Introduction
The object of the United Arab Emirates foreign policy is to ensure that the country maintains proper dealings with the neighboring foreign governments such as Iran as well as individuals and organizations. Every growing economy requires stability power and independence for the continued survival and sustenance of a competitive environment. Unlike all other countries foreign policies the United Arab Emirates foreign policy stands out in two major aspects in as far as conception and execution is concerned.
The policy is to a substantial extent restricted by the target population size and composition. The policy also serves an economy that has strategic geographical concerns as well as a great pocket of natural resources.
Secondly the seven member federation since its conception in 1971 has accumulated a sense of experience due to consistent leadership that has continually invested in a similar approach to foreign policy (George 43-68). With over three decades of consistent foreign policy the emirates have maintained the best interests of its people and country through the continuity and consistency in leadership.
Theoretical approaches have addressed the viability and validity of the foreign policy and the choices that have influenced the domestic policy. Even more compelling historians have proposed various criticisms to the various economic budgetary decisions that have been made towards the facilitation of foreign policy as well as the social ad democratic stands that have been adopted in line with the foreign policy such as conciliation as opposed to confrontation in the resolution of disputes.
The policy structure has managed to sustain a security and stability within the adjacent Arabian Gulf as well as the peninsula states including the littoral states of Iran and Iraq. Inadvertently the emirates have been left with little choice in the mitigation and mediation of the conflict between Iraq and Iran that has survived thirty years. It has maintained a sober relationship with Iran even in the face of the constant aggression and agitation that has been associated with the country in the past three years.
This paper addresses the theoretical perspectives that have been addressed by historical scientists in explaining justifying or criticizing the various decisions that have been adopted in the interests of a sustained foreign policy.
Theoretical perspectives
Realism
Realism has taken a foreground in the explanation and motivation of the creation adoption and implementation of foreign policies around the world. As it were realism cannot be explicitly embraced as a theory but rather as an explicit set of assumptions or a philosophical disposition. Realist approach emphasizes on an international realm of power and relations with specific regard to political constraints imposed by human nature.
In a strict sense nature is conceived as egoistic and inclined to immoral principles (Donnelly 6). Realist proponents all agree that the approach is motivated by an egoistic approach to international or other politics. They propose that it is of no importance to place the burden of demands on the human being if such burden is greater than the frailty of humanity and the ability to fulfill them is inadequate. It therefore disputes any attempts to place hope on human nature and considers any such attempts as hearsay.
From this stand it the conception of the human and by extension the object of international relations and foreign policy is beyond power alone. The sole purpose of such relations is to ensure that justice is executed in all depths and heights of human life. The need for justice is inspired by the urge to receive as well as offer it.
These reflections have often motivated the thirty year old foreign policy of United Arab Emirates. Prior to 1971 when the Trucial states were still independent, their northern neighbor Iran was considered one of the most powerful country in the gulf. This was bond to affect the tone adopted in the formulation of the foreign policy after the unification of the states in 1971.
Contrary to this layman understanding the object of the foreign policy originally conformed to the realist approach that defeats’ the view that power is the only consideration in international relations. The policy was formulated with the intent of ensuring that United Arab Emirates maintained friendly ties with its neighbors regardless of the power differences at the time.
Realism has historically been said to borrow from the reactions against the interwar ideology. As it were it is considered as a critique of idealism and a post world war II reaction to the failure of idealist thinking. The primary emphasis of realism is solely on egoistic passions that critique the presence of evil in the political arena.
Realists acknowledge therefore that conflict is inevitable (Mearsheimer p. 27). The United Arab Emirates foreign relations with Iran have been no exception. The initial stages of implementation of the foreign policy were faced by a great challenge that came in the form of Iran’s renewed territorial claims on three of United Arab Emirates islands, Greater Tunb, lesser Tunb and Abu Musa. In essence it would be a profitless adventure to hypothesize a world without conflict or at least groupings that attempt to cause conflict.
These conflicts and egoistic passions form the core essence of politics. It is the merge between the egoism and anarchy that forms the authoritative world government. The primary players in the international arena are multinational companies and nongovernmental organizations. The difference however between the barbarism that exists in the absence of the world government and civilization is the enforcement of political hierarchical authority.
The continued assertion by Iran over the islands can be explained by the realist resignation that states act as rational autonomous actors with the object of self interest and the object of individual security sovereignty and survival. In furtherance of individual interest the states will aim to amass resources with the power influence that the individual professes. This cause has been criticized as non progressionist since the process of amassing wealth leads to conflict of equal or greater magnitude.
The neorealist approach that represents the modernist ideas suggests that the evaluation of state actions should be influenced by the nature of the structure. Structure bears a twofold explanation in the international relations context. It can either be the ordering principle i.e. anarchy or the capability distribution.
Neorealists suggest that human nature drives the state to put the interests of the public over those of ideology. This approach can be said to justify the conciliatory approach of the United Arab Emirates in the islands dispute as opposed to confrontation. The state opted to seek diplomatic support from Britain in resolving the issue.
Liberalism
This approach suggests that state behavior can best be analyzed from the perspective of state preferences as opposed to its capabilities. Unlike the realist the liberal approach allows for plurality in the states behavior. It is therefore the case that depending on cultural economic and political situations and environments the state actions will vary.
The interaction between states is not merely founded on the political channel. It goes to the economical aspect through commercial firm’s individuals and organizations. As it is the cooperation between states generates absolute gains in the form of peace and tranquility.
Primarily the social context forms the precise purpose and creation of government. Society is therefore at the heart of the political debate and is therefore analytically ranked prior to the state. Society is constructed by individual autonomous interests addressed in the embodiment of organizations which act as vehicle for the claim of the individual’s political or economic interests. It is from these interactions that social and political order is built.
A neoliberals stand reverts to a state based approach which leaves room for a pluralist conception of society that rejects the claim of the existence of automatic harmony of the interests of individuals and the absence of conflict. This presents a rather obvious and even tatulogical construction that states do what they do because they want to.
However there lies more to the statement than meets the eye since the understanding is that the role of external constraints such as military muscle and economic strength in influencing the level of uncertainty and bargaining power is a relevant factor in determining the suitability of state actions. The means therefore are of more importance than the end.
United Arab Emirates has maintained a close touch with this approach in its readiness to opt for a conciliatory policy that has allowed or negotiations and mitigation in the interests of individual interests in security and peace and for the sake of business transactions.
In the same measure the pluralist approach of negotiating on one end while acquiring influence on the other hand subscribes to this approach. Prior to 1992 the United Arab Emirates government was content with restating its position of territorial rights to the three islands to ensure that the issue remained on the world agenda. In the same spirit it continued to pursue a conciliatory mandate.
Through direct negotiations with Iran on sovereignty concerns. The neoliberals’ approach that emphasizes on the evaluation of absolute as opposed to relative gains has been adopted in the policy formulation by the United Arab Emirates as the policy weighs the opportunity cost of conciliatory as opposed to a combative approach.
Constructivism
This approach was developed in the later years of the 20th century of world politics. The approach seeks to increase the scope of the existing theories rather than undermine them. It borrows the perspective that the environment in which a state operates is of great relevance in the determination of the actions of such a state. Society and its concerns are considered to be at the heart of politics.
Therefore the social elements and concepts such as anarchy, power, and national interest as well as security standoffs are perceived as social constructs as opposed to the view that they are ineluctable results of the structure of systems. The basic ideas of allies and enemies that are based on the beneficial interests and the conflict of such interests are also categorized among social constructs.
The primary idea here is that the concept of anarchy is a creation of the state. At this point ideas as well as norms create the essential interests in the international arena (Farrell 49-72). Constructivism is primarily more of an approach than a theory since the insistence on the role of norms often triumphs campaign for individual interests.
The theory forms a proper standpoint for the analysis of the United Arab Emirates Foreign Policy towards Iran in as far as the democratic peace thesis is concerned. The United Arab Emirates made frantic attempted at resolving the standoff through bilateral negotiations in 1971 and later in 1990s. The attempts were unsuccessful due to the adamancy of the Iranian administration. The United Arab Emirates has however tried to ensure that the matter remains on the world picture even as Iran continues to increase its presence in the islands
The best theory at predicting and explaining this foreign policy stance
The liberal approach seems more appropriate in giving a tentative analysis of the policy in as far as substance and form. The approach goes to justify the various decisions that have been adopted by United Arab Emirates in as far as reaction to the continued denial of Iran of the existence of sovereignty concerns as well.
The emirates continue to patiently tolerate the actions by the Iranian authorities for peace purposes. The constructivism approach on the other hand fails to substantially justify the attitude adopted by the United Arab Emirates in its policy towards Iran and therefore does not effectively explain the objective of the policy effectively.
Detail their strengths and weaknesses
The approaches have received credit for offering theoretical justification and background for the formulation of the policy as wells the historical basis that explains the moral and ethical provisions International relations have transformed over the past century. Proponents of the realist approach have often been heard to claim superiority of the theory in explaining high deterrence politics containment and alliances, wars as well as the low politics of trade and currency (Sterling pp 73-97).
This however can be said to fail in the context of low politics since they operate under the influence of domestic influences and this is an essential element of international relations. In the same line of though the adoption of a purely realist thought would be to ignore the contemporary international political arena with specific reference to Iran and the United Arab Emirates in which nuclear weapons have contributed heavily to the maintenance of peace between the two countries as well as the major powers.
The value of alternative theories to the liberal approach has been faced with criticisms. The face value impression of the post modern perspective fails to substantially effect a clear evaluation of the central concerns in the world political arena and by extension foreign policies. In effect their contribution to diplomatic history as well as political science remains minimal.
The approach offers little knowledge if any of the basis and rationale behind the policy adaptations. These approaches have also failed to provide tentative solutions to post modern concerns such as war oppression and poverty. The progress that has been made in these concerns has little attachment to the claims of the above theories.
Behaviors been expected from the theories analyzed
The adamancy of Iran in acknowledgement of the existence of sovereignty concerns were predicted by the liberal and realist approaches since Iran has a self interest of amassing wealth as well as protecting the existing wealth. The presence of conflict and strife in international relations is not any strange to the three theories since they recommend and indicate that it falls within society to bear conflict.
The state of affairs remains at a stalemate (Brown 213-36). The two states cannot find an amicable solution or compromise unless one of the parties decides to surrender their interests to the other for the sake of security. Iran continues to take advantage of her superior power both economically and in the military to maintain a rigid position. All these are consequences that can be easily constructed by the trend that the three theories suggest.
Conclusion
Throughout the century certain pertinent concerns have remained constant most of which lie in the Arabian Gulf. The United Arab Emirates has continuously campaigned for the maintenance and sustenance of political security and economic stability. During this time the strengths of its international relations policy has been tested by two armed conflicts (Gaddis 99-142).
The collapse of the Soviet Union as well as the general trend towards capitalist ideology has made the emirates to adjust its foreign policy towards Iran to reflect a modernist approach to the claim its interest. The safe and gradual change has been greatly attributed to the consistent and stable leadership since 1971. For all intents and purposes all the approaches are relevant and necessary but yet none is fully sufficient.
Works Cited
Brown, Chris. “`Turtles All the Way Down’: Anti-Foundationalsim, Critical Theory and International Relations,” Millennium 23, No. 2.1994: 213-36
Donnelly, Jack. Realism and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.2000. pp 6
Farrell, Theo. “Constructivist Security Studies: Portrait of a Research Program,” International Studies Review 4 2002: 49-72
Gaddis, John. “The Long Peace: Elements of Stability in the Postwar International System,” International Security 10 Spring 1986: 99-142.
George, Alexander. “Case Studies and Theory Development: The Method of Structured, Focused Comparison,” in Lauren, ed., Diplomacy, pp43-68
Mearsheimer, John and Stephen, Van Evera. “Redraw the May, Stop the Killing,” New York Times. 1999, pp. A27.
Sterling, Jennifer. “Realism and the Constructivist Challenge: Rejecting, Reconstructing or Rereading,” International Studies Review 4. 2002, 73-97.