Gyngell and Wesley: The two worlds of foreign policy

-
Gyngell and Wesley (2003) talked about the two worlds of foreign policy. Practitioners have a different view of foreign policy in comparison to academics. I agree with their distinction and will expand on some of the points they made in their book.

Some academics think that foreign policy is a structured detailed plan outlining the interaction between two states. Mitna (2018) challenged this perception with the statement that foreign policy does not need to be a predetermined course of action or strategy. It can be an impromptu statement or expression of a particular view, reflecting the reactive nature of foreign policy. Decision-makers decide what foreign policy is by choosing what they do.

This is evident in the case of Marape and his choice to focus on Southeast Asia. After his election as the Prime Minister, he made this impromptu statement about working with Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. He said he wanted to focus more on trade and economics.

Furthermore, Mitna (2018) also stated that the discretion of the decision-makers reflect the disorderly nature of foreign policy. That means foreign policy is not so orderly as one might think. Hence, PNG does not need to do what Australia has done by writing a detailed foreign policy white paper to document what we intend to do.

Have a look at the video clip below about the discussion in parliament about why PNG voted against moving the US embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in the UN. During the Pato era, he spoke clearly that his policy tag was 'PNG Connect in a globalized world'. Nevertheless, in his defence of the government's decision at the UN, he said the foreign policy was 'Friends to all and enemies to none'.


Gyngell and Wesley (2003) stated that debates among IR academics have singularly failed to arouse the attention or interest of any but the IR community in Australia. In PNG, we do not have a good number of IR academics in comparison to Australia. As such, there is no healthy debate or discussion about issues and policies. 

They also pointed out that the practitioner community in Australia seems to have grown increasingly uninterested in the results of academic research, thinking it lacks much relevance to the real world. Many are unconvinced of the value of critiques of realism, which for the majority of DFAT staff continue to provide simple, powerful signpost about the nature of their trade. 

The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) in PNG was focused for a few years on recruiting graduates from universities and putting them through their foreign service training program facilitated by the Victoria University of Wellington. Their corporate plan does not talk about funding research or helping establish a pool of IR academics. Their focus is on growing the pool of practitioners rather then helping the growth of IR academics which might play a pivotal role in policy making.

The scholars mentioned that those in the academic world who have influenced Australian foreign policy and had their views sought out in the past decades have been figures not from IR but from economics, strategic studies and specialist-area studies. In PNG, Professor Edward Wolfers (an Australian academic) has been advising the DFA for a long time. Apart from him, the others are retired practitioners.

In addition, they said many retired practitioners find it hard to relate to and gain acceptance from the increasingly rarefied world of academic IR. This experience is similar to PNG. Many of the retired practitioners possess practical knowledge which is vital in the training of future diplomats or foreign service officers. However, they either find it hard to relate to the world of academic IR or they see no monetary value or benefit in sharing their knowledge.

They said the practitioner's view of foreign policy is of a world of complex detail and incessant demands on time, attention and resources. The policy field of the practitioner resists simple solutions and evades summary or generalization: "The reality lies in the detail and in the interaction of details lies the policy". IR academia will expose you to concepts and frameworks for analysis but will not be able to show you the practitioner's view.

Furthermore, practitioners look for exceptions to general statements about foreign policy issues. Their experience of trying to implement policy in the difficult, wilful, resistant world of IR make them skeptical of high sounding schemes and principles, as well as the moral simplicity and unqualified solutions offered by academics and public alike. IR academics have the luxury of sitting in their offices and reading about what is happening. Through reading and analyzing they offer simple and unqualified solutions which does not correlate with the practical challenges faced by practitioners.

They argue that the academic's world is one of abstraction and generalization, of post-hoc analysis and probabilistic prediction. This statement does not in any way mean that the IR academics world is of lesser importance to the world of IR practitioners. Both coexist to help find a way forward in the anarchic international system.

Finally, they stated that logical consistency, analytical rigor and innovations of inference are the standards of success for academics; for practitioners, effectiveness consists in standards of fine, verifiable detail and knowledge of the dispositions of key people in both the policy and organizational environments. The IR academic world in PNG still has a long way to go in comparison to the world of IR practitioners.    

References
Gyngell, A., & Wesley, M. (2003). Making Australian foreign policy (pp. 1-16). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mitna, P (2018). Factors influencing Papua New Guinea’s foreign policy in the Twenty-First Century (Doctoral dissertation, The Australian National University). Retrieved from https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/156980/1/PhD%20Thesis%20-%20Philip%20Mitna%202019.pdf 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

FPA: Organizational Process Model

-
This model centers on the fact that different bureaucracies have different standard operating procedures. These procedures are made in order to allow day to day operations to be carried out. Thus, a foreign policy decision is made based on these standard operating procedures. It is hard for a bureaucracy to make a decision or let alone function out of character or contrary to their standard operating procedure. The reading Chapter 4: Foreign policy shares a straight forward explanation of the OPM: "An alternative to the rational model of decision making is the organizational process model. In this model, foreign policy decision makers generally skip the labor-intensive process of identifying goals and alternative actions, relying instead for most decisions on standardized responses or standard operating procedures. For example, the U.S. State Department everyday receives more than a thousand reports or inquiries from its embassies around the world and sends out more than a
Read more

Commercial liberalism and the six norms

-
Image
Liberal internationalism is defined by Griffiths, O'Callaghan and Roach (2008, p.190) as a project to transform international relations so that they conform to models of peace, freedom, and prosperity allegedly enjoyed within constitutional liberal democracies. The same scholars go further by dividing liberalism into three distinct groups. They say these are the three ways to implement the project. The way they present liberal internationalism as a project makes their work interesting. Three distinct groups Firstly, commercial liberalism is about free trade between states. States bilaterally or multilaterally via a platform like APEC pursue the goal of trade liberalization. Griffiths, O'Callagahan and Roach (ibid.) argued that economic interdependence would decrease the likelihood of going to war. Republican liberalism is about democratic peace. The scholars argued that the spread of democracy among states so that governments will be accountable to their citizens makes it di
Read more

Rise and fall realism

-
Image
By Colin Elman and Michael A. Jensen Source: Williams, P. D. (Ed.). (2008). Security studies: an introduction . London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. What is rise and fall realism? Rise and fall realism remerge as a powerful alternative to the balance of power theories that predominated international relations scholarship during the 1950’s. Central theme Hegemony is the foundation for peace while balance is often associated with war (Organski). Dynamics Rise and fall realism emphasizes that war between major powers is least likely when the international system is dominated by a single state and when there are no rising challengers vying for system leadership. Given its privileged position, a dominant state is capable of shaping the rules and practices of the international system in such a way as to satisfy its selfish interest. Stability is a product of this hegemonic order, as states which are dissatisfied with the status quo lack the capabilities to change it.
Read more