OLABISI ONABANJO UNIVERSITY

P.M.B 2002, AGO-IWOYE, OGUN STATE, NIGERIA

COURSE OUTLINE
1. What is Foreign Policy

2. The Aims of Foreign Policy

3. The U.S. Foreign Policy

4. The Russian Foreign Policy

5. The British Foreign Policy

6. The Mexican Foreign Policy

7. The Chinese Foreign Policy

8. The Nigerian Foreign Policy

N.B: The course employs a historical approach to the study of foreign

policies of the listed states.

1
THE AMERICAN APPROACH TO FOREIGN POLICY

How nations see the world, their place in it and how they act in the

international arena depends on their geography, historical background and their

experiences. Therefore, the behaviour and their influenced by the environment or

state system in which they coexist. In the process, they learn the rules of the game

to achieve a measure of security. They, therefore, ignore or disregard these rules at

their peril.

For a long time, the USA isolated itself from the European state and world

system. It was much more concerned with building democratic values at home and

the western hemisphere. While the Czarist Russia (Soviet Russia) took active part in

European politics because she felt unsecured with the growing influence of great

powers around her, the Americans felt secured in the Western Hemisphere and

therefore did not concern herself with happenings outside Western Hemisphere.

However, the post war international ideological conflict between the US and Russia,

taught the Americans how to play international game with increasing skill.

The American foreign policy since the world war II, therefore, is basically the

international and tension between the state system and American style of relating

with other countries. In the state system, each country especially the great powers,

tends to fell insecure and therefore sees one another as potential enemies. In essence,

the state system which emphases self-preservation and -self-protection, breeds

feelings of insecurity, distrust, suspicion and fear. Each state thus scramble for power

1
to be able to defend itself or intimidate others or to win wars if matters degenerated

to such a state.

In this circumstance, it is the balance of power that keeps the state system

from breaking down. Balance of Power or Equilibrium makes victory in war less

certain and more expensive. A balance is thus the distribution of power to deter an

attack (because no one has the absolute monopoly of power at its disposal). In

contrast disproportionate an acquisition of power breeds aggression and makes

intimidation and victory possible and less expensive. In short, the fundamental

assumption underlying the state system is that its members cannot be turnled with

power because they might be tempted to abuse it. Unrestricted power in the state

system constitutes a threat to all states. Therefore, power is the best antidote to

power.

As the distribution of power changes, so does the behaviour of states or

foreign policy change. For instance, the USA involvement in the two world wars,

was an indication of a shift in the distribution of power. For the most part of the 19 th

Century, Britain maintained the balance of power in Europe, while the US preserved

its historical isolation from power politics. But the German unification in 1870 and

its rapid industrialism forced the Americans out of isolation because these events in

Germany greatly led to a shift in the balance of power. Even when the British power

was thrown behind both the French and the Russians during World War I, they could

not match that of Germany. By 1915 when Czarist Russia collapsed, it became clear

2
that the German victory was not negotiable. The US has to come in because it could

not imagine a German Empire being spread from Europe to the middle east. The

German unrestricted use of submarine ships to attack American ships directly bring

in the US into the war and by 1918, Germany had been defeated. After the defeat of

Germany, America retreated into its isolationism, while American banks continue

their economic relations with Europe to be able to recover the money learned from

the Allied Powers. The US refused to play political and military roles consistent with

its economic power.

The US began to play a political role again only from 1939, when the balance

of power in Europe was upset, particularly with the French defeat in 1940 and the

British also set to be defeated. Thus, FDR came to the assistance of the Allied

powers. Even before the bombing of Pearl Harbour in December 1941, the US was

already engaged in an undeclared war with Germany in the Atlantic.

American security was threatened because any state, (especially undemocratic

state) that controlled much resources (human, natural and industrial) of Eurasia, the

middle east and Africa, might organize these resources and transformed them into

power, many turn on the United States. This would be true if the British had been

defeated - as this would have left the United States in the middle of two hostile

enemies – Japan attacking from the West and Germany from the East. The only way

the United States could match this dominant Eurasian power was to transform itself

into a ‘garrison state’, a disciplined, militarized state, which in the name of security,

3
would have to sacrifice democracy and individual liberty as ideological excess

baggage.

The more immediate reason for US intervention was the insecurity of

democratic America. FDR told Americans that the growth of Democracy in America

is interwoven with survival of democracy in other places, especially France and

Britain. In other words, democracy in America could not flourish unless democratic

values prospered in other societies. Power therefore, is the greatest antidote for

power and a balance of power provides the best protection for all members of the

state system. In this regard, the failure of the United States twice to act according to

the logic dictated by the balance of power, is due largely to its particular national

style. The American national style is the product of its domestic experience. Each

nation is the product of its geography, historical experiences economic resources,

political values and organisations. Therefore, the priority of internal political and

economic tasks demonstrated the US isolation of itself from power politics in Europe

for most part of the 19th and early decades of the 20th centuries.

From the very beginning of their national life, Americans professed a strong

belief in what they called their manifest destiny – to spread by example freedom and

social justice to all and to lead mankind away from its wicked ways and by extension

become and example of a morally superior democratic pattern of international

behaviour. The conclusion is that undemocratic states were inherently warlike and

evil. Democratic nations in which the people controlled and regularly changed their

4
leaders according to the constitution, were peaceful and moral. The American

approach to foreign policy has been dictated by these principles.

The Americans have therefore drawn a clear-cut distinction between war and

peace in their foreign policy. In this regard, peace was considered as a state of

harmony among nations, while power politics was considered abnormal and war a

crime. Thus, the United State believe(d) that in peacetime little or no attention should

be paid to foreign problems. The result of this attitude of Americans, was that they

always turned their attention towards the outside world with reluctance and usually

only when provoked (– i.e. when the foreign threat/menace becomes so ideas) that

it could no longer be ignored. In other words, the Americans “rarely initiated”

foreign policy, because most often the catalyst/stimuli responsible for the

formulation of American foreign policy came from beyond American frontiers.

Once Americans were provoked and the United States had to resort to force,

the employment of force was justified in terms of the moral principles with which

the US, as a democratic country, identified itself. War could, therefore, be justified

only by presuming noble purposes and destroying the immoral enemy who

threatened the integrity and existence of these principles upheld by the Americans.

This is the pattern of American foreign policy – from isolationism to interventionism

from withdrawal to crusading and back again.

In the conduct of its foreign policy, the United States preferred a bilateral

approach and this process is strictly governed by its resources. The bodies involve

5
in the United States foreign policy decisioning are the presidency, the congress,

national security council, criminal intelligence. Agency, Departments of Commerce,

Treasury, State and the Drug Enforcement Agency. Since the 1970s, there had been

conflicts between the congress and the presidency, particularly in defence matters.

But these conflicts are always resolved through bargaining. However, congress will

for a very longtime have more important roles to play in the US foreign policy,

particularly in the area of treaties. Also, other agencies involved in foreign policy

making rival the presidency and the congress. Usually there is always conflict

between the National Security Adviser and the secretary of state. The NSA

coordinates public opinion and give the president control over foreign policy

making. The exercise of power over other Departments involved in foreign policy

making, by the Department of State, depends on the personality of the secretary of

state. For instance, under Kissinger, A. the state department was very powerful.

PHASES OF US FOREIGN POLICY (HIGHLIGHTS)

1. 1700 – 1800: During their period, the United States foreign policy makers saw

Europe as wholing corrupt and therefore stayed away from European affairs.

2. THE MID 19THC: The 1840s saw the United States involvement in and

penetration into the Western Hemisphere, to assert is hegemony. This period

coincided with the withdrawal of European colonizers from the Western

hemisphere.

6
 3. POST 1898 PERIOD: The United States showed more interest in the

liberation of the countries of Western Hemisphere. She fought Spain and

acquired Philipines and Pueto Rico. She became more active in both Pacific

and Atlantic Oceans. She showed keen interest in balancing of power in

Europe and developed a strong Navy to pursue this goal. Although by this

period, the United States had become a force to reckon with in the

international system, it continued her policy of isolation – as it never became

a member of the League of Nations.

4. THE PERIOD OF THE WW II: This witness a period of change in the

United States’ foreign policy. This time, her foreign policy was based on

National Security interests, linked with her economic and political aspirations.

This period, (particularly between 1945 and 1950) also saw a decline in the

relationship between the United State and the Russians. The period was

characterized by US determination to stop the USSR from importing

communism into Western Hemisphere and other parts of the World with US

interests. Therefore, vigilant containment of Russian Communism and

imperialism became the center-piece of the US foreign policy. It was on this

principle that the US fought communism in Korea (North) 1950, Indochina

and Vietnam. The period also witnessed a series of détente.

During the Reagan administration, there was a lot of friction with Japan. Over

economic policies. Although it was a period a period when almost all the US

7
agencies involved in foreign policy making were in conflict, Reagan administration

was successful in arms negotiations, mainly because of Gorbacher’s initiative and

Soviet economic problems. Now the collapse of the USSR and the Eastern bloc, has

made the US to become the undisputed super power and has the opportunity to

influence the world. Therefore, the US cannot afford to abdicate its responsibility

and this is whatever since she left isolationism, she has adopted ‘CONTAINMENT’

as her foreign policy behaviour.

THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER GREAT POWERS: A CONTRAST.

On the eve of the cold war, the American approach to foreign policy contrasted

sharply in a number of important respects with the conduct of states that had been

long immersed in international politics. As a highly secured state, it needed neither

a large army nor navy to protect itself. The Americans despised militarism and

considered the development and growth of democracy as their first task. The US did

not accept the permanence of conflicts among nations and that conflicts among

nations are caused by wicked leadership, (which could be eliminated), authoritarian

political systems (which could be reformed) and misunderstandings (which could be

settled if parties are sincere). To the US, once these conditions are met, peace,

harmony and good will would reign supreme. The US, considering itself a morally

and politically superior, believed the use of power internationally did not exist and

should be avoided by isolating the nations indulging in power politics. The

perception of power as simply the raw material of international politics – and its use

8
as an instrument of compromise, conciliation and moderation of interstate politics,

was clearly antithetical to the American understanding of power politics. The United

States therefore, after the WW II, faced the world with attitudes and behaviour

patterns formed by its long period of isolationism from Europe. More especially, the

nation confronted the Soviet Union (defunct), a state with rich and long experience

in power politics.

FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES OF THE US.

Small in numbers, poor in liquid wealth, weak in military power, the United States

in those years of international disorder, had to direct much to its, attention to its own

security. The US foreign policy predicted the presidency of both Residents

Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monrae, the leaders who piloted

the young nation through those perilous years. In other words, US foreign policy

began before independence was achieved.

The foreign policy Objectives

1. To secure independence with boundaries that would contribute to National

security.

2. To extend its boundaries in the interest of security, navigation, commerce,

space for a growing population and the spread of democracy.

3. To promote and protect the rights and interests of Americans in commerce and

investments in foreign lands. To protect trade on the high seas in peace and in

war period and open the far East to US trade and influence.

9
 4. To preserve neutrality and peace (in the wars of Europe and Asia) as long as

neutrality and involvement in peaceful settlement of international disputes

will guarantee American security and vital interests.

5. To stop European powers from colonizing American States (Western

Hemisphere) and interfering in the affairs of Americas in general.

6. Through mainly private individuals and non-governmental organization,

extend US civilization in the areas of the spread of Christianity, democracy,

stop slave trade, stop massacre and persecution and racial and religious

minorities, as well as raise standard of living in backward nations. After the

WWII, the US government entered into the campaign against ignorance,

poverty and disease as a means of combating communism.

UNION OF SOVIETS SOCIALISTS RUPUBLICS (USSR) FOREIGN

POLICY

THE RUSSIAN BACKGROUND

Russia is not protected by natural barriers such as oceans or mountains,

therefore, it suffered frequent invasions. It was ruled by the Mongols in the thirteenth

and fourteenth centuries. By the middle of the fifteenth century Mongolian

domination had been thrown away and Moscow became the capital of Great Russian

State. In 1812, Napoleon captured Moscow, the French and the British armies

occupied Crimea between 1854 and 1856 while Japan defeated Russia in 1904-1905.

10
The Germans also defeated the Russians in 1917, a defeat that brought the Bolsheriks

into power. In 1920, the poles also almost defeated the Russians, and in 1941, it was

the allied forces that rescued the Russians from German defeat.

Obviously, a state with such an experiences – would not handle its security

with levity. Therefore, unlike the Americans, domestic affairs became secondary.

This experience conditioned the Russian foreign policy. Thus just like a man

becomes rich by being robbed repeatedly, Russia became the world’s largest

territorial state by repelling repeated invasions. For instance the USSR spans the

European continent, extends also to Asia and North America (before Alaska was sold

to the Americans). Up to 1986, Russian population was 280 million, compared to

241 million for the US. It composed of over 100 ethnic nationalities, occupied almost

9 million square rules, spread over eleven times zones and speak 180 languages.

RUSSIAN FOREIGN POLICY

Russian experience dictated her foreign policy behaviour. The issue of

security in an environment (like that of Europe) dominated by power politics was

the focus of the USSR foreign policy. Therefore, Russia could not afford to take her

security for granted, while paying attention to domestic affairs. Political power was

thus centralized in the Russian state and its foreign policy was backed up by large

standing army. Its experience thought her that there was nothing like friendly

neighbours. Russian forces were considerably larger than those of other European

11
Great Powers, although this numerical superiority has not prevented Russia from

attacks and defeats.

The disadvantage of lack of natural frontiers to protect Russia from invasions,

conditioned Russian power to extend outward all around its frontiers in order to

secure herself. According to Zbigiew Brzezinski, President Carter’s, national

security assistant, “sustained territorial expansion is Russian way of life”. He said

further that any aggressions against Russia in the past, would be dwarfed by Russian

expansionate moves against her neighbours. This is because Russia feared attacks

and so pushed outward to keep the enemy at bay. It was in an attempt to have access

to the sea that Peter and Great occupied Sweden. But expansion which momentarily

satisfied Russian ambitions and relieved Russian fears, also intensified its

neighbours’ insecurities, leading to new conflicts, which in turn stimulated Russian

insecurity, leading to another round of expansion. In other words, its expansionism

and insecurity, breed a vicious cycle of expansion. It can therefore, be said that

Russian foreign policy was conditioned by the ‘RULES’ of the state system – which

are the – emphasis on – national interest, distrust of other states, expectation of

conflict, self-reliance, and the possession of enough power, especially, military

power.

Even when the Bolsheviks took over power in 1971, they did not change the

Russian foreign policy as such, what they did was to locate the existing foreign

policy of Russia in their struggle against capitalism. Their perspective view on

12
foreign policy was revolutionary. They asked questions such as; why were most

human beings poor, illiterate and unhealthy? Why did states fight wars? Their answer

was that a small minority of capitalists, who controlled both the wealth and power

in capitalist states, exploited those who worked in their factories to maximise profits.

They believed that if human beings were to live in freedom and enjoy a decent

standard of living in peace and fraternity with other countries, capitalism would have

to be replaced by communism. The soviet leaders therefore made the domestic order

of others states a key issue by exporting communism to such states through their

foreign policies.

Communism was the ideology of the Russian leaders and capitalism was their

chief enemy and obstacle to the liberation of humanity. The Americans and West

Europeans were considered as enemies because they were capitalists. The soviets

saw all Western actions as hostile. Soviet ideology clearly discriminated friend from

enemies on a permanent basis, not following the traditional practices of the state

system – which had no permanent foes and friends – but changing of allies as the

distribution of power changed (permanent interest). Because the soviet union sees

the capitalist states as foes, the conflict between them would continue until sonalism

defeats capitalism.

However, in the midst of this hostile relationship in the west did not trust the

East and the East did not trust the West – and so both exhibited this distrust in their

foreign policy. To the Western world, the complete disintegration of the soviet state

13
was unique, because it was something they did not think of. The USSR broke into

about 15 states. This disintegration of soviet state came with Russians economic

problems. In 1985, Gorbacher, Mikhail became the Russia leader. His greatest

problems were the preservation of the soviet state on a unitary country and to put

Russian economy back in shape. He came up with Perestronka (Restructuring) and

Glasmost (Openess) all in an attempt to reform USSR and strengthen its position as

world power. He changed the wholes soviet approach and opinion towards the West

in general. He unlike the former soviet leaders, saw conflict between the East and

the West as dangerous. He therefore, sought peace, cooperation and peaceful

coexistence with the western world. He dropped the traditional soviet responsibility

of protecting socialism all over the world, including soviet satelites -leading to the

collapse of the economy and political set up of such socialist states.

Today USSR has about 15 states and the process of state formulation is still

in progress. However, the main problem will be the relationship between the heir

apparent to the old Russian state (Russia) and other 14 states, particularly Ukraine.

One Europe that Ukraine and Russia would be able to handle the problematic issue

of the Black Sea fleet, with the maturity it desired. Therefore, the main problem of

Russia is not much of Europe (west) or the USA, other break away republics

especially Ukraine. Other problem that attended the fall of sovation were civil strive,

refugees, unemployment, lack of food, migration of nuclear scientists to the third

world, particularly middle east, Asia, Latin America etc.

14
 Finally, the collapse of Russia has made Germany one of the most if not the

most leading power(s) in Europe. Traditionally, if Germany is strong, she is always

aggressive. Therefore, they may not want to see Germany strong again in Europe. In

fact, the Netherlands, because of its experience would not like astrong Germany as

its neighbour.

THE BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY

Historical, Britain was a great power. Now she is one of the most powerful

middle-power countries. The whole of United Kingdom is an Island and the region

has very ambivalent and conflictual relationship with continental Europe. Unlike in

the United States, few institutions are responsible for foreign policy in the west

minister parliamentary system of government.

INSTITUTIONS FOR BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY

1. FCO: This is the foreign and commonwealth office and it is headed by the

foreign secretary. There are five (5) minister under the foreign secretary and

they all have different roles to play in foreign policy making. In the 1970s,

FCO ment through some changes. It was during this period that the foreign

office, colonial office, commonwealth relations office, Indian relations office,

were all merged to form the FCO. The dominion office – which takes case of

relation between Britain and the Dominion of Anatrahip New Zealand,

Canada and South Africa, was also part of the FCO. In 1973, the British joined

15
 the European Community (EC). She created a section within FCO to attend to

the EC and British affairs. In 1964, the British created the overseas

development office and colonial development office, all under the ministry of

overseas development, for the development of the former colonies. Although

the ministry of overseas development is antonomous, it works in close

collaboration with FCO.

2. MD: This is the ministry of defence and it has an important role to play in this

British foreign policy. It is in charge of defence and overseas arms trade. It

works with the department of trade in the area of overseas arms trade.

3. The treasury and the Bank of England and Wales are also parts of foreign

policy institutions of the British. In fact, to the British, who had various links

with their former colonies, foreign policy is so important that it has been

integrated with domestic policy, such that most ministries have foreign affairs

office.

4. Office of the Prime Minister and his advisers is very important in foreign

policy decisioning. For instance, under Margaret Tharcher, state affairs were

highly centralized and she was often advised by the advisers to ignore the

advice of her foreign secretary.

5. The parliament: The parliament debates foreign policy issues. The foreign

secretary could be called to make statement on specific foreign policy issues,

just as the Prime minister could be called on the same issues. However, the

16
 British parliament has very little impact in foreign policy issues, as compared

to the United States congress. In the final analysis, it must be stated that the

British foreign policy in highly secretive.

TRADITIONAL ELEMENTS IN BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY

As an Island, the British had much on her NAVY in the prosecution of her foreign

policy. She has been using its navy to project her interests and to obtain resources

that are not available at home. It is not surprising that the British has a strong navy.

It needs it because most of its invasions has always been from Europe. In European

politics and state system, she has always tried to play one power against the other.

The British foreign policy favours her imperial attachment to North America, Asia

and Africa.

However, by 1945, her foreign policy drastically changed. She began to

withdraw from her empires and set in motion a process of negotiation on how to be

re-absorbed into Europe. The British foreign policy was therefore, run on a

‘Concentric Circles’. Before the British withdrawal from her colonies, her concentric

circles was the commonwealth first, then the United States and followed by Europe.

In other words, the commonwealth nations formed the nucleus of the British foreign

policy, followed by the US and then Europe. However, it must be stated that the

British foreign policy in highly secretive.

TRADITIONAL ELEMENTS IN BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY

17
 As an Island, the British relied much on her NAVY in the prosecution of her

foreign policy. She has been using its navy to project her interest and to obtain

resources that are not available at home. It is not surprising that the British have a

strong navy. It needs it because must of its invasions has always been from Europe.

In European politics and State System, she has always tried to play one power against

the other. The British foreign policy, favours her imperial attachment to North

America, Asia and Africa.

However, by 1945, her foreign policy drastically changed. She began to

withdraw from her empires and set in motion a process of negotiations on how to be

re-absorbed into Europe. The British foreign policy was therefore run on a concentric

circles. Before the British withdrawal from her colonies, her concentric circles was

the commonwealth first, then the United States and followed by Europe. In other

words, the commonwealth countries formed the nucleus of the British foreign policy,

followed by the US and then Europe. However, after her withdrawal, she re-arranged

her foreign policy concentric circles – making the CC the centre piece of her foreign

policy, followed by the US and later the commonwealth. The following diagrams

will make the British concentric circles foreign policy clearer.

THE CONCENTRIC CIRCLES BEFORE AND TODAY

EUROPE/EC
COMMONWEALTH

THE US THE US

COMMON EUROPE / EC
WEALTH
18
IN THE BEGINNING TODAY

The British emerged from the WWII as a major power and therefore, played

major role in the reconstruction of post war Europe. In this task, she was closely

aided by the United States. This is because the United States itself needed Britain as

a defence partner after the war. Therefore, the US extended a lot of financial help to

Britain to maintain her strong defence. More elements in the British foreign policy

included the granting of independence to India in 1947 as the withdrawal of her

troops from the sahel canal in 1971. Its also played significant military role in Europe

and in the Atlantic Region. She is in fact, the second military power in NATO, after

the US. She in 1950s resumed Nuclear Cooperation with United State.

After the granting of independence to the colonies, she continued her

relationship with such former colonies. In 1965, she therefore opened a

Commonwealth Secretariat. This is to ensure continued dominant role with the

colonies in trade, education, culture and politics. She joined the Western European

Union (WEU) in 1954 and when her application to join the EC was refused by

president Charles De-Ganle, in 1963, she joined EFTA (European Free Trade Area).

In 1973, after the death of De-Ganle, she joined the EC.

19
 In the 1960s, the British tier with the commonwealth declined, particularly

with her former African Colonies. The British Council grant which deals with

cultural diplomacy was therefore cut. Immigration laws were also changed towards

the commonwealth.

MEXICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Traditionally, Mexico prefers to be the poorest of the rich nations than to be

part of the richest of the poor. Its Gross National Product is about $2,000. It has a

well defined and well thought out foreign policy. It has well competent foreign

policy history and well trained foreign affairs officials. It is a regional power in Latin

America, at the expense of Brazil. This is because Brazil has always been very shy

to take up regional challenges. Mexico’s example is a very interesting case of a small

power that is constantly trying to live with the constraints of having a super power

at its backyard. It has been trying to assert its autonomy in the international system.

FACTORS THAT SHAPE MEXICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Geographical proximity to the United States of America is one of the

important elements that shape foreign policy of Mexico. Poor Mexico is so far from

God, but so close to the USA. It shares about 3,000 miles line border with America,

therefore, the United States influence on Mexico is inevitable. In 1845, the Mexicans

fought the Americans. It was in this war that Texas, New Mexico California, Utah

and a host of other traditional Mexican regions, became part of the United State.

20
Today, the Mexicans still remember this war. While Mexico has professed Third

World Organisations – e.g. OPEC. It is also an observer member of the NAM (Non-

Aligned Movement). In fact, it joined the defunct GATT only in the late 1980s. she

is today, a member of WTO.

Mexico’s membership of the GATT and later WTO, was to protect her national

economy. She had for too long depended on the US and this dependence led to a

high un-equal volume of trade between the two countries, the US being the most

benefactor. The dommant firms in Mexican economy, except a few Japanese firms,

were the US firms. This geographical factor accounted for her ambivalence with

other Latin American States. Although, it has from time-to-time taken leadership

positions within the region, it has most of the time, equally, maintain her distance. It

is most cases did not join most Latin American regional organisations. It has always

been having individual deal with the US and other creditors.

The Mexican revolution of 1910 also had helped a well defined and well

thought-out foreign policy of the Mexican state. Although the revolution was by all

indications bourgeoisie (middle class and capitalist in orientation), it was very

important as a myth. It was not a socialist revolution, but a nationalist revolution. It

was a rise against the land-owning aristocracy and the sell-out government of the

vary. The revolution brought about the absolute control of land and control of other

national and natural resources into the hands of the Mexicans. Up till the 1960s,

Mexican resources were in the hands of Mexicans. The revolution also

21
institutionalized Mexican political system and Partido Revolucionario Institutional,

played very important role in this area. (PRI).

STRUCTURE OF MEXICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Mexican political system promotes its foreign policy decisioning. Although

the country operates a multi-party system of government, PRI, is the pre-dominant

party and mostly produced Mexican presidents since the revolution. The president

takes or occupies a front seat in foreign policy decisions. He has a six-year term and

not subject it re-election. He has the absolute control of the government and the

cabinet, from among which the next president is elected. In fact, the foreign affairs

minister is of less importance compared to the economic development minister.

Therefore, Mexican’s foreign policy is closely tied with the economy of the country.

Traditionally, Mexican’s foreign policy is not radical in nature. It is very

conservative and this gives it rooms for flexibility in dealing with international

community. Until recently, its policy has been to recognize countries or states and

not the government in power. E.g. it recognize the culean state and not the

government of fidel castro. However, by the 1970s, this policy has started witnessing

some dynamism – as the Mexican government in 1981, advised the Salvadorian

Government to dialogue with us guerillas in 1989, it also called on president Noriega

of Panama to resign.

22
Another tradition approach to foreign policy of Mexico in its universality. It

maintains relation with all camp-either radical or conservative forces despite the

preserved from the US. For instance, it has good relation with Cuba, the Sandinistas,

Chile etc. In economic matter, it remained nationalistic and protect its foreign policy.

THE DYNAMICS OF MEXICAN FOREIGN POLICY

The Mexican foreign policy started to witness some change from the 1970s, due

particularly to economic changes and changes in their regional ambition. She now

realized that it must re-integrated technologically and economically with North

America, leaving the 3rd world. It was a period that brought about change in Mexican

foreign policy due to environmental economic and international developments. The

Mexican president between 1971 and 1977, was a third worldiet. He strongly

supported president Allende of Chile. His third world ideal went too far and dashed

with big-business and American internet. This led to his down fall. At the end of this

reign, pesos the Mexican currency was derailed.

Lopes Portillo succeeded Echererria. His period (1978-1982) witnessed oil boom

and tremendous economic development Linder lopes, external borrowing increased

in order to develop the oil sector, but unfortunately the prices of oil fell in the

international market in the 1980s. His period however witnessed a sprat dynamistic

and assertiveness in foreign policy particularly after the Nicaraguan revolution of

the late 1970s. During this period, several regional counties began to look forward

to playing leadership role in the region, and Mexico was able to take their advantage.

23
The Mexican foreign policy was economic oriented and it sought to protect its oil

field. The foreign policy was also concerned with refugees from Central America

safety of its borders, curbing US military influence in the region etc. This

involvement in Latin America affair gave Mexico a strong influence in the region

and dwarf in Cuban influence in the area. The Mexican government discovered that

the roots of central and Latin America conflicts is socio-economic. It therefore

encouraged dialogue in place of absolute radical revolution. It particularly

encouraged dialogue with the guerrillas in the region and gave and to poorer

countries of the region. She tried, although in vain, to persuade the US that the

change in Latin America region did not threaten the US internet and security.

Initially she was pursuing her involvement in Latin America affairs, alone but

when the US decided to stop her influence coupled with the fall in oil price of the

1980s which led to serious economic problem, she started to collaborate with other

key player and power in the region. This gave the US an upper hand over Mexico

and she was brought to her kneels, particularly on the issue of influence in Latin

America. Dela Madrid reigned between 1983 and 1989. It was during his time that

Mexico negotiated the Contadora agreement in Latin America. She used her

experience diplomatic corps to draft the Contadora treaty. She cut down her

economic to some states in the region.

Some diplomats have seen the cut in economic assistance as a disguised way

growth drawing its influence in the region without losing face. This position however

24
may not be too far from the truth are Dela Madrid presidency marked the beginning

of a shift in Mexican’s foreign policy. He took a more pragmatic approach to foreign

policy deasioning. He saw foreign policy as tool to build growth and reconstruction

of relationship with the US and to have closer economic ties with Japan. He started

the implementation of structural adjustment programme of meeting all IMF

conditions. He revised Mexican’s foreign investment law and joined defunct GATT

(MW WTO). All these were to attract the Japanese investors, other foreign investor

and a reduction in US dominance of its economy.

Salinas Gortari succeeded Madrid and ruled between 1989 and 1994. The foreign

policy of his predecessor did not attract expected foreign investors and therefore, he

had to change it. He thus started negotiations on North American free trade area with

the US and Canada. He behaved that economic integration with the US and Canada

will bring economic growth so are to find job for about one million jobless yearly.

He also wanted Mexico have free access to US market.

Currently, Mexico has the 4th largest current factory and one of the largest glass

factories in North America. Meanwhile, Mexico must be very careful in her drive to

join the NAFTA become the costs might be too great to bear. Some of these costs

are:

i. The US have been pressuring Mexico to employ together immigration laws to

stem illegal immigrants.

25
 ii. The US want Mexico to stop its active involvement in Latin America affairs,

politically and economically.

iii. The political cost of Americanization of Mexico may be too great become most

of the negotiation challenge Mexican constitution and the people may question

its rationale.

iv. Given Canada’s experience, Mexico, like Canada man may find very soon that

its economic expectations of the integration may never be realized.

Finally, Mexican foreign policy has been dominated by the quest for development

and to become a regional power. It has ambition but lacked the resources to realize

these ambitions. Again, its foreign policy has always been dominated by the quest

for self-assertiveness, particularly from the US dominances, but the US influence

has been to shake off.

NIGERIAN FOREIGN POLICY

Generally, foreign policy is the sum total of the actions of a state and its actual

pursuit as occasioned by the external environment.

Definitions by scholars of Nigerian foreign policy

1. Adebayo Adedeji: it is the extension abroad of its/her national objects (domestic

objectives)

2. Gorden Idang: ….it is basically a product of varying factors-economic, social,

political and cultural.

26
3. Olajide Aluko: Nigeria foreign policy is the interaction between internal and

external factors.

From 1960 till date, successive regimes have always been guided by five (5) and

well-established principles, in the conduct of Nigeria’s foreign policy.

These principles are:

1. Non-alignment: This rejects military alliances with and any political support

for the West or the East, especially during the cold war period. Generally,

this could not be practiced considering the intrigues in international politics.

2. Legal Equality of States in International System: This is to encourage

smaller African States to cooperate, with bigger ones, particularly at regional

and Sub-regional organizations (ECOWAS, OAU/AU) It is also meant to

capture it proper place in the world Affairs – Look at Inter-Law for example

– why states do not obey Inter-law. Nigeria has been doing so much in Africa

to assure others she has no territorial ambition.

3. Non- Interference in the domestic Affairs of others States: This is to respect

Inter-law and the Sovereign status of other states. Nigeria’s interest in the

affairs of other countries is basically the welfare of such states, so that her

own security can be guaranteed. E.g the 1966 crash of an Air craft in

Cameroon, carrying Arms and Ammunitions to the Biafrans. Nigeria has

27
 been able to distinguish between domination and Leadership in the conduct

of her foreign policy in Africa.

4. Commitment to Multi-lateral Diplomacy: Her active involvement in

international organization and respect for their resolution showed her

commitment in their area of diplomacy – ECOWAS, OAU, AU, NEPAD,

NON-ALIGNED, UNO, OPEC. She has also established bilateral relation

with other nation to improve her political, social and economic

relation/image.

5. Nigeria foreign policy is Afrocentric in Nature: The center piece of Nigeria

foreign policy in Africa. She has always worked hard to bring peace and

stability in Africa, the essential ingredient for social and economic

development in the regions e.g. Peace keeping – Congo, Namibia, Liberia,

Sierra Leone, etc -, food aid, technological aid.

Note that:…

Nigeria foreign policy has been highly dynamics to meet the newly emerging

international needs or order. Its foreign policy extends beyond African continents to

include issues and problems which are global in scope and character.

THE AIMS OF FOREIGN POLICY

International relations began when two states first existed side by side making

the behaviour of one the concern of the other(s). They will continue until some

28
process of federation and conquest unites the world under a single sovereignty or

until human race perishes or reverts to a primitive condition in which nations and

nationalism will be no more.

The foreign policy of any nation comprises the objectives that its seeks in its

international relation and the means and methods by which it pursues them.

A nation’s objectives in its relations with her neighbours

1. SECURITY: Existence in the international society is a survival of the fittest.

A nation must be capable of repelling attacks from outside and protect its well-

being and existence. Natural barriers are good elements of security – sea coast,

a mountain barrier or a big river which is difficult to cross. However, the

development of airplane and the intercontinental balletic missuses have

reduced the importance of these natural barriers in security. Nations that lack

adequate natural barriers, have entered into political alliances or other

friendship to isolate or deter or destroy their enemies. They would seek

dependable access to sources of strategic materials to build up their military,

naval and air armaments.

2. ACQUISITION OF NEW TERRITORY(IES): These are sought for

security reasons – by invoking – dynastic, historic, ethnic or economic

motives. In fact, recovery of the lands once possessed by lost by conquest has

been a frequent objective of foreign policy in the modern world.

29
3. ECONOMIC motives also determine other objective of foreign policy. There

had been negotiations, treaties, wars etc. to promote trade, breakdown

commercial barriers, protect traders and their ships, in peace and during war.

4. IDEOLOGICAL objectives have produced some of the bitterest conflict in

the history of international relation. In the past, such ideologies were mostly

religious – Moses leading the Jews subdued the occupants of the promised

land in the name of Jehovah, - The Turks also carried their crescent across

Africa and into Gibraltar and Bosporus in Europe – the protestant and catholic

also fought themselves in the name of their religions. Today, ideologies are

usually political, economic and social. E.g. the ideals of liberty, equality and

fraternity of the French revolution was carried across Western Europe – Hitler

and Stalin wanted to spread militarism and autocracy into Western Europe

while – the Western European nation repelled such in defense of Democracy.

Ideological difference dominated international relation for the major part of

the 20th century.

5. Above is not to say that international relation is always unfriendly or that

nation designed their international relation policies to injure others, there are

other elements that make for mutual interaction in international relation.

Although, a nations foreign policy is dictated by national self-interest, an

enlightened interest would often see such national welfare are dependent on

the well-being of neighbor states. Such mutual element are mutual adjustment

30
 of boundaries, reduction of trade barriers for common prosperity, limitation

of armaments for mutual security, collective security agreements etc. All these

will enrich civilization and progress on both sides of the border.

CHINA: THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA’S FOREIGN POLICY

The Chinese conducted their foreign policy at three level;

1. State to State

2. Party to Party and

3. People to People level

All levels are dominated by two basic themes.

1. The sources of greatest threat to China’s security and

2. The sources of greatest assistance in China’s drive to modernize

Since 1949, when the PRC was established, the US has been the greatest threat,

while the soviet union, now Russia has been the source of greatest assistance.

However, from 1970, the greatest threat came from the Soviet Union, while the

greatest source of assistance came from the West particularly Japan and the US.

The PRC’s foreign policy was hostile to the US because of the American support

for Korea and Taiwan. The sources of the friction between the PRC and the US are;

a. The US-Japan security treaty, and

b. The South-East Asia Collective Defence

c. South East Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO)

31
Also in 1950s, China had to review its revelations with the USSR (Russia) due to

crises in

a. Eastern Europe

b. Soviet Support for Taiwan

c. Soviet Refusal to share nuclear technology with the PRC

d. The withdrawal of Soviet technicians from the PRC

e. Soviet support for India in the Sino Indian border clashes and

f. Increasing rivalry on who becomes the lead of communist movement world

wide.

These issues reduced PRC’s government to government foreign policy to an arms-

length status. Also party-to-party foreign relations remained at polemic level.

In the course of the threats to its security from both the US and the Soviets,

the PRC had to turn inward to the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR). It

was the GPCR that thought China how best to be independent in the international

system.

In the 1960s, the Chinese leadership appeared to understand the US

involvement in the South Asian region and that it was not a prelude to wars. Nixon

regime also help the Sino-US relations by embarking on policy of normalization of

relations. During this period, there was a split within the CCP leadership (Chinese

Communist Party) (CCP), over relations with the USSR, and the US. However,

opinion in favour of a limited opening to the US prevailed. The CCP continue to put

Taiwan at arms-length. The CCP painted the USSR as a potential enemy and went

32
all out to create a programme of civil defence against the Russians. On Japan relation

were put straight despite PRC’s suspicious of Japan’s regional ambition.

In PRC’s relations with the 3rd world, it has shown itself as champion of

anticolonialism and anti-imperialism. The PRC supported the 1954 banding

conference that led to the creation of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). In the

Southeast Asian region, the PRC provided support for insurgent movements in

Burima, Malaysia, Thailand and South Vitnain. The CCP also supported the

Indonesian Communist Party, which has been trying to take over power in Indonesia.

PRC’s opposition to India has three sources:

1. India’s boundary problem with China,

2. Competition for leadership within the 3rd world and

3. Suspicion that the Soviets are attempting to use India to encircle China. China,

therefore, supported Pakistan against India. It also supported communist

movements inside India.

In the United Nation Organisation, the PRC opposed efforts of the super-powers

to impose their will on the rest of the world. The PRC has divided the world into

three;

1. Superpowers,

2. The Second World (Europe & Japan) and

3. The rest of the world.

The aim is to construct a united front of 2 and 3 groups against the former (1st

Group) consistently the PRC delegation to the UN has refused to vote and

33
contribute to UN issues that are against PRC’s policy. Its policy is to build a

united front of less developed states as an instrument to pressure the more

developed states.

34