The chapter attempts to define ideology from a historical perspective, and formulate a framework for foreign policy analysis with the help of ideology. Ideology is a specific from idea system characteristic of modern politics. Popular support is an important aspect of modern politics. Ideology plays an important role in mobilizing popular support in modern politics. For elites ideologies have become important channels for obtaining political mobilization and mass manipulation. Thus, ideologies could be used as instruments for imposing man’s power over man, which could ultimately lead to undemocratic forms of political systems. On the other hand, ideology can provide the country a psychological unity. It can provide the people a scale of valued\s which would inform them what they should approve and disapprove. Ideology serves also as a prism through which the decision makers perceive the international situation, and help people to make sense out of the otherwise bewildering world by providing them a frame of reference. (For details see G. Sartori. “Politics, Ideology and Belief System”. American Political Science Review. Vol. 63. (1969) PP. 398-411; S. Northedge. The Foreign Policies of the Powers. London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1968. P. 13.) Thus, the implications of ideology warrant a thorough examination of concept.

IMPORTANCE OF FOREIGN POLICY DECISION MAKING

Foreign policy actions of states constitute a crucial aspect of international relations. For a peaceful evolution of word affairs, it is necessary that the decision makers of a state have considerable knowledge about the trends of foreign policy behavior of other states. Thus, the area of foreign policy analysis acquires a special significance. Foreign policy of any state consists of the course of actions undertaken by the authority of the state in a specific situation in order to attain certain specific objective beyond the limit of its territorial jurisdiction. A particular foreign policy action of a state can be explained in terms of various hypothetical factors. The factors which could influence foreign policy of a state include the personal characteristics of political leaders and decision makers, governmental structure and decision- making process, cultural attributes of the society, historical experience of the people of the people generated from its own and other states, prior behavior, the general global context or the nature of the international system, economic factors, military factors and geographic factors. (For a detailed discussion on the factors which influence foreign policy of a state, see M.A. East, S.A. Salmore and C.f. Herman (eds). Why Nations Act: Theoretical perspective for Comparative Foreign Policy Studies. London: sage 1978; J. Wilkenfeld, G.W. Hopple, P.J. Rossa and S.J. Andriole (eds). Foreign Policy Behavior: The inter –state Behavior Analysis Model. California sage, 1980.PP. 34- 112; L. Jenson. Explaining Foreign Policy. Englewood Cliffs. N.J: Prentice – hall Inc., 1982. PP. 13- 260; J.N. Rosenau The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy. London: France Pinter, 1980. PP. 128- 129; K.W. Thomson and R.C. Macridis. “The comparative study of foreign policy “In Foreign policy in world politics. Edited by R.c. Macridis. Englewood Cliffs N.J. Prentice- Hall Inc., 1976.PP. 1–28).

A foreign policy action originates from a decision taken by the decision makers of the state who act in the name of the state. In so far as foreign policy is concerned, for all practical purpose, the state action can be considered as the action taken by the official decision makers of the state who act in the name of state (See R.C. Snyder, H.W. Bruck and B. Sapin (eds). Foreign Policy Decision making: An Approach to the study of International Politics. New York: The Free Press of Glencone, 1962.P. 65). But since foreign policy action of state originates from a decision taken by its decision makers, only those factors which are taken in to account by the decision makers can be said to have influenced in the foreign policy action. Hence decision making is an important stage to be reckoned with in the foreign policy analysis.

FOREIGN POLICY DECISION MAKING MODELS

It is the foreign policy actions of states which determine the nature of international relations. Foreign policy actions of states could be explained in term of various hypothetical factors. But ultimately a foreign policy action originates from a decision taken by the decision makers of the state who act in the name of the state. Hence only those factors which are taken into account by the decision makers could be said to have influenced the foreign policy action. Hence decision making is an important state to be reckoned with in the foreign policy analysis. The major approaches or theories which attempt to explain how the decision-making process influences the foreign policy of a state include Disjointed Incrementalism, Game Theory, Cybernetic Perspective, Allison’s three models such as Rational Actor Model, Organizational Process Model and the Bureaucratic Politics Model. Though the models attempted to explain various processes through which foreign policy decisions are arrived at, they do not give due attention to the fact that the entire decision-making process takes place in a unique psychological environment. The external factors can influence a foreign policy decision only if they are perceived and taken into account by the concerned decision makers. The decision makers’ perception of a given situation, the “image” they derive from the perception of the situation and their response to their “image” of the situation, all vary in accordance with the nature of the dispositional setting or the psychological environment of the decision makers. As the decision makers act upon the “image” of a given situation which they received from their perception of the situation, in foreign policy analysis it is necessary to consider how the decision makers perceived a particular situation and what “image” they got from the perception of the situation.

Yet none of the significant studies in the field of foreign policy analysis have developed an adequate framework for foreign policy analysis which gives due importance to the decision makers’ perception of the given situation. Hence the major objective of the present study is to initiate an effort towards formulating a framework which can provide due importance to the decision makers’ perception of the situation. In the study the formulation of such a framework for foreign policy analysis is attempted through conceptualizing ideology, identifying historical consciousness, perception of the situation, action orientation and action as its major aspects and applying them to foreign policy analysis.

Foreign policy action follows a decision taken by the concerned decision makers of the state. There have been various approaches and theories which attempt to explain how the decision-making process influences the foreign policy of a state. They include the following ones.

1. DISJOINTED INSTRUMENTALISM

This approach was developed by C.E. Lindblom. He argued that officials who are burdened with many limitations, instead of solving problems, merely cope with them and move incrementally at the margins of problem on a day by day basis rather than encompassingly at their core on a thoroughgoing basis (For details see C.E Lindblom. “The Science of Muddling Through” Public Administration Review.19 (1959). Pp.79-88).

2. GAME THEORY

The independence among the perceptions, decisions and actions of the players is the central point of the game theory. It mainly focuses on situations in which actions of the actors are at least partly dependent on each actor’s perceptions about the possible actions of others. Each actor is having his own basic objectives in order to fulfill his interests. Each actor makes choices to maximize his utilities. Therefore, an actor’s actions in a particular situation can be deduced from whatever would maximize his utilities in that situation. (See J.N. Rosenau. “Decision Making Approaches” In Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy: Studies in Principal Movement and Ideas, Edited by A.D. Conde. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1978. Vol. I. P. 224).

3. THE CYBERNETIC PERSPECTIVE

J.D. Steinbruner set fourth cybernetic paradigm as a foundation for theories and models of decision- making. He was skeptical about the accessibility for human beings, all the information needed to perform all calculations. As accurate calculations about probable outcomes are not likely, the decision makers minimize calculations. Hence decisional behavior of the decision makers would be based more on the past experience which in turn leads to an institutional approach to problem solving. Here the decision mechanisms screen out information which the established set of responses are not programmed to accept. In the Cybernetic model actors neither rationally consider all alternatives nor respond to all the stimuli. They focus only on those stimuli which might critically undermine their interests. Thus, in the Cybernetic theory the main criterion or the motivating force for decision maker’s actions is the basic value of survival. (J.D. Steinbruner. The Cybernetic Theory of Decision – New Dimension of Political Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974. P.67; see also J.N. Rosenau. 1978. Op. cit. P. 226).

4. G.T. ALLISONS’S THREE MODELS

G.T.  Allison provided three models for foreign policy decision making such as Rational Actor Model, Organizational Process model and Bureaucratic Politics Model.

A) RATIONAL ACTOR MODEL: According to this model, foreign policy is a national choice. Here foreign policy actions are conceived as actions chosen by the national government in order to maximize its objectives. Here governmental behavior is the result of a deliberate choice. The choices are seen as purposive acts by the decision makers aimed at achieving certain objectives through logical means. In this model various stages for the decision-making process could be identified. Decision makers define their national value and objectives, list various alternatives available to them in a particular situation, examine and evaluate their consequence and make a decision. Hence, here rationality refers to consistent, value minimizing choice within specified constraints. (For details see G.T. Allison. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little Brown, 1971. P. 30; G.T. Allison. “Conceptual Models and Cuban Missile Crisis”. In American Foreign Policy: Theoretical Essays.  Edited by J. Ikenberry. Illinois: Scott, Foresman and company, 1989. PP. 337-338).

B) ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESS MODEL: In this model foreign policy is considered as an organizational output. Thus, governments or the decision makers could perceive problems, define alternatives and estimate consequences based on the information processed and provided by various organizations. Thus, the model envisages governmental decisions less as a matter of deliberate choice and more s independent output of several large organizations, only partly coordinated by governmental leaders. Here governmental behavior is the result of routine operating procedure by organizational units. (See J. Ikenberry (ed) .1989. op. cit. P. 344).

C) BUREAUCRATIC POLITICS MODEL: This model hypothesizes intense competition among the decision – making units. The foreign policy decides are considered as results of bargaining among the various components of a bureaucracy which have different view. The outcome will depend on the relative power and skill of the bargainers. Thus, the governmental decisions would be considered not as a result of a single rational choice, but as a result of ‘pulling and hauling’. (See G.T. Allison and M.H. Halperin. “Bureaucratic politics: A Paradigm and some policy Implications”. In J. Ikenberry (ed). 1989, op. cit. P. 381 For more details see M.H. Halperin. Bureaucratic Politics and foreign Policy. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1974; G.T. Allison. 1971. Op. cit. PP. 10- 38, 67, 96, 144,181) Here, policy is considered as a political outcome since it is.

Not chosen as a solution to a problem but rather results from compromise, coalition, competition and confusion among government officials who see different faces of an issue. (G.T. Allison, In J. Ikenberry 1989 op.cit. P.359). The models attempted to explain factors in the foreign policy decision making process which could influence the decisional output. They included the decision maker’s tendency to proceed incrementally, their tendency to make choices which would maximize their tendency to achieve specific objectives through logical means, the possibility of the final decision being independent outputs of various governmental organizations, and also the possibility of the decisions being result of bargaining among various components of the bureaucracy. But none of models emphasized the fact that the entire decision-making process takes place in a unique psychological environment commonly shared by the decision makers of the state.

INFLUENCE OF IDEOLOGY ON FOREIGN POLICY DECISION MAKING

At the decision-making stage all the relevant factors which have a bearing on a particular problem are taken into account by the decision makers. Thus, the decision-making stage serves an integrative function in the decision-making process, the external or environmental factors (both non- human and social) can influence foreign policy decision only if they are perceived and taken into account for the decision by the decision makers. The factors could be perceived by the decision makers only if they are filtered into their psychological environment through the ’attitudinal prisms’ or ‘images’ of the decision makers. (See C.F Herman and M.G. Hermann “The Synthetic Role of decision-Making Models in Theories of Foreign Policy: Bases for a computer simulation, in Theories, Models and simulations in inter45national Relations. Edited by M.D. Ward. London: West view Press, 1985. P.227; Harold and Margaret Sprout. The Ecological Perspective in Human Affairs. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1965. P.11; M. Brecher. The foreign Policy System of Israel; Settings, Images and Process. London: Oxford University press, 1972). Hence, in accordance with the characteristic nature of the dispositional setting of the decision makers, their perception of the situation, the image they derive from the perception of the situation and their response to their image of the situation varies. Hence the foreign policy decisions are ultimately determined by the unique psychological environment of the decision makers of the state.

Basically, the dispositional setting or the psychological environment is the result of the natural interaction between the predispositions of the society and/ or its decision makers and given situation. The interaction is made possible through decision makers ‘perception of the situation. The prepossessions, predispositions and values of the society and/or its decisions makers influence their perception of the given situation and the ‘image’ they derive from it. Decision makers act upon this image of the given situation which they received from their perception of the situation. Hence in foreign policy analysis it is necessary to consider both how the decision makers perceive a particular situation and what ‘image’ they get from the perception of the situation.

Yet, some of the significant studies in the field of foreign policy analysis such as J.Wilkenfeld et al Foreign policy behavior:  The Interstate Behavior Analysis Model, J.N. Rosenau ‘Scientific study of foreign policy’,  L. Jenson ‘Explaining Foreign Policy’ and M.A. East et al (eds) ‘Why Nations Act: Theoretical perspectives for comparative foreign Policy Studies’ etc. , do not give due importance to the decision makers’ perception of the given situation (See J. Wilkenfeld, et al . op.cit; J.N. Rosenau. 1980. op. cit; L. Jensen. op. cit; M.A. East et al. op. cit.) The studies such as D.A. Sylvan and Steve Chan (eds) ‘Foreign policy Decision Making: Perception, Cognition and Artificial Intelligence’, R. Axelrod (ed) ‘Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites’ and R. Jervis ‘Perception and Misperception in International Politics ‘have provided some insights in to the significance of perception in foreign policy decision making. R.C. Synder et al (eds) ‘Foreign Policy Decision- making: An Approach to the study of International Politics ‘provided an approach to foreign policy perception in foreign policy decision making. The central point of their decision-making approach was that the foreign policy is formulated by the concrete human decision makers and an explanation of foreign policy requires the re- creation of the situation as viewed by the decisions makers (See D.A Sylan and Steve Chan. Foreign Policy Decision Making: Perception Cognition and Artificial Intelligence. New York: Praeger, 1984; R. Axelrod (ed). Structure of decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites. Princeton, N.J. Princeton University Press, 1976; R Jervis. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, N.J. Princeton University Press, 1976; R.C. Snyder et al. 1962. Op. cit. P.5; H. Gold. “Foreign Policy Decision-Making and the Environment: The Claims of Snyder, Brecher and the Sprouts” International Studies Quarterly. Vol .22. No.4 (December1978) P.P. 569-586). But of these studies provided an adequate framework for foreign policy analysis which could give due important to the decision makers’ perception of the given situation.

Hence the present study attempts at initiating an effort towards formulating a framework for foreign policy analysis which can give due to importance to the decision makers’ perception of the situation. The formulation of such a framework is attempted by establishing the relationship between ideology and foreign policy. The only major work which attempt to deal with Ideology- foreign policy relationship is W. Carlsnae’s ‘Ideology and foreign policy: Problems of Comparative Conceptualization’ (See W. Carlsnaes. Ideology and Foreign Policy: Problems of Comparative Conceptualization. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986). The study attempted to provide a framework for foreign policy analysis based on the intentional, dispositional and situational dimensions of explanations. The intentional dimension included the conceptual categories of choice implied in a policy and the motivation underlying its pursuit. The dispositional dimension included the conceptual categories of value and perceptions. The situational dimension included the categories of objectives conditions and organizational setting. Ideology was considered as corresponding to the international dimension of foreign policy analysis. Ideology was defined in the study as a political doctrine intended to motivate an actor to pursue certain actions for the sake of the collective interest of the nation (Ibid. P. 179).

Thus, though ideology – foreign policy relationship was established, no adequate framework for foreign policy analysis with the help of ideology was developed. Thus, much work needs to be done in this area of foreign policy analysis.

In the present study the formulation of the framework is attempted through analyzing the concept of ideology, identifying historical consciousness, perception of the situation, action orientation and action as its major aspects, and Appling it to foreign policy analysis is formulated by making use of the major aspects of ideology, it can be called the ideology called the Ideology Framework. As noted earlier, since the decision-making takes place within a psychological or dispositional setting shared both by the society and its decision makers, the politics initiated in a situation would necessarily be aimed at protecting, maintain or promoting the interests and aspirations of the people. In this context no factor can produce or sustain a foreign policy action which is against the interests and aspiration of the people. This is especially true with regard to a foreign policy action in a crisis situation. In a crisis foreign policy the images, values and interests of a state become sharply clarified on a well- defined issue. A foreign policy crisis could be considered as a break – point along the peace – war continuum of a state’s relations with any other international actor(s), characterized by a change its external or internal environment, which generates a threat to basic values, with a simultaneous or subsequent high probability of involvement in military hostilities, and the awareness of a finite time for their response to the external value threat. Moreover, a nation’s wars are the most emphatic expression of its foreign policy. (See M. Brecher 1972. Op. cit. PP.43-44; J.E. Holmes. The Mood/ Interest Theory of American Foreign Policy. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1985.P.77).

In order to substantiate the viability of applying the Ideology Framework for foreign policy analysis, the case of American foreign policy in Vietnam 1950-1975 is studied. The Ideology Framework is applied for studying the case by identifying the historical consciousness of America by 1950, the American perception on the international communism as a threat with special reference to Vietnam, America’s action orientation towards the perceived threat of international communism with special reference to Vietnam and the American foreign policy actions in Vietnam War 1950 – 1975. Thus, the study is both formulative and descriptive.

The thesis is divided in to seven chapters. The first chapter covers the introductory part of the study. The second chapter attempts to formulate a framework for foreign policy analysis with the help of ideology. Ideology is studied by placing it in a historical perspective. Subsequently ideology is conceptualized as a political doctrine aimed at motivating an actor in order to pursue certain actions in the collective interest of the state. This concept of ideology is then subjected to an analysis. As a result of the analysis four aspect of ideology which are inherent in the concept such as historical consciousness, perception of the situation, action orientation and action are identified. Action is considered as the final product. The process through which action comes into existence can be called the action process. Thus, the various stages or elements of the action process are historical consciousness, perception of the situation, action orientation and action. Social actions can be analyzed by identifying in hem the various elements of the action process. This framework for the analysis of actions can be called the ideology framework, as it is essentially formulated by making use of the major aspects of ideology. The ideology Framework can be applied for analyzing foreign policy actions of states. In order to substantiate the viability of this framework for foreign policy analysis, the case of American foreign policy in Vietnam war 1950- 1975, is studied.

Chapter three discusses the historical consciousness of the U.S. by the year 1950. It is studied by delineating the geographical features of the country, the ethnic composition of the people, their frontier experience, religious background, economic system, experience in foreign affairs, political beliefs, national character, values, nature of public opinion and expectations of the people.

Chapter four discusses how the decision makers of the U.S. perceived the Soviet communist system during the immediate post war period and also how the specific situation in Vietnam was perceived by them. According to the decision makers of the U.S. Soviet leaders and regarded that a conflict between Soviet Union and capitalist powers was inevitable, and were preparing Soviet Union for the clash. Hence the Soviet design posed a direct threat to the security of the U.S. Soviet Union tried to extend its power and influence throughout the world. By 1950, according to the perception of the decision makers of the U.S. Southeast Asia was the area under the most serious threat of communist domination. South Vietnam was perceived as the most strategic and key of Southeast Asia. Hence according to the U.S. perception, the loss of South Vietnam to communism could lead to the loss of Southeast Asia, which would thereby produce both domestic and international repercussions harmful to American interests. Thus, an independent, non – communist South Vietnam was perceived as vital for American security interests.

Chapter five deals with the action orientation of the U.S. decision makers towards the perceived threat from the Soviet communist system and also towards the specific situation in Vietnam. The U.S. oriented itself towards containing the expansion of the Soviet communist system, reducing the power and influence of the Soviet Union, inducing the Soviet Union to accommodate itself to coexistence on tolerable terms with the non – Soviet world and frustrating the Soviet design for world domination through the strategy of cold war. The U.S. also decided to demonstrate the superiority of the idea of freedom and build up the military, political and economic power of the U.S. and its allies in order to deter a war if possible and to defeat the communist forces if necessary. By 1950 the U.S. was set to block any further communist expansion in Southeast Asia. As South Vietnam was regarded as the most strategic and key area of Southeast Asia, the U.S. policies were oriented towards military victory in Vietnam for achieving the objective of an independent, non- communist South Vietnam and thereby demonstrating the determination of the U.S. to resist ‘communist aggression’.

Chapter six deals with the American foreign policy in Vietnam War from 1950 to 1975. American involvement in Vietnam War began in 1950 when President Truman decided to provide economic and military assistance to the French to defeat the Vietminh communist forces. But when the French were defeated by the Vietminh in 1954, America began direct economic and military assistance to South Vietnam and also convert operations against North Vietnam. The 1954 Geneva conference had provided for all- Vietnam elections to be conducted in 1956. But the elections were not held. After the Geneva conference America organized Southeast Asia treaty Organization (SEATO) and made commitment to assist its members including South Vietnam in defending against “communist aggression”. Thereafter American presence in South Vietnam steadily increased. In 1964 the congress passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution empowering the President to take all necessary measures to defined South Vietnam from “communist aggression”. Since then the American military presence in Vietnam began to escalate. But when the costs of the war became unacceptable to the people, the public support began to diminish. The 1968 Tet offensive by the communist forces was a turning point. Thereafter the American objective was disengaging from Vietnam after gaining an honorable peace settlement. In order to attain that objective America continued its war efforts. On January 27, 1973 President Nixon reached a peace settlement with North Vietnam. After promising its support to the Government of South Vietnam, America withdrew its troops from South Vietnam. But America did not provide the promised assistance to South Vietnam. On April 30, 1975 South Vietnam surrendered unconditionally to the communist forces.

Chapter seven concludes that the Ideology framework can be successfully applied for analyzing foreign policies of states by identifying in them the various elements of the action process such as historical consciousness, perception of the situation, action orientation and action.