Leaders Perspectives, Personality, and Ideology Shaped State Foreign Policy.

A leader’s personality is likely to affect how she or he organizes the executive, Some leaders gain insight from hearing their advisors debate issues  in their presence, while others like to ponder the policy options their advisors provide to them in solitude. Some leaders are intent that their preferences shape policy, whereas others want policy choices to reflect a consensus among various viewpoints. It also matters whether a leader wishes to be actively involved in foreign policy making, actively seeking out information and shaping the policy options, or, conversely, prefers to rely on the expertise of trusted advisors who help define issues and gather information. Leaders are more likely to actively seek out information when they feel knowledgeable about (and comfortable with) foreign affairs and when they trust the bureaucracy.

How we perceive our world is not only dependent on context but also  quite resistant to change. Perceptions that may have been accurate at one time endure. They become the perspective from which we view the world—the image we have of the world—even if the circumstances have changed. That image guides our interpretation of new information about  our environment and the actors in it.

For instance, why would the leaders of Argentina decide to invade a  group of small islands off their coast in 1982 and risk a war with Britain?Argentina was at the time led by a three-person junta (or military dictatorship), consisting of the President and Commander in chief of the Army,  General Leopoldo F. Galtieri, the Commander in chief of the Navy,  Admiral Jorge I. Anaya, and the Commander in chief of the Air Force,  Brigadier Basilio Lami Dozo.

A focus on the personality or character of leaders is often motivated by  questions such as these: What sort of personality makes a good leader? What sort of leader will this person make? What sort of personality is the leader of that country?  it is not easy to define the qualities that make a good leader. It is easier to determine the personality of a leader and predict what sort of leadership we might expect from that individual.

Leaders decision are so important to foreign act of a country’s it solely determines the country actions and inaction, for instance Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq, invaded Kuwait in the early 1990s only to find that the United States, under President George H. W. Bush put together a coalition to push him back out. Saddam Hussein knew that the United States was more powerful and much better armed than Iraq.

Although Iraq had, in those days, one of the stronger militaries in the region, it was no match for a superpower. Saddam Hussein may have calculated that the United States was too preoccupied with the demise of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the latter’s economy to worry about his invasion of a small neighboring state. A meeting with the American ambassador to Iraq, career diplomat April Glaspie, reinforced his assessment. She  made the now-famous statement that “we have no opinion on the Arab - Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait.”1 Sadam Hussein may have interpreted this to mean that the United States would not take action if his military attacked Kuwait. Should he have realized that the United States, no matter how much it appeared to be otherwise  engaged, could not accept his seizure of the small, but oil-rich Kuwait?.

Or is Why Trump Is Getting Away With Foreign-Policy Insanity

the world saw was a U.S. president Trump on U.S.-Russian  rejecting the findings of his own intelligence services—now headed by his own appointees, by the way—and accepting at face value Putin’s entirely predictable denials. Trump also tossed in a word salad of discredited conspiracy theories about former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s email server and other irrelevant nonsense, and he said that the legitimate investigation into possible Russian interference was utterly baseless and bad for the country. (That very last claim might be true—i.e., the suspicion that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia is bad for the country—but whether it is without foundation remains to be seen.) (sources Foreignpolicy.com)

Hence, when seeking to explain foreign policy  decisions, it is more fruitful to start with the assumption that the leaders  who made these puzzling decisions were rational human beings trying their best to make “good” foreign policy decisions for their countries.

Materials and references 

A Comparetive introduction foreign policy analysis Marijki B

Conceptualization of foreign policy level of Analysis

Traditionally, the study of foreign policy has focused primarily on the quest to maintain and enhance a country’s power and security. It centered on questions of averting war when possible, deciding to fight if necessary, and  first and foremost ensuring the integrity of the country’s borders.

It's agenda does not stop with security and economic issues: in recent decades, environmental issues have increasingly gained attention; so have issues such as human rights, population growth and migration, food and energy policies, as well as foreign aid, development, and the relations between richer and poorer countries.

Foreign policy behavior is the acting out of the decision. In our example, it would be the act of invading Kuwait. Foreign policy behavior can often be described fairly straightforwardly: it consists of the actions taken to influence the behavior of an external actor or to secure a benefit for the country itself. Especially the policy makers of smaller countries often focus more on securing tangible benefits for their own state (such as military assistance or development aid) than on obtaining political influence globally (by, e.g., promoting free trade or democracy) The outcome of actions depends not just on the decision taken by the leaders of one country, but also on how other actors in the international environment react to those actions.

Variances and key terms of foreign policy Analysis 

Relative Capability 

The  explanation focuses on the relative power of states in the world and sometimes also in specific regional subsystems.

For example of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait also shows that the constraints imposed by being a small and weak country are generally enduring factors affecting that state’s foreign policy. Kuwait’s smallness makes it vulnerable to belligerent neighbors and in need of more powerful allies.

Individual level of Analysis 

The individual level of analysis focuses on leaders and decision makers in an effort to explain foreign policy. It assumes that individuals shape the course of history, because it is their choices and decisions that drive the course of events. The analysis of individuals might focus on either their personalities or on their perceptions —how they make sense of their world and event occurs in it

This implies that individuals and the decisions they make are a major determinant of foreign policy. In order to understand foreign policy decisions and behaviors, then, we must understand leaders and their personalities, perceptions, and motivations. 

In addition,domestic political institutions and public opinion may also play a role, depending on the nature of the political system.

The state level of analysis

It focuses on factors internal to the state as those that compel states to engage in specific foreign policy behaviors, this level of analysis,  emphasis is on how factors internal to the state influence the behavior of that state on the global stage. From a decision making perspective, these factors are often characterized as constraints that determine the parameters of the possible for leaders.

 The system level of analysis

It focuses on comparisons (and interactions) between states. This level of analysis asks questions about the relative power of states.

 The system level of analysis makes certain assumptions about

the political interests of countries, among which is first and foremost the idea that a state’s power is central to its ability to maintain the integrity of its borders. However, the definition of political interest, sometimes called national interest, is not necessarily straightforward.

References foreign policy analysis a comparative introduction (Marijke B) 

The Critic of Recent Foreign Policy Act In Burkina Faso

Historical Background experience of Burkina Faso. 

Burkina Faso is landlocked country in West Africa around 274,200 square kilometres (105,900 sq mi) in size. It is surrounded by six countries: Mali to the north; Niger to the east; Benin to the southeast; Togo and Ghana to the south; and Ivory Coast to the southwest. Its capital is Ouagadougou. Burkina Faso (formerly Upper Volta) achieved independence from France in 1960. Repeated military coups during the 1970s and 1980s were followed by multiparty elections in the early 1990s. Its government structure is a military junta. Burkina Faso's high population growth and limited natural resources result in poor economic prospects for the majority of its citizens.

United States , France AND West Africa COUNTIES UNITE TO FIGHT Terrorism In Burkina Faso 

His Excellency Roch Marc Christian Kaboré, participated in a high-level G5 Sahel meeting on Monday 18 September, 2017. The objective of the meeting was to make the international community aware of the urgent need to support the joint anti-terrorist force which will begin operations in October, despite having received just a quarter of its budget. In addition to the funding issue, discussions focused on the relationship between the G5 Force and the UN forces.

Recently people were killed when gunmen struck a restaurant and hotel in the capital Ouagadougou  exposing a days-old government to a critical security challenge that risks derailing its pledge to transform the economy of one of the poorest nations on earth.The jihadists behind the Ouagadougou attack have called the bloodbath that left 30 people dead last week a drop in the sea of global jihad and said it comes within a series of operations to cleanse the land of Islam and Muslims from the dens of global espionage, according to a translation published by SITE Intelligence Group.

Burkina Faso, which has suffered several jihadist attacks, the first in January 2016 and the latest in July 2017, is tackling the problem head on. Among the measures taken by President Kaboré, who is calling for a merciless fight against this global scourge, and his Government are: the setting up of a full Department of Homeland Security and the appointment of a Minister of Defense, the redeployment of the security and defense forces (SDFs) in the north, equipping the SDF, strengthening international cooperation and joint operations with Mali (and with the French Barkhane force in particular).

The attack on the Radisson Blu, like the recent violence in Ouagadougou, was claimed by an alliance between al-Qaida and the feared Algerian extremist Moktar Belmokar. In addition to staging attacks in Mali, he also was behind a series of bombings in Niger in 2013. Now people across the region wonder what his next target will be.security officials, authorities in Burkina Faso also had begun monitoring activities in mosques and the movement of some imams they suspected of fomenting extremism. In early December 2006, several men from Niger and Nigeria who said they were coming to preach in Burkina Faso were questioned and then expelled. The government has managed to keep the regions extremist jihadist forces at bay even as bloody insurgencies are waged in neighboring countries. Burkina Faso has remained a steadfast U.S. ally in the war on terrorism and is lauded by the State Department as a cooperative partner in the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP), a U.S.-led initiative in North and West Africa designed to confront al-Qaeda. The State Department has not made any major pronouncements about the recent rallies or the possibility of Compaores re-election. On the contrary, the United States has remained more concerned with continuing military co-operation through the TSCTP than bringing up the issue of political unrest Kabore and his ministers have taken to the airwaves to reassure the public, investors and potential tourists that the government can face down the threat facing Burkina Faso, one of a belt of French-speaking countries in the Sahel, south of the Sahara.

In the days to come, France is set to play an important security role both in terms of investigating the attack and using its intelligence network to track potential threats. Burkina's former colonial master has around 200 special forces based in Ouagadougou as part of a regional operation against Islamist insurgents. Some of them participated in the counter-attack that killed three of Friday's attackers.

At the diplomatic level, the country is part of the African Union and ECOWAS. Burkina Faso Armed Forces are part of the ECOWAS Standby Force, and multilateral exercises have been conducted under that heading. Additionally, security and military cooperation with neighboring countries is paramount and is specified in Burkina Faso's defense policy. The country, therefore, has excellent security and military cooperation relationships with neighboring countries at strategic and local levels.

This strong security cooperation was demonstrated in the investigation of the terrorist attacks in Ouagadougou; Bamako, Mali; and Abidjan, C^ote d'Ivoire; through efficient information sharing that led to the arrest of suspects in all three countries. The creation of the G5 Sahel Group, a political grouping of Sahelian countries that includes Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger, will only strengthen this cooperation. This has allowed for improved information sharing and the creation of joint border operations. Moreover, Burkina Faso has increased security and military cooperation with strategic partners such as France, Taiwan and the United States. This cooperation includes new foreign bases, training, equipment programs and joint operations

The president has also taken credit for mediating conflict resolutions in war-torn neighboring countries. In June 2013, Compaores government hosted talks between the Malian government and two Tuareg rebels groups  the Movement for the National Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) and the High Council for the Unity of Azawad (HCUA)  in Ouagadougou. The Ouagadougou Accords that resulted were a preliminary agreement aimed at resolving the lingering tensions between the Malian government and Tuareg rebels following last years French-led military operation (Operation Serval) that dispersed AQIM and MUJAO from northern Mali. In 2011, Compaore hosted AU-sponsored talks in Burkina Faso to help mediate the Cote DIvoire crisis. Two years earlier, the Burkinabe president secured the release of two Canadian envoys for the United Nations whom AQIM had kidnapped in Niger for 130 days. During the 2008 coup in Guinea, Compaore helped mediate the aftermath. And in 2006, Compaore played a role in brokering negotiations that ended a crisis in neighboring Togo.

Reference 

https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en

http://www.imuna.org/resources/

http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/AJBR/article-full-text/EA2707452040

The Army and the Exercise of Power in Burkina Faso

PDFhttps://www.files.ethz.ch isn

China Rising: Whither Taiwan in Africa? - SOAS University of London

PDFhttps://www.soas.ac.uk eats file43256

http://itweb.co.za/mobilesite/defenceweb/home/item_id-46811/

Critics and Rationale on the diplomatic Trump's speech on Buhari (liveless Sag)

Assuming without necessarily conceding that US President Donald J. Trump's alleged characterisation of President Muhammadu Buhari as 'lifeless' were true, it would still be highly preposterous for the US President to have made such an incendiary comment on his Nigerian counterpart. This is not because Trump does not have a history of hauling insults at other leaders across the world much more distinguished than himself. It is well known how often he does that. This gets really bad each time he lapses into his legendary tweeter fits, a pattern that partly informs the title of Omarosa's best selling book. Rather, it is because it is so undiplomatic a comment to make by one supposedly friendly country against another. 

After all, much as he has shown little or no respect for Africans, and their leaders, DJT did not squirm at receiving some close to $500 million, which the Nigerian president had to hurriedly pay on the eve of his US trip in April 2018, for some nondescript military helicopters, which won't even be delivered until 2020. Recall that there were concerns, loudly expressed in Nigeria, that the country's laws seemed to have been bypassed in the hurry to effect the payment. Yet, President Trump did not consider it appropriate to discuss the possibility of turning down the payment, if only temporarily, for the Nigerian government to do the needful in terms of compliance with relevant laws of the country. 

If indeed Trump made the remarks attributed to him, the Nigerian government must act swiftly and commensurately. It must invite the US ambassador and hand him a protest letter to his president. This must be accompanied by a statement carefully crafted to highlight some of the more contemptible traits that form the Trump persona, and how much Nigeria, like several countries around the world, try to live with such only out of courtesy. 

This type of response is not for a Buhari campaign organization to make, for this is far from being a local partisan spat. Indeed, it does not matter how Nigerians feel about President Buhari, and some of us feel strongly that he has not acquainted himself creditably enough in the office he holds. The truth is that the president currently personifies Nigeria. Any insult to him, therefore, is unquestionably an insult to all Nigerians, nay all Africans, at whom Mr. Trump has hauled multiple snide remarks since he got catapulted into an office that is obviously too large for him. For the US President, African countries are nothing but 'shitholes.' At that April 2018 meeting, he pointed disrespectfully at, and said sarcastically of Buhari, 'he likes copters!' His former Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, he fired in a disgraceful manner while the gentleman was on tour of Africa. Not even that most distinguished global diplomatic icon and former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, was good enough to attract an eulogy from the American president when the former passed on. What is more, just a few days ago, Trump tweeted falsely about the delicate efforts being made by the South African government to negotiate the complex land ownership question in the country, one of the more iniquitous legacies of apartheid. 

Everywhere you turn, Trump enjoys dragging Africans, their countries, and leaders in the mud. 

In spite of its current challenges, Nigeria remains one of the few countries on the continent that can at least call Trump to order. Abuja should not for any reason lose this opportunity to do exactly that. Trump's country is rich, no doubt. Africa is not. Even so, lack itself can sometimes be borne with equanimity. Trump must be brought to the realization that he cannot continue to take his country's expansive capability at doling out support to poorer countries as licence for insulting our being. For, truly, Africa has options, and would not for the love of the greenback endure all manners of indignities from the Trump White House. Small wonder, it is said in my Yoruba cultural space, that any human being worthy of being so called wouldn't for the love of beef condescend so low to make obeisance to cows!

Source @FemiMimiko

A SUMMARY OF THE NIGERIAN FOREIGN POLICY UNDER GENERAL SANI ABACHA ADMINISTRATION

   The Abacha administration itself was not only a child of circumstance, but was also the main beneficiary of Nigeria’s protracted political logjam following the annulment of the popularly acclaimed free and fair presidential elections that had produced Chief Abiola as the winner. This crisis, coupled with Abacha’s anti-democratic posture from the start opened the floodgate of problems for Nigeria’s image abroad and undermined its respect in the international community, Washington had to canceled the visas of important military personnel, restricted arms sales, halted all U.S. economic and military aid, and cut off Nigeria’s access to trade credits and guarantees (Fadope, 1997). 

   Also Abacha initiated foreign act tagged "Abachaism" , he taught it wise to save Nigerian money abroad for Nigerian at home, Even though this foreign act brought an untold hardship to Nigerian citizen who were forced to live under abject poverty and hunger during his regime.

   Interestingly, the regime incurred unprecedented opprobrium when it executed nine persons, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, a champion of the Ogoni people, who inhabit a portion of the Niger Delta, where oil production has resulted in severe environmental degradation.
Prior to the executions, the President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, had sought to influence General Abacha and his associates by means of quiet diplomacy. However, the killing have generate different critics from different scholars, but my own intake to justify to some extent that the  killing are in line with protection Nigeria national interest are of the following:
1. The killings were part of the attempt to silence the opposition and assert control over the country
2. The nationalism activity of the Ogoni's and Ken Saro-Wiwa may lead to another outbreak of civil war, if their activities are not put to check
3. Abacha’s acts toward his domestic affairs clearly portrait him as un-compromised leadership, who uphold the sovereignty of the country from external influence.