Search results

"Moscow's increasingly assertive behavior has given rise to intensive speculation as to
what the ultimate goals of Russia's foreign policy are. Basically, the question that needs
to be answered is: What does Russia want?
I would argue that it is impossible to understand the logic of Russia's international conduct without investigating the intimate and intricate link between the country's domestic
politics and its foreign policy. The intent thus is to place a special emphasis on studying
how the nature of Russia's socio-political system influences Moscow's policies in the
international arena.
I start off with postulating a thesis that, ultimately, the goal of Russian foreign policy
efforts is to create conditions for preserving and perpetuating the current political and
economic regime, while seeking to attain its legitimation by the international community. Specifically, this means that the Kremlin's three-pronged objective is: to secure the
persistence of a system of authoritarian rule and of bureaucratic capitalism; to have
this system recognized as valid in its own right—being equal (or even superior) to the
Western liberal model; and to integrate Russian economy into the global system while
shielding the domestic policies from the "pernicious" outside influences.
My second thesis is that it is precisely the nature of Russia's socio-political system that
makes Moscow's policies both towards the West and its ex-Soviet neighbors within the
common neighborhood inconsistent and contradictory. Since the specific characteristics
of Russia's regime make integration with Western/EU institutions all but impossible,
the Kremlin leadership proclaims Russia's strategic independence.
The intent to cast Russia as an independent pole inevitably compels the Kremlin leadership to focus on the country's immediate strategic neighborhood—what has famously been
called the sphere of Russia's "privileged interests"—where Russia seeks leadership and
closer integration. But paradoxically, the seeming affinity between the authoritarian regime
in Russia and those in most East European countries appears to be the main factor preventing successful integration. The thing is that authoritarian power simply cannot be delegated.
This explains why Russia ends up being faced with the seemingly intractable attraction-
assertion dilemma. Being unable to integrate its neighbors, Russia seeks to aggressively
assert itself and its interests. But Moscow's increasingly muscular policies seem to contradict Russia's stated intention to attract allies and cast itself as an appealing socio-economic model to be emulated by the like-minded partners." [author's abstract]

The chapter explores the dialectical nature of domestic politics & foreign policy in Pakistan in terms of the colonial legacy, the divorce of public input from policy making, & regional instability. While it is not suggested that public opinion has no influence on Pakistani foreign policy (especially given the wide popular support for the state's nuclear, Kashmir, & pro-Islamist positions), smaller-level ethno-spatial & temporal elements problematize the assumption of popular unanimity. Moreover, Pakistan's foreign policy objectives & priorities have proven themselves susceptible to political change, the dynamics of which are delineated in this paper. K. Coddon

This article examines the increased linkage between domestic and foreign policy that has been a consequence of democratization and globalization in Korea. It argues that while prior to 1987 foreign policy-making saw very little public input, and while democratization did not lead to a weakening of domestic political institutions nor a rise in nationalism, it did open up domestic political space where foreign policy-making increasingly became part of the contentious electoral competition. The globalization policy, initiated with the purpose of raising Korea's international status, which has remained a goal of succeeding administrations, created a complex interdependency which led to a breakdown in the separation between the domestic and international, and that often brought with it a domestic backlash. As a consequence foreign policy-making, in the absence of a tradition of political compromise, increasingly runs the risk of either inconsistency, or even deadlock. (Pac Rev/GIGA)

The article considers the position of the Czech Republic in relation to Russia after the start of a special military operation on the territory of Ukraine and its influence on the domestic and foreign policy of the country. It is noted that Prague faced this event more prepared due to the Czech-Russian diplomatic crisis that occurred in 2021, which reduced diplomatic contacts between the countries to a minimum and weakened economic interaction. In 2022, de-Russification continued, but already under the general approval of Brussels and a significant number of the local population. Moreover, we can say that the government of P. Fiala tried to make itself known at the international level through active participation in activities to support Ukraine, often becoming a «trendsetter» in this matter. A special place in the rhetoric of Prague was occupied by the theme of abandoning Russian hydrocarbons. However, as indicated in the paper, the country was not ready to take this step in the spring of 2022, since there were no alternative sources of energy supplies. It is emphasized that the desire to designate the Czech Republic in European affairs as a major player contrasted with the failed domestic policy, where the Cabinet of Ministers could not cope with the challenge of the economic crisis and was late with the introduction of an anti-crisis package of measures to support the population.

Domestic and foreign policy cannot always be kept apart. A change of Government at national level may impact on foreign policy, and foreign policy adventures sometimes translate into consequences at home. Links between domestic and foreign policy may be limiting as well as enabling factors for Governments who find themselves at the cross-roads between national and international power. This study combines theory about political stability, at national level, with theory about foreign policy change, focusing on (1) strategies used by the political leaders to build and maintain political stability, (2) change in foreign policy, and (3) links between the two. The degree of political stability in a country, it is argued, depends on the extent to which key groups accept the regime and on the existence of credible alternatives to the current regime. The leaders may resort to different strategies to become accepted, focusing on legitimacy, performance or coercion. Foreign policy change is analysed in five areas, namely regime stability, security, trade and economic policy, national identity, and autonomy. It is explained on the basis of a theoretical framework that sees foreign policy change, or the lack of it, as the outcome of a struggle between ?promoters of change? and ?stabilisers of foreign policy?, at various levels. The analysis of the links between foreign policy change and strategies to achieve political stability has been inspired by theories about the two-level game, ?adaptation? and the ?two faces of state action?. Empirically the study covers Hungarian politics during close to forty years (1956-94). This period comprises three distinct phases ? the ?Kádár era? (1956-88), the fall of the Socialist regime and transition to democracy (1988-90) and the first years of democratic governance (1990-94). It points to a shift in legitimation strategies under János Kádár, away from coercion as a prime instrument and focusing more on performance, mainly in economic terms. This strategy was supported by opening up towards the West, first in the area of trade but later also on more sensitive issues, such as the security doctrine. While political stability was achieved for some time, these strategies hit back. Unsuccessful economic reforms, the emergence of a political alternative, the regime's loss of belief in its right to rule and, finally, change in Moscow under Gorbachev, undermined the Socialist regime and led to a process of democratisation starting in 1989. Under democracy, the first Government hoped to base political stability more on legitimacy than on performance. This strategy was unsuccessful in the sense that the Government fell, although the political system as such was never under threat. Foreign policy continued to change in a more dramatic way, although such change can be seen as a logical continuation of a direction which had been defined already under the Socialist regime. Under democracy, links between domestic and foreign policy continued to be strong. Hungary pushed for rapid accession to NATO and the EU to promote security, political stability and economic prosperity as the country liberated itself from its previous dependence on Moscow.

"Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy" published on by Oxford University Press.

THE SCANDALS DOGGING PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, AND THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS HAVE NOT ENTIRELY RUN THEIR COURSE--AND THERE HAS ALREADY BEEN A DISCERNIBLE IMPACT ON FOREIGN POLICY. THE PROBLEMS, OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS, THAT RESULT CAN BE GROUPED INTO FOUR CATEGORIES: FOREIGN PERCEPTIONS, DISTORTIONS OF U.S. POLICY-MAKING, PRESIDENTIAL DISTRACTION, AND EXECUTIVE-LEGISLATIVE RELATIONS. THIS ARTICLE DISCUSSES EACH OF THESE FOUR CATEGORIES AND CONCLUDES THAT AN ADMINISTRATION THAT IS ACCIDENT-PRONE BECAUSE OF FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS IN ITS APPROACH TO THE WORLD IS LIKELY TO FACE GROWING CONGRESSIONAL PRESSURES, SCANDAL OR NO.

Benutzerkommentar