{"id":723,"date":"2013-12-16T19:58:40","date_gmt":"2013-12-16T19:58:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/referendum\/?p=723"},"modified":"2013-12-15T20:00:34","modified_gmt":"2013-12-15T20:00:34","slug":"four-pillars-of-foreign-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/referendum\/four-pillars-of-foreign-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"Four pillars of foreign policy"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Dr<\/a>

Dr Juliet Kaarbo, University of Edinburgh<\/p><\/div>\n

States\u2019 visions of their foreign policies typically have four elements, or pillars:\u00a0 protection, profits, principles, and pride.\u00a0 The Scottish Government\u2019s White Paper released last month is no exception, Juliet Kaarbo explains.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u2018Protection<\/b>\u2019 (or \u2018power\u2019) concerns the key function of sovereign states \u2013 to provide security for their citizens, mainly at home but also abroad. On this pillar, the White Paper lays out the case for continued membership in NATO and its<\/p>\n

defence priorities relating to budget allocations, maritime capabilities, numbers for regular and reserve personnel, and continued operation of current major military bases.<\/p>\n

The \u2018Profits<\/b>\u2019 element is how the state will engage with the international economy and position its domestic economy to provide economic wealth and security.\u00a0 On this pillar, the White Paper clearly embraces a liberal, pro-trade economic foreign policy in its discussion of the advantages of continued EU membership, \u2018focused engagement\u2019 with the EU, and full participation in the Europe 2020 growth agenda.<\/p>\n

\u2018Principles<\/b>\u2019 are the values and the projection of \u2018what we stand for\u2019 that purportedly guide a state\u2019s foreign policy.\u00a0 It is on this pillar that the White Paper seeks to put the most daylight between an independent Scottish foreign policy and its characterisation of UK foreign policy.\u00a0 The White Paper, for example, emphasises the \u2018different international priorities\u2019 between Westminster and an independent Scotland and notes \u2018we see that most clearly in matters of war and peace and in our relationship with the EU\u2019 (White Paper, page 209).\u00a0 The anti-nuclear argument of the White Paper is also partly based on value statements, such as \u201cTrident is an affront to basic decency with its indiscriminate and inhumane destructive power\u201d (p.232).\u00a0 More principles are advanced when the White Paper envisions Scotland as a \u2018champion for international justice and peace\u2019 and puts forward the values of\u00a0 \u2018international development, human rights, climate change, and climate justice\u2019 (page 225).\u00a0 The Government boldly puts forward a \u2018Do No Harm\u2019 policy, stating: \u2018As an expression of the values driving our foreign policy, this Government will ensure that other Scottish Government policies do no harm to development countries, do not undermine international development aims and ideally contribute to international development success\u2019 (page 231).<\/p>\n

Finally, \u2018pride<\/b>\u2019 plays a place in most states\u2019 foreign policies.\u00a0 Pride often surfaces in characterisations the state\u2019s identity, of \u2018who we are,\u2019 and of the state\u2019s and its people\u2019s accomplishments.\u00a0 Pride may connect to values, such as human rights and climate justice.\u00a0 But pride can also be projections of the nation\u2019s self-image, such as a \u2018beacon of democracy\u2019 or a \u2018cradle of a civilisation.\u2019\u00a0\u00a0 In this way, the White Paper paints a picture of Scotland as \u201can outward facing nation, exporting goods, people, and ideas around the world\u2026\u201d(207) and refers to \u2018\u2019Scotland\u2019s proud military tradition\u201d (234).\u00a0 At its most dangerous end, pride can turn negative and derogatory in tone, painting an excessively positive image of itself only in reference to excessively negative images of other.\u00a0 There is none of this extreme negativity in the Scottish White Paper\u2019s vision of its foreign policy, which is perhaps surprising for a document written by a political party with \u2018national\u2019 in its name.<\/p>\n

The four pillars of foreign policy can stand alone in a vision statement, such as the White Paper.\u00a0 In practice, however, they are not mutually exclusive.\u00a0 They can work together, reinforcing each other (profits can my protection, for example), but they often come in conflict.\u00a0 What happens when, for example, profits come from trade with states with human rights violations or security imperatives lead the state to act in ways counter to its self-image?\u00a0\u00a0 The White Paper does reflect on these potential conflicts.\u00a0 It states:\u00a0 \u201cwe will not allow commercial or other considerations, including military considerations, to influence our approach [to international development] improperly\u2019 (231).\u00a0 A praise-worthy goal indeed, but few states have succeeded in avoiding these trade-offs and in isolating principles from profits and protection, and Scotland would be no exception.<\/p>\n

The White Paper rightly states that with independence, Scotland would have sovereign ability to choose the direction of its foreign affairs \u2013 to follow the pillars the Government seeks to build.\u00a0 But it would quickly discover that with sovereignty comes the difficult task of deciding what to do when the pillars point a state in conflicting directions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

States\u2019 visions of their foreign policies typically have four elements, or pillars:\u00a0 protection, profits, principles, and pride.\u00a0 The Scottish Government\u2019s White Paper released last month is no exception, Juliet Kaarbo explains. \u2018Protection\u2019 (or \u2018power\u2019) concerns the key function of sovereign … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/referendum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/723"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/referendum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/referendum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/referendum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/referendum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=723"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/referendum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/723\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":725,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/referendum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/723\/revisions\/725"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/referendum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=723"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/referendum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=723"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/referendum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=723"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}