National interests versus Foreign policy

The world has now become a global village where countries of the word interact with each other. Through this interaction each nation or state will be trying to fulfill the needs of its people and for this to be achieved policies are made to ensure that these goals are achieved. In this write up the writer is going to define what is national interest and also foreign policy and costly to link how national interest leads to the formation of foreign policy.

Nuechteriein (2000) defines nation interest as a set of goals a nation or country strives for in the world as contrasted with its domestic need and priorities. Each country or state has its own national interest which is different from the other. National interest is often associated with political realists who wish to differentiate their policies form idealistic policies that seek either to inject morality into foreign policy or promote solutions that rely on multilateral institutions which might weaken the independence of the state. National interest as a concept is sued in both political analysis and political action.  

Different forces and people interpret national interest differently to suit their own personal and partisan agenda. United States of America and all major powers display four basic interests which are defence of home which encompasses territory, citizens and political system, to economic well being which involves economic stability and living standards, favorable world order which is the appraisal of international security and lastly promotion of values which is American democracy and human rights. Doyle (1986) state that these are long term interests and each rises and declines over decades.

Understanding national interest is a serious political issue. In many countries national interests are considered a straight forward part of modern society and few people doubt their rationality. Regardless of whether, the understanding of national interests is correct, or not statesmen still  view national interests as a basis for making foreign policy for a country. Reynolds (1984) argues that national interests should relate to real interest of people and these interests of people and these interest are not to be seen as being necessarily contained within the state context.

According to Clinton (1986) the foreign policy of a country can be defined as a set of goals that seek to outline how that country will interface at an official level with other countries of the world and to a lesser extent, with non-state actors in pursuit of its national economic political and cultural interests. Morgenthan (1968) went further to say that the country’s foreign policy also called the foreign relations policy consists of self interested strategies chosen by the state to safeguard its national interests and to achieve goals with its international relations.

Every nation has a foreign policy to ensure that its needs are represented in the global community. However, throughout history including recently such as during and after the cold war has been used in international scene to push forward national interests and agendas, sometimes without any regard to the nations and people they may directly to indirectly affect. This has sometimes resulted in a rise in resentment against some of these nations who are then seen as bullies getting away with many acts of hypocrisy. Gideon (1998) pointed out that in the increasingly small global community; national interests do not necessarily mean that they are good for international community. Mearsheiner (1990) further stated that the United Nations an international body to tackle various global concerns, as an example has constantly been abused by those who have power to act unilaterally when the international community’s views and opinions do not agree with own national interests.

Theoretically, the process of foreign policy formulation should begin with clear definition of national interests followed by a delineation of the policies and the course of action by the various departments and agencies that would further those policies as well as the allocation of the resources needed to carry them out in practice. System is likely to produce a cohesive, variable and interest is a cluster of particular staffs involved may have very different views to what it should be. Foyle (2003) stated that it is clear that foreign policy is not the prerogative of a few members of government infact public opinion is key in affecting policy.

Since the national interests are paramount, foreign policies are designed by the government through high level decision making processes. National interest accomplishment can occur as a result of peaceful cooperation with other nations or through exploitation. Usually, creating foreign policy is the job of the head of government and the foreign minister. In some countries the legislature also has considerable effects. Foreign policies of countries have varying rates of change and scopes of intent which can be affected by factors that change the perceived national interests or even affect the stability of a country itself. Hill (2003) pointed out that ion this growing interdependent world, the process of foreign policy formulation is becoming more and more complex in which besides national actors, regional and international forces play an increasingly important role.

The foreign policy process cannot be separated form the domestic social structure or the domestic political process in the country. A country is also part and parcel of a world system. They are greatly affected by international stratification. It is important to see how external constraints and global structures e.g relations with major powers and the international financial institutions affect their foreign policy making process and international behaviour. Foreign policy restructuring entails a major alteration or beak up in the orientation of an actor in favour of establishing a new set of commitments and alliances both on the international and regional levels. Neack (2002) stressed that the formulation and implementation of a foreign policy is therefore primarily based on a country’s desire on obligation to foster and protect its national sovereignty ideological goals and economic prosperity.

In the formulation of a foreign policy a country should have clear goals. These are derived from the national interests. The foreign policy goals should basically be of a short term and long term nature which should be clear and not ambiguous. Based on the long term goal, short term strategies are adjusted and approaches are devised to meet the broader goals and national interests. A school of thought in foreign policy and international diplomacy advocates that a country should not have a rigid and fixed foreign policy. Foreign policy is an issue that must be adjusted with the changing international scenario. National interest alone is a paramount thing that sets the overall goal and agenda of foreign policy. For example United States of America’s foreign policy is the expression of its goals in the world and of how it proposes to achieve them, a reflection of the nation’s interests and guideline of how to interact with other countries.

National interest must play a significant part, if not a central one in the formation of any state’s foreign policy. The role of the state in any situation is primarily to further the interests of the society and people that it represents. This is the basis of its legitimacy and reason of its every existence. Foreign policy seeks to benefit the national government responsible for its creation and the national society that it represents. In this sense national interest can be indeed said to be an important and omnipresent factor in the consideration of foreign policy creation.

In order to realize maximum benefits from its interaction with other countries, as well as to promote or influence some change in the policies, attitudes or actions of another state to achieve favourable goals, a country needs to also evaluate and monitor a broad spectrum of factors relating to those other countries. These factors could be economic, political, social and military among many others. For example, Zimbabwe’s foreign policy objectives are grounded in safeguarding the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, the protection of its prestige and image, the pursuit of policies that improve the stand and of living of all Zimbabweans wherever they are and the creation and maintenance of an international environment conducive for attainment of these goals. Zimbabwe’s foreign policy as with that of any other country is an extension of its domestic policy since it is the supreme national interests that drive the conception of a country’s foreign policy www.zimfa.gov.zw/foreignpolicy.

Do sanctions really work?

Zimbabwe at the turn of the new Millennium has received widespread condemnation particularly with the implementation of the controversial land reform. The image portrayed abroad has been tattered because of the reports of violence, instability and abandonment of the rule of law, which has created a serious challenge to the modern developments on democracy and human rights. Zimbabwe has seemingly lost many friends especially those  from the West and west-controlled institutions, through suspension from the IMF and the Commonwealth, the US and the European Union has applied targeted sanctions. Scandavian countries which have supported Zimbabwe’s social services, especially health, have cut and have threatened to close their missions.

Sanctions are barriers put against a country perceived to be autocratic, abusers of human rights and a threat to international peace and security. In other words it is a penalty specified or in the form of moral pressure that acts to ensure compliance when a country fails to abide by the international law. Sanctions are coercive measures adopted usually by several states acting together against a nation violating international law.

Targeted sanctions in Zimbabwe include:

·        Prohibition on arms sales to the government of Zimbabwe and its subsidiaries

·        Restrictions and bans on visas for members or supporters on the Mugabe regime including senior management officials.

·        Restrictions on financial transactions involving specified individuals and entities

·        Freezing assets on targeted individuals and entities

IMPACT ON TARGETED INDIVIDUALS

It is important to find out if the restrictive measures been strong enough to make an impact on ZANU-Pf and force it to change its political course.

ZANU-Pf officials have actually benefited in terms of political capital and unrestricted looting of national resources during the financial crisis in the country.

ZANU-PF has used measures as propaganda, a negotiating tool and as a pretext for non implementation of democratic reforms and the maintenance of power structures and patronage.

ZANU-PF regime has minimised the effect of targeted  financial sanctions on its international business operations through the use of false or proxy names, collaborating sanctions busters and front companies. As revealed in its own internal financial enquiry, held in 2004, to beat targeted sanctions, ZANU-PF had formed shelf-companies to warehouse its shares in various corners of the economy. The party also acknowledged that it had been moving funds from well-known party firms to lesser-known shelf-companies to secure its investments.

In other countries targeted individuals have circumvented the ban by using their adult children who are spread across Europe and the USA to conduct business on their behalf. The exemption of these children from travel bans has meant that their parents have been able to shield them away from the socio-economic hardships and the negative effects of the crumbling educational, health and other social services by sending them to study, or live in the very countries that have imposed the restrictive measures.

The limitations of the travel bans have not been clearly defined. International protocol allows heads of state to attend international meetings regardless of travel restrictions. For example, during the preparations for the 2003 EU-Africa Summit in Lisbon, confusion and controversy arose among participating states over the participation of Mugabe. African states heavily criticised the ban with South Africa threatening to boycott the summit altogether if Mugabe was not allowed to attend. However, travel bans have inconvenienced individuals within ZANU-PF in the sense that they cannot pick and choose destinations as they did in the past. The refusal of visas to travel through Europe  has been a major source of international embarrassment  among some of the targeted leaders. This has been apparent in comments made by restricted individuals who have been denied visas or detained at European airports. Travel bans have been a major impediment for those who have business and personal obligations in countries they are no longer able to enter.

IMPACT ON ORDINARY ZIMBABWEANS AND THE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS.

The sanctions have managed to restrict the ability of the government to access international credit grants. The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act (ZIDERA), for example has provisions which affect the country’s ability to access finance from international multilateral donors and US private commercial donors. The Act does not only empower the USA to its voting rights and influence in IFIs, such as IMF, WB and ADB to veto any application by Zimbabwe for finance, credit facilities, loan rescheduling and international debt cancellation bid, also has some veiled threats against American companies and individuals found to be conducting business with individuals and entities with links to targeted individuals.

The impact has mainly been felt through their restrictions on the flow of both bilateral funds and ODA. A number of European development partners such as the government of Sweden, Norway and Denmark who had since independence been the Zimbabwe government’s critical partners in human development, either pulled out of Zimbabwe or decreased their operations in the country after their governments downscaled their government to government contacts with the Zimbabwe government. While the country continued to receive financial assistance in a number of areas, the amount of loan inflows extended to the government progressively declined.

Furthermore, sanctions and the withdrawal of bilateral support, alongside the country’s political instability, are factors that have made Zimbabwe a high-risk business environment. As such, business face serious difficulties as the costs of infrastructure and labour have increased and government subsidies have been withdrawn. At the same time, foreign direct investment (FDI) has yet to seriously take root as political environment continues to be unstable.

Ordinary Zimbabweans have been indirectly affected by the decline in ODA. The scaling down of the ODA in the last few years seriously affected many poor communities which have been since independence relied on financial support from development partners  like UK. Denmark, Norway and Sweden. At the same time, withdrawal of bilateral aid to the government, coupled with corruption, has seriously undermined the government’s capacity to deliver basic services like health and education to ordinary members of the poor communities. However, humanitarian assistance for vulnerable communities has indeed been revived under the Humanitarian Plans  programme, with many of the western development assistance organisations preferred to focus on short-term humanitarian assistance rather than long term assistance and this intervention strategy has been less effective in helping communities deal with their chronic vulnerabilities.

Zimbabwe's foreign policy;its effects on development

The foreign policy of a country can be defined as a set of goals that seek to outline how that country will interface at an official level with other countries of the world, and to a lesser extent, with non state actors in pursuit of its national economic, political, social and cultural interests (Jones: 1970).  In order to realise maximum benefit from its interaction with other countries, as well as to promote or influence some change in the policies, attitudes or actions of another state to achieve favourable goals, a country needs to also evaluate and monitor a broad spectrum of factors relating to those other countries.  Several factors determine a country’s capacity to wield power and influence in international relations as well as its strategic standing in the eyes of global powers and other countries.  These include its geographical location, population size, economic weight, possession of strategic resources such as oil, defence capability and track record in dealing with challenges such as terrorism.

In terms of international relations theory, one could say that Zimbabwe’s political objectives in the early 1980s were ‘realist’ in nature, this focus on the state itself, the most important factor being state power and state interest (Mandaza: 1986).  Historical experience has been a major determinant in Zimbabwe’s foreign policy.  The overall experience of its struggle for liberation in the 1960s and 1970s was a formative influence on its foreign relations.  Zimbabwe got the backing of military and political support from socialist powers, principally China and the Soviet Union, and in a regional neighbourhood of apartheid South Africa and colonial Namibia, the major element in Zimbabwe’s foreign policy was support for liberation movements.  Another feature of Zimbabwe’s foreign policy was an expressed commitment to non-alignment.

It is recognized that foreign policy is an extension of domestic policy since it is the supreme national interest that drives the conception of a country’s foreign policy (Ministry of Foreign Affairs: 2010).  Furthermore, the fundamental principles of national security, national economic well being and international image that transcend the government of the day formed the foundation of Zimbabwe’s foreign policy (ibid).

As a medium-sized African power, there are clear limits to the leverage Zimbabwe can bring to bear on regional and international affairs.  Early analysis of the external environment soon after independence in 1980 argued that the dominance of international finance capital and the imperatives of imperialist policy in Southern Africa defined the broad parameters of state action on the external front (Mandaza: 1986)

Zimbabwe’s foreign policy objectives are grounded in safeguarding the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, the protection of its prestige and image, the pursuit of policies that improve the standard of living of all Zimbabweans wherever they are, and the creation and maintenance of an international environment conducive for the attainment of these goals (Ministry of Foreign Affairs: 2010)

Zimbabwe’s foreign policy since independence had Southern Africa as its centrepiece.  This was primarily due to the exigencies of liberation struggles in the 1980s in Namibia and South Africa and the destabilization campaigns of the apartheid regime, particularly in Mozambique and Angola.  Zimbabwe’s primary national interests were the safeguarding of its national security and the provision of diplomatic and material support to liberation movements.  In addition, key areas of its foreign policy revolved around economic cooperation in the Southern African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC) that was formed in 1980 and its successor organisation, SADC which was founded in 1992.

Zimbabwe needed to keep up trade with South Africa for economic reasons, yet on the other hand it too was housing ANC supporters.  Zimbabwe realised this, and decided that it needed regional support for this reason, Zimbabwe’s focus turned to regional diplomacy.  The country joined the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in the early 1980s and President Mugabe became Chairman in 1986.  NAM stands for sovereignty, non-aggression, human rights and non-discrimination, among other principles.  The pressure that SADCC and NAM applied to Apartheid South Africa,  economic assistance to African nationalist parties and verbally stood in disagreement with Apartheid policies, supports this notion due to the fact that it influenced the creation of a democratic South Africa (NAM: 2005). 

As a member of SADCC, NAM and the UN, Zimbabwe exercised regional diplomacy and joined with other countries in isolating Apartheid South Africa.  When South Africa became independent in 1994, Zimbabwe now had to change its foreign policy approach to South Africa.  As the Zimbabwean economy weakened and the land issue worsened, the country became more and more reliant on its powerful neighbour (ibid).  Zimbabwe’s foreign policy towards South Africa from the 1980s to the present day has been affected by Apartheid, regional organisations and land.  Economically, the relationship has remained much the same from the Apartheid regime to today, with Zimbabwe relying on South Africa for support.

In order to protect its interests, Zimbabwe executed military intervention in Mozambique against RENAMO guerrillas between 1985 and 1992 (Hume: 1994).  Military intervention in Mozambique was an expression of political support to the FRELIMO government that had been active in supporting Zimbabwe’s own liberation struggle in the 1970s.  Another key objective was the protection of its major transport artery to the sea through the Beira Corridor.  Zimbabwe was a central player in peace negotiations between FRELIMO and RENAMO.

Zimbabwe’s foreign policy in Southern Africa during the first 15 years of independence was judged successfully, “by 1989, the Beira Corridor was safe”.  It was also President Mugabe who suggested Rome as the venue for the signing of the FRELIMO-RENAMO accord (Chan: 2003).   This Accord was viewed as a major triumph for Zimbabwean diplomacy.

Zimbabwe’s other major foreign policy challenge and military intervention was in the DRC, where Zimbabwe assisted the regime of Laurent Kabila in 1998.  The intervention caused divisions in SADC and among countries such as Rwanda and Uganda in the Great Lakes and drew condemnation from domestic and external sources.  There were both economic and political objectives in the deployment to assist Kabila.  The economic objective was to secure Inga Dam, from which Zimbabwe received a third of its electricity.  The political objective was to defence the territorial integrity of a SADC member state (Campbell: 2003) The DRC deployment gave the government another opportunity to represent itself as a regional political and military power.

In pursuit of multilateralism, Pan Africanism, good international citizenship, and peaceful resolution of conflicts, Zimbabwe participated in UN peacekeeping operations in Angola, Somalia and Uganda and Rwanda in the 1990s.  It also participated in mediation in Mozambique and Angola in UN police contingents in Bosnia, East Timor, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Darfur in the Sudan, and bilateral and multilateral training of defence forces from the SADC (Patel:1993). 

Zimbabwean foreign policy towards Britain centres on the land issue because the landlessness of the majority of black people in Zimbabwe was created during colonialism. Britain did not fulfil its promises towards Zimbabwe where land is involved.  However, Zimbabwe withdrew from the Commonwealth in December 2003 because it concluded that it was unfairly treated. Zimbabwe’s relations with Western powers were reasonably good up until the late 1990s. During that period Zimbabwe was able to access capital investment, trade and access to technology from the West. There was a coincidence between the degeneration into authoritarianism and estrangement with Western powers, especially Britain and the United States, and with some multilateral organisations (Rupiya: 2002).  The political violence during the 2000 and 2002 election campaigns, together with the land reform process, deepened criticism of the Zimbabwean government by Western powers.  The land reform process which the West strongly criticized from its inception is an integral feature of Zimbabwe’s foreign policy, and the reluctance of some countries to recognize its centrality to economic development and stability has continued to strain relations with some sections of the international community (Ministry of Foreign Affairs: 2010). 

The relations between Zimbabwe and the European Union deteriorated sharply in 2002, resulting in mutual recrimination rather than concerted dialogue.  President Mugabe suggested that Africa is for Africans and the rest of the international community should respect that.  Sachikonye (2012) stated that this speech explains why Zimbabwean foreign policy towards Britain is purely confrontational and aggressive.  The failure of the dialogue resulted in the imposition of targeted sanctions against the leading members of the government.  The sanctions have been renewed annually since 2002.  Similarly, relations between Zimbabwe and the United States since 2000 have been poor.  Zimbabwe’s access to finance and credit facilities from United States and multilateral institutions such as International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and the African Development Bank were effectively blocked.  Zimbabwe’s relations with these agencies were immediately affected.

In response to sanction and criticism from the West, Zimbabwe adopted the “Look East Policy”.  The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been on the forefront to implement this policy guided by the Government’s Policy, Vision and Strategy documents designed to increase Zimbabwe’s cooperation with a number of countries in Asia and the Far East.  According to Sachikonye (2012), a deliberate decision was made to initially focus on China, Iran, Indonesia, India and Malaysia in effecting the above policy, hence broadening the scope of Zimbabwe’s foreign policy.  Zimbabwe and China have relations dating back to the country’s 1970s liberation struggle when Beijing provided arms and training to the black nationalist movement fighting the government of Smith. State-owned Zimbabwean businesses signed energy, mining and farming deals worth billions of dollars with Chinese companies.  The largest was with China Machine-Building International Corporation, for a $1,3 billion contract to mine coal and build thermal-power generators in Zimbabwe (The Africa Report:2007).  The Chinese government brought farm machinery, for example, tractors and trucks.  However, the Chinese are benefiting from Zimbabwe’s natural resources, for example, the Chiadzwa diamonds, gold, chrome and platinum.

In international relations, and therefore in the pursuit of a country’s Foreign Policy, there is an unwritten understanding that there are no permanent friends or enemies, but permanent interests.  Zimbabwe’s foreign policy therefore strives to foster long-standing relationships of mutual cooperation and trust.  For Zimbabwe’s foreign policy to succeed, it must aim to mobilize the understanding and support of all Zimbabweans.