Legislature and foreign policy

We understand that human beings are pivotal to our study of foreign policy analysis. It is human beings who make up a state or give it that tangible aspect. Over the years, human beings have followed certain systematic processes on a daily basis to create distinctive systems of governance or institutions.

For example, a country's system of governance could be democratic and dependent on the ideals of freedom and representation. On the other hand, the system of governance could be autocratic and controlled by a dictator.

State level of analysis

Using the state level of analysis, analysts try to understand how various systems of governance or institutions influence the formulation of foreign policies. This is different to the individual level where the aim is to understand how human beings influence the formulation of foreign policies.

Some refer to the systems of governance or institutions as political structure. Apart from the larger structure of countries, there exists other structures within.

A particular characteristic shared by Hudson is group decision making. Individuals act as part of a group to influence policy. The various groups are mentioned by Rouke in the segment on foreign policy making actors:

• heads of government and other political executives
• bureaucracies
• legislatures
• interest groups
• the people

Legislatures

Rouke states that in many countries legislatures play a lesser role in making foreign policy compared to decision makers in the executive branch and bureaucracies. That does not mean that they are powerless but their influence varies from country to country. 

For example, legislatures in nondemocratic systems generally rubber-stamp the decisions of the political leadership. Rouke gave an example from China, he said the National People's Congress (NPC) does not play a significant role in foreign policy making. Paltiel confirms by saying that there is no evidence on record of the NPC directly influencing foreign policy.

 

According to Rouke, legislatures play a larger role in democratic countries but their legislative authority is constrained by four factors.

One factor is the legal power of the heads of government. Legal meaning they derive their power from a particular country's constitution. 

He gave the example of the American president. His power to negotiate treaties and to extend diplomatic recognition to other countries is derived from the constitution. The congress has no real power to stop the president from engaging in activities which are defined by foreign policy.

Section 117 of the Constitution empowers the Foreign Affairs and Immigration Minister and the Prime Minister to commit PNG to international obligations. Both leaders, or in most cases the Foreign Affairs and Immigration Minister, will have to present the document to parliament for at least ten sitting days in order to get legislative approval or ratification. 

On 17 August 2016, the parliament voted 66 to 0 and ratified a few treaties or agreements presented by the former member for Rigo in his capacity as Minister for Justice and Attorney General, on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Immigration. Below is a list of the treaties or agreements:

1. Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Independent State of PNG and for Air Services between and beyond their respective territories.
2. Air Transport Services between the Government of PNG and the Government of Federated State of Micronesia.
3. Agreement between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Independent State of PNG relating to civil air transport.
4. Agreement between the Government of the State of Israel on Visa Exemptions for holders of diplomatic, service/official, national/ordinary passports.
5. International Coffee Agreement 2007.
6. International Cocoa Agreement 2010.    

Apart from legal power, it is also tradition that heads of governments and their political executives run foreign policy. This characteristic is evident throughout history where the leadership in many countries have made decisions during the time of war or other crises.  

In the recent trade war with Fiji, note how the Commerce Minister wrote an official letter with his ultimatum and had it sent to the Fiji High Commission. He gave Fiji a deadline to lift the ban on Ox & Palm corned beef or risk an import ban on Fijian products.

The third factor is the belief that a unified voice is important to a successful foreign policy. This was displayed in the issue of climate change. The government through the leadership of Peter O'Neill has advocated vigorously in different forums about the threat posed by climate change. The government's view was shared by the alternative government in the passing of the United Nations Paris Agreement (Implementation) Bill 2016.       

Below are excerpts of what certain individuals said during the presentation of the bill in parliament: 

Jim Kas the former governor of Madang said: 

"climate change is affecting us and we as a nation will have to be very serious about what we are doing from the provincial level to the districts in addressing this issue".

Garry Juffa the current governor of Oro said:

"My leaders we are the ones that will determine what will happen tomorrow, nobody else. No saviour is going to come from another planet or country and save Papua New Guinea. It is up to you and I and we must make those decisions. We must save our nation and we must be innovative and creative and look at technology and partner with those who have the same interest as us and provide sustainable solutions for our people so that we are not destructive and irresponsible with our environment. At the end of the day, that is the price that we will ultimately pay. Our people will pay."

Francis Awesa the former member for Imbonggu said: 

"The two previous ones were not implemented fully because some of these big countries like China and USA has disagreements amongst themselves and so we lost many years in between." 

The final factor is that legislators tend to focus on domestic policy because most voters perceive it to be more important than foreign policy and make voting decisions based on this sense of priority. 

Wolfers and Dihm said foreign policy has not featured prominently among the issues in successive elections, as a factor for a vote of no confidence, or in parliamentary debate. Mostly policies like the 'free education' policy dominate the headlines during the election period. Moreover, movement of leaders on the floor of parliament is determined by monetary incentives and personality politics. For parliamentary debate, they identified some issues that were debated. The West Papuan issue, the Sandline affair and others. The case of climate change and the seasonal workers program issue can be added to the list.

The seasonal workers program issue led to the Prime Minister accusing Australia of discriminatory practices. He said the government of Australia should review the visa requirements and make them fairer. Based on PNG's historical ties with Australia, the idea is to have a similar arrangement like the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement between Australia and New Zealand. 

The Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence according to Wolfers and Dihm have not been a major player in the making, management or monitoring of foreign policy. The Committee has not met and discussed important issues related to foreign policy.    

Conclusion

At the state level of analysis, the role the legislature plays in determining the outcome of a foreign policy varies from country to country depending on their system of governance. For democracies like PNG, the legislature plays a major role via parliamentary debate or the respective parliamentary committee to influence the formation or outcome of foreign policy decisions.