow those involved to participate in the

decision making process both directly and indirectly.  The

primary aim of this deed is to serve the real needs of the

citizens.  In practice, direct involvement can be done through

referendum or public hearing while indirect participation can be

done through various networks such as the citizen network,

academician group, representatives from the private sector, mass

media and other social or benefit groups.

Closed Bureaucratic System

This is a system in which only officials are involved in the

policy making process. In this system, only those persons are

involved in the process of foreign policy making, which are

concerned directly and only government officials participate in

the policy formulation of the country.

Foreign Policy

A policy pursued by a nation in its dealings with other nations,

designed to achieve national objectives is called Foreign Policy.

A country’s foreign policy consists of self-interest strategies

chosen by the state to safeguard its national interests and to

achieve its goals within international relations milieu.

Foreign Policy as a concept can be traced back to the earliest

human societies. It has evolved over time through an interactive

feedback, from the ever-changing external environment and it

shapes politics among societies and is also shaped by what it

itself creates.

Foreign policy arises from the vital principle of the state but

it is much older than the state. Even, stateless societies had a

kind of foreign policy as they too had to react to other

societies in the framework created by their vital but different,

if not also conflicting interests. When in course of time, some

of these societies evolved into states, they did not invent

foreign policy. Indeed, they had benefit of millennia of inter-

societal contact and the customs that had emerged from that

interaction. Foreign policy has changed since then but only in

its forms, not in its nature.12

Factors on which foreign policy depends

12 Muhammad Yunas. (2003).Foreign Policy A Theoretical Introduction. Karachi: Oxford University Press.

i. Environment

The external environment of the country is also an important

factor that has influence on the formulation of the foreign

policy of a country. The incidents that are taking place all

around the world, with the passage of time, the circumstances are

changed, especially in the region, and in the neighboring

countries, they also affect the foreign policy and it is

dependent on the external environment of a country. We have moved

beyond Cold War definitions of the United States' strategic

interests. Our foreign policy must now address a broad range of

threats--including damage to the world's environment--that

transcend countries and continents and require international

cooperation to solve.

Environmental problems such as global climate change, ozone

depletion, ocean and air pollution, and resource degradation--

compounded by an expanding world population--respect no border

and threaten the health, prosperity, and jobs of all Americans.

All the missiles and artillery in our arsenal will not be able to

protect our people from rising sea levels, poisoned air, or foods

laced with pesticides. Our efforts to promote democracy, free

trade, and stability in the world will fall short unless people

have a livable environment.

We have an enormous stake in the management of the world's

resources. Demand for timber in Japan mean trees fall in the

United States. Greenhouse gas emissions anywhere in the world

threaten coastal communities in Florida. A nuclear accident in

Ukraine kills for generations. Over-fishing the world's oceans

depletes resources for future generations. Our children's future

is inextricably linked to our ability to manage the earth's air,

water, and wildlife today.

Hence, the environment is an important factor in the foreign

policy of a country, on which, the foreign policy is dependent.

ii. Domestic Political System

Political system can be defined as a set of formal legal

institutions that constitute a government or a nation-state. It

can also be defined over a broad range of categories. For

example, a country with no ruler can be called one with

Anarchical system and one with a single ruler, Feudalism.

However, this is a very simplified view of a much more complex

system of categories involving views such as who should have

authority, how religious questions should be handled, and what

the government’s influence on citizens should be.

The following is a range of political systems and the kind of

leadership followed in each. Sometimes there can be a blend of

two systems in a country where as a few are very far apart in

ideals.

Democracy has rule by majority.

Republic is rule by law.

Islamic Democracy is also rule by majority but in Islamic

context. It combines aspects of Theocracy and Democracy.

Anarchism has rule by all or in other words no one.

Monarchy is ruled by one person who is absolute leader.

Meritocracy means rule by the best.

Technocracy is rule by scientists/intellectuals.

Sultanates are an Islamic political structure combining

features of Monarchy and Theocracy where it is believed rule

is by Allah.

Westminster system is rule by republic and representative

democracy through parliament.

Feudalism is also rule by lord or king.

The head of the government has to consider domestic sentiments as

well as the international situation. If there is a conflict

between domestic and international interest the head of the

government will probably give emphasis to domestic interest, or

surpass the situation altogether. The behavior of a country

towards other country, in international relations depends on the

kind of political system that a country has adopted or the people

of that country has chosen or adopted.13

13 Rosenau, James N. (1965). Ed. Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy. New York:The Free Press.

iii. Elite Perception

Scholars have become increasingly interested in the nature of

potential linkage processes between public opinion and foreign

policy. The literature on elite beliefs suggests that the beliefs

decision makers hold concerning public opinion may have an

important influence on this relationship.

SECTION 2

PROCEDURE OF FOREIGN POLICY DECISION MAKING

Formulation of Foreign Policy

The process through which countries make their foreign policy

decisions14 should be discerned from the analysis of foreign

policy behavior. Research in the nature of foreign policy focuses

on the precursors that lead to foreign policy behavior. It is

concerned, not with what specific foreign policy decisions are

made by a state but with why and how they are made. In recent

years, the importance of the latter question has been augmented

by the realization that the why and the what of foreign policy

decisions are at least in part, dependent on how they are made.

However, in the general context of the daily routine of foreign

policy and in the particular context of the foreign policy of the

14 Zimmerman, William and H.K. Jacobson. (1969). The Shaping of Foreign Policy. New York: Atherton Press.

U.S and several other countries, Rosenau’s emphasis15 on the

policy process rather than the policy maker is quite sound.

According to Rosenau, even the role of policy maker is derived

from the organizational process which seems to be the case in

many countries, though there are exceptions.

Role of External Affairs Ministry

The Ministry of External Affairs(in some countries called as

Ministry of Foreign affairs), the State Department or the Foreign

Office, as the case may be has grown in size and function over

the year. It is in almost all countries among the largest and

most important offices of the government. At present, that

ministry in various countries is responsible for providing the

essential continuity to the foreign policy of the country. It

ensures informed continuity and strategic consistency in the

foreign policy of a country. In performing their functions, the

ministries of external affairs off all the states while working

in their own capitals, create a predictable external environment.

A country’s external affairs ministry is staffed with trained

bureaucrats, who are usually best in the country. Diplomats are

selected in most countries from university graduates on the basis

of a arduous procedure of testing and examination. They are

provided proper training so that they may be able to assume their

15 Rosenau, James N. (1965). Ed. Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy. New York: The Free Press.

responsibilities and then form a stable cadre that serves as the

backbone the country’s diplomacy.

The archival function of the foreign office or the ministry of

external affairs restricts policy to those options that would

pass the test of continuity and consistency. Though most

Ministers for external affairs appreciate this role, to some, it

can appear to be bureaucratic pressure or even bureaucratic

politics. Bureaucratic persuasion, on the basis of archives often

influence policy making. This persuasion, usually replicates the

standing assessment of national interest by those who have had a

life-long involvement with it at the bureaucratic level and it is

a vital part of process, lacking which the decision is more

probably to be quite unstable.16 However, it does not mean that

ministers and leaders never set aside the bureaucratic

recommendations. Independence of a minister from bureaucracy

depends on his own competency and knowledge. However, it is a

fact that this occurs more often in other ministries than in the

External Affairs ministry as the archival positions in foreign

policy have far deeper roots, going further back in time and

lasting much longer than in internal policy. The bureaucrat is

necessary for consistency as well as continuity in the behavior

of stats toward each other.

Role of Parliament16 Bacchus, William I. (1974). Foreign Policy and the Bureaucratic Process. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

As in any other Parliamentary form of government, the Parliament

in Pakistan, besides acting as the legislature, elects the Prime

Minister through a majority vote in the National Assembly. The

executive, that is, the Cabinet headed by the Prime Minister, is

responsible to the National Assembly which can remove the former

through a vote of no confidence. Thus, the executive and its

internal and external policies must enjoy the confidence and

support of the National Assembly to remain in power.

The Parliament can pass a bill in respect of any aspect of

Pakistan's external relations as provided for by the Constitution

in the Federal Legislative List, thus, giving it the force of

law. In practice, however, in a parliamentary form of government

that exists in Pakistan, the initiative for such a bill would

normally come from the executive which, because of the support of

the majority in the National Assembly and possibly in the Senate,

would normally succeed in getting it adopted by the Parliament.

Certainly, a private bill relating to Pakistan's external

relations can also be moved by any member of either House. But

the possibility of its adoption by the Parliament without the

executive's support is almost nil because of party discipline.

The Parliament can influence the foreign policy formulation and

implementation process by adopting non-binding resolutions on

foreign policy issues; by holding hearings on crucial issues in

the Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs and by asking

questions on foreign affairs in the House.

Historically, the Parliament in Pakistan has failed to play its

due role in the foreign policy formulation primarily because of

the frequent military take-overs. As a result of these takeovers,

the Parliament ceased to exist for long intervals and its

authority and position was undermined even when it was

functioning.

Role of Prime Minister

Prime Minister, in a parliamentary form of government has the

ultimate constitutional authority in all matters related

to Foreign Policy. The prime minister and his cabinet

have the authority to commit Pakistan to any

international agreement without even informing the

parliament. Parliament has no constitutional role in any

aspect of this vital area of policy making In Pakistan,

the standing committees of the Senate and National

Assembly of Pakistan are the most that democratic

constitution of Pakistan provides by way of parliamentary

concern with foreign policy. The Cabinet being elected by

the people means at least the final authority lies with

the representatives of the people. And by extension to

the parliament as the Cabinet is responsible and

answerable to it. In a democratic country, Foreign policy

is formulated by the cabinet with the approval of a

sovereign body, comprising of the elected representatives of

the people, and implemented by seasoned diplomats who can

from their vantage points, offer their own observations

and proposals. Formulated and put into practice in this

manner, the foreign policy of a democratic country is

based on a national consensus.

To view the boost that Prime Minister’s position received as

a result of the 18th' Constitutional amendment as

strengthening of the political control of the state would

be too simplistic. The strengthening of the personal

powers of the prime minister is not the same as the

strengthening of the office of the prime minister.

Moreover, so long as the Prime Minister presides over divided and

mutually hostile political forces, he will have to work in

harmony with the President - and the military establishment.

While the final authority technically lies with Foreign

Minister or the Prime Minister on various issues, however,

bureaucracy has a subtle way of influencing and

determining what the final decision would be. Due to the

reliance of the political leadership on state agencies

for information along with possible policy responses, the

choices before the political leadership are limited.

Role of Intelligence Agencies

In any country, the Security/Intelligence Agencies play an

important role in the formulation of its foreign policy by

gathering information relevant to it through overt and covert

means, and presenting their assessment to the policy makers. The

effectiveness of these assessments depends

upon the objectivity and quality of the intelligence gathering

and assessing process as well as on the system of government in

the country.

These Security/Intelligence Agencies in Pakistan, especially

those connected with the military, have acquired a predominant

role in the foreign policy formulation process because of the

fragility and weaknesses of the civilian institutions and the

frequent military take-overs. It should not be surprising that on

the matters of policy formulation, the military rulers of the

country felt more comfortable with

Intelligence Agencies having military background. Consequently,

these Intelligence Agencies have acquired a more predominant role

in the formulation of Pakistan's foreign policy than would be the

case in a normal democratic country. This has worked to the

disadvantage of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs whose role has

been marginalized in the process particularly in the

consideration of issues of critical and strategic importance to

the country.

Role of other Ministries

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the focal point for the

initiation of all proposals relating to the conduct of Pakistan's

foreign affairs with the exception of any matters that may be

assigned to other Divisions/ Ministries of the Government. At the

same time, the Inter-Division consultation procedures require the

Ministry of Foreign Affairs to consult other Divisions in the

conduct of its business when a matter concerns them. Not only

that, several Divisions e.g., Aviation, Commerce, Communications,

Culture, Interior, Defence, Defence Production, Economic Affairs,

Education, Finance, Food, Information, etc., have been assigned

subjects which relate to different aspects of Pakistan's foreign

relations. These Ministries/ Divisions, therefore, play a role in

the formulation of Pakistan's foreign policy. However, as stated

above, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs remains the focal point in

the foreign policy making field.

At the Departmental level, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is

headed by the Foreign Secretary who is in turn assisted by

Additional Secretaries. At present, there are eight Additional

Secretaries looking after different areas of Pakistan's foreign

relations. They are supported by Directors General, Directors and

Section Officers in a descending order. The Ministry of Foreign

Affairs is also assisted by the Pakistan Ambassadors and other

Heads of Pakistan Missions abroad who both receive instructions

from and submit their views and recommendations to the Ministry.

Proposals relating to Pakistan's foreign policy are generated at

the level of Section Officers in response to new developments or

at their own initiative and occasionally in response to

instructions from above. Sometimes, they may be initiated at a

level higher than that of the Section Officer if the situation so

demands. They are refined and modified as they travel up the

ladder to Directors and Directors-General.

Where necessary, there would be horizontal consultations with

other Directors and Directors-General. Depending upon the

requirements of the situation, the Foreign Office may also

consult the concerned Pakistan Missions abroad and other

Ministries/Departments. If the proposal falls within the

parameters of an existing policy, the matter would be decided at

the level of the Director General concerned or may go up to the

Additional Secretary concerned for approval depending upon its

importance. In very important cases, the file may travel all the

way up to the Foreign Secretary who may consult the Foreign

Minister and the offices of the Prime Minister and the President

if the situation so demands.

Where a foreign policy proposal attempts to break new ground, it

would invariably travel all the way up to the Foreign Minister

and the Prime Minister through the Foreign Secretary for

approval. However, the Foreign Office would certainly consult

other Ministries/Departments/Agencies, if the matter concerns

them, before submitting it to the Prime Minister/Cabinet for a

decision. Where required under the Rules of Business or by the

importance of the matter, it would be placed before the Cabinet

for its consideration and decision. In the case of very important

matters, the President would also be consulted formally or

informally before a final decision is taken. Further, the Foreign

Minister or the Prime Minister may also take the Parliament into

confidence by consulting the parliamentary leaders or by having

the matter debated in the Parliament. Where a foreign policy

proposal attempts to break new ground, it would invariably travel

all the way up to the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister

through the Foreign Secretary for approval. However, the Foreign

Office would certainly consult other Ministries/

Departments/Agencies, if the matter concerns them, before

submitting it to the Prime Minister/ Cabinet for a decision.

Where required under the Rules of Business or by the importance

of the matter, it would be placed before the Cabinet for its

consideration and decision. In the case of very important

matters, the President would also be consulted formally or

informally before a final decision is taken. Further, the Foreign

Minister or the Prime Minister may also take the Parliament into

confidence by consulting the parliamentary leaders or by having

the matter debated in the Parliament. In the consideration of

foreign policy issues in the Foreign Office, the views of the

media, civil society, etc. are generally taken into account. Once

a decision has been taken by the competent authority, the

Ministry of Foreign Affairs would assume responsibility for its

implementation with the help of the personnel at the Headquarters

and/or Pakistan Missions abroad.

Diplomacy

Diplomacy is a principally political pursuit and well-resourced

and skillful, a major ingredient of power. Its major purpose is

to enable states to secure the objectives of their foreign

policies without resort to force, propaganda or law. It follows

that diplomacy consist of communication between officials

designed to promote foreign policy, either by formal agreement or

tactic adjustment.17

Diplomacy is not merely what professional diplomatic agents do.

It is carried out by other officials and by private persons under

the direction of officials. It is conducted through many

different channels besides the traditional resident mission.

Together with the balance of power, which it both reinforces and

reflects, diplomacy is the most important institution of our

society of states.

Realist importance on survival and Self Help

Realism or political realism prioritizes national interest and

security over ideology, moral concerns and social

reconstructions. This term is often synonymous with power

17 G.R.Berridge. (2002). Diplomacy, Theory and Practice. New York: Palgrave.

politics. Realism is the view that world politics is driven by

competitive self-interest.

It depicts international affairs as a struggle for power among

self-interested states and is generally pessimistic about the

prospects for eliminating conflict and war.18 Realism dominated

in the Cold War years because it provided simple but powerful

explanations for war, alliances, imperialism, obstacles to

cooperation, and other international phenomena, and because its

emphasis on competition was consistent with the central features

of the American-Soviet rivalry.

Structural Realism

Realists believe that power is the currency of international

politics. Great powers, the main actors in the realists’ account,

pay careful attention to how much economic and military power

they have relative to each other. It is important not only to

have a substantial amount of power, but also to make sure that no

other state sharply shifts the balance of power in its favor. For

realists, international politics is synonymous with power

politics.

There are, however, substantial differences among realists. The

most basic divide is reflected in the answer to the simple but

important question: why do states want power? For classical

18 Lauren, Paul Gordon. (1979). Ed. Diplomacy. New York: The Free Press.

realists like Hans Morgenthau (1948a), the answer is human

nature. Virtually everyone is born with a will to power hardwired

into them, which effectively means that great powers are led by

individuals who are bent on having their state dominate its

rivals.

For structural realists, human nature has little to do with why

states want power. Instead, it is the structure or architecture

of the international system that forces states to pursue power.

In a system where there is no higher authority that sits above

the great powers, and where there is no guarantee that one will

not attack another, it makes eminently good sense for each state

to be powerful enough to protect itself in the event it is

attacked. In essence, great powers are trapped in an iron cage

where they have little choice but to compete with each other for

power if they hope to survive.

Structural realist theories ignore cultural differences among

states as well as differences in regime type, mainly because the

international system creates the same basic incentives for all

great powers. Whether a state is democratic or autocratic matters

relatively little for how it acts towards other states. Nor does

it matter much who is in charge of conducting a state’s foreign

policy. Structural realists treat states as if they were black

boxes; they are assumed to be alike, save for the fact that some

states are more or less powerful than others.

There is a significant divide between structural realists, which

is reflected in the answer to a second question that concerns

realists: how much power is enough? Defensive realists like

Kenneth Waltz maintain that it is unwise for states to try to

maximize their share of world power, because the system will

punish them if they attempt to gain too much power. Offensive

realists like John Mearsheimer take the opposite view; they

maintain that it makes good strategic sense for states to gain as

much power as possible and, if the circumstances are right, to

pursue hegemony. The argument is not that conquest or domination

is good in itself, but instead that having overwhelming power is

the best way to ensure one’s own survival.

SECTION 3

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusion

To conclude, it can be argued that one country’s domestic

problems can be another country’s solutions. History is full of

many dictatorial regimes which helped the US in the pursuit of

its long term objectives. Domestic politics is the reflection of

a country’s foreign policy. Another country might be gaining a

lot from a particular regime while the indigenous people governed

under that regime may ultimately be suffering. This is

particularly so where states are intensively connected, whether

through security alliances or strategic partnerships. The

institutional interaction between the US and Pakistan is the best

example to quote here. The Pakistan Army was hard in domestic

politics but was soft in its terms with the US, apart from those

two periods earlier mentioned i.e., during the first half of

1960s and the post-Musharraf’s era of today. It joined the US

sponsored alliances to have a check on India’s growing power and

the “war on terror” against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and to have

a strong bargaining position in Pakistan’s domestic politics. In

this sense, domestic and foreign policy developments are often

intimately connected. After debating on policy-maker, foreign

policy, decision-making, and the theory of realism, one may say

that the countries’ action-oriented policies are based on the

behaviour of decision-makers. A general openness of thought and

process gives more space for manoeuvring, but that is only

possible if we go for analysis of the multi-layered politics of

the country and the country in focus. However, a sense of

direction is the pre-requisite of any planned and successful

foreign policy. This can be achieved if the policy-maker keeps

his options open to have plans “B” and “C” always ready in case

plan “A” does not work. Throughout this process, the sense of

rationality is not to be abandoned; otherwise, it will give an

unnatural look to the phenomenon of foreign policy.

Bibliography

Bacchus, William I. (1974). Foreign Policy and the Bureaucratic Process. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Berridge G., R. (2002). Diplomacy, Theory and Practice. New York:

Palgrave.

Frankel Joseph. (1963). The Making of Foreign Policy; An Analysis of Decision

Making. London: OUP, 119-20.

Hill Christopher.(2003). The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.

Howard Michael. (1991). The Lesson of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press,p97.

James N., Rosenau. (1965). Ed. Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy. New York: The Free Press.

Kennan F. George.. (1985-86). Morality and Foreign Affairs. Foreign Affairs, vol.64, no.2, 206.

Kissinger H. (2001). Does America need a Foreign Policy? New York: Simon and Schuster,p4.

Lauren, Paul Gordon. (1979). Ed. Diplomacy. New York: The Free

Press.

Little R and Barry Buzan. (1993). The Logic of Anarchy in International Relations: Neo-realism to Structural Realism. New York: Columbia University Press,132-154.

Muhammad Yunas. (2003).Foreign Policy A Theoretical Introduction. Karachi:

Oxford University Press.

Parkinson, F. (1977). The Philosophy of International Relations. London:

Sage Publications

Waltz N. Kenneth . (1990). Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory. Journal of International Affairs, 44(1).

Waltz N., K.. (1959). Man, a State and the War : A Theoretical Analysis. NewYork: Columbia University Press.

Zimmerman, William and H.K. Jacobson. (1969). The Shaping of Foreign Policy. New York: Atherton Press.