Unequal Voices: The Educational Gap of Voting Choices in the Swiss Direct Democracy

Issues in Australian Foreign Policy January to June 2022

Foreign policy is unpredictable and has no specific domestic or international boundary. The scope is not static; issues in foreign policy are continuous. Therefore, no government consciously design her foreign policy outlook, the focus of any foreign policy would depend heavily on events in and around the nation and Nigeria is not an exception. The concept of Africa as the centre-piece of Nigerian’s foreign policy has emerged as the most consistent theme that runs through her foreign policies in all the various regimes. Foreign policy of Nigeria could be called a three concentric circle, this concentric circle clearly puts Nigeria’s interest first, West African Sub-region second and then the rest of Africa. It is very crucial to note that between 1960 and 1990, eighteen civil wars in Africa resulted in about 7 million deaths and spawned 5 million refugees. Nigeria cannot ignore Africa’s problems rather she must maintain the principle of Afrocentrism. This is so because; one out of every five Africans is a Nigerian. This paper therefore seeks to critically analyze the core issues in Nigerian foreign policy and challenges facing Nigerian foreign policy in the fourth republic, some recommendations will also be suggested.

Introduction Historically, health has occupied the lower echelons of national priorities. Over the past decade, however, national policy-makers have increasingly recognized the deleterious impacts that health crises may have on national interests. As a result, particular health issues occasionally have been elevated within national agendas, especially if they have implications for foreign policy and/or they are perceived as threats to national security. Identifying a health issue as a foreign policy or security issue, or both, may lead to higher prioritization and more attention from top policy-makers, in turn, bringing greater political support and more funding. (1) While health professionals may welcome the higher profile and greater resources given to their issues, characterizing a health issue as a national priority (and particularly as a security issue) may change the understanding of a health threat, put relatively greater emphasis on the views of those outside the health community and potentially alter the approach to solving the problem. Consequently, care should be taken in deciding which health issues should be given priority on par with national security issues and included explicitly in national foreign policy. We support the assertion that [w]hile it is clear that health issues often intersect with security issues, not all health challenges represent security concerns. (2) Health issues that do not pose security threats should not be contextualized as such, since doing so may detract from overarching public health and foreign policy objectives. At the same time, however, we believe that efforts to address all types of health issues through foreign policy contribute to overall improvements in diplomatic relations, which may enhance the security of countries. Health in foreign policy Many health challenges, particularly infectious diseases, are widely recognized as global concerns that do not respect borders. As a result, countries often include in their foreign policies strategies on diseases that have the potential to threaten domestic interests. Public health challenges that are not concomitant security threats should be given consideration as foreign policy priorities on their own merits, without forcing them to be viewed through the prism of national security. One example of a health issue that is addressed through foreign policy but is not a security issue is poliomyelitis. The eradication of polio requires sustained financial commitments and coordinated international efforts. Such coordination has resulted from countries negotiating high-level political commitments under the auspices of the Group of Eight (G8) and other organizations that are not typically seen as health institutions. Despite polio's role as a major cause of disability (and consequent loss of productivity), donor commitment to the Polio Eradication Initiative is not rooted in a concern for its economic or security impact, but in the belief that eradication would be a major victory for public health and would achieve a global good. The impetus for the international effort against polio is not national security concerns but an altruistic desire to ameliorate human morbidity and mortality. Thus, it can be argued that polio eradication is a foreign policy issue for countries, but not a national security issue. Although characterizing a health issue as a foreign policy issue may provide greater visibility and greater funding, there is also a likelihood that programmes associated with such health priorities may be subject to enhanced political scrutiny. Additionally, identifying a particular health issue as a national (or international) priority inherently alters its importance relative to other public health issues. Since resources are generally limited and new funding is difficult to obtain, there is a great risk that the prioritized disease will draw resources away from other health programmes. …

The aim of this article is to analyze the influence of the Swiss political system on the country’s banking sector. Is the Swiss direct democracy, which has no counterpart in any other country, an advantageous factor for the development and functioning of the banking sector? In order to fully answer this question, the author has analyzed the results of direct voting on the Swiss bank regulations. He has concluded that there is an important and direct influence of the political system on the functioning of the financial sector. The analysis of the results of various federal referenda confirms the thesis that the Swiss direct democracy (with its instruments of popular initiative and referendum) has a decisive influence on the regulatory process in the country’s banking sector.

The article examines the role of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) in the U.S. domestic and foreign policy making during the Barack Obama and Donald Trump administrations. The CBC structure, functions, main activities and relations with the executive power are analyzed. The CBC is one of the most influential congressional factions, which both other legislators and the executive branch of government reckon with. Under the Obama administration, CBC demonstrated the growing interest in foreign policy issues. At the same time, the U.S. color population-related problematique remained the CBC’s highest priority. Barak Obama, the first U.S. black president, failed to meet color people’s expectations while the black community viewed him as “its representative” in the government. He did not pay proper attention to the U.S. ethnic communities’ needs. On the one hand, his presidency was affected by tensions between Republicans and Democrats in the Congress which impeded implementation of his legislative agenda oriented to the color peoples’ needs. On the other hand, President Obama’s personal style was characterized by inconsistency and the lack of political will which again negatively affected his relations with the Afro-American community. Nonetheless, with the CBC support, a number of color population-focused programs have been launched in the areas, such as education, health care, social adaptation and immigration policies. Under the Republican president Donald Trump, the CBC retained its influence on American political process. However, its relations with the White House are of conflictual rather than cooperative nature. Particularly, the CBC is discontent with Trump’s policies in areas such as inter-ethnic relations, social security, health care, education, and immigration. The Black Caucus believes that Trump tries to undermine the fundamentals and achievements of Obama’s social policies that were beneficial for the U.S. color population and poor people. Given the CBC-Trump controversies on domestic policy issues, the Caucus does not pay much attention to the foreign policy problematique preferring to react to specific international challenges (for example, humanitarian issues or potential U.S. military interventions abroad) rather than to have a proactive foreign policy strategy. It should be noted, however, that the CBC does not completely identify itself with the Democratic party’s political course (although all its members are Democrats). For example, the CBC didn’t not support Washington’s hegemonic ambitions and actions in the cases of the Syrian and Venezuelan crises or Trump’s overtly pro-Israeli policies in the Near East. Hopefully, in the future, when (and if) the U.S. political establishment will start to overcome its Russophobia, Moscow could cooperate with the CBC taking into account its important role in shaping Washington’s African and Latin American policies. As the CBC’s previous political activities demonstrate, this grouping can be open for cooperation in different ways, such as traditional and public diplomacy, inter-parliamentary links, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, and so on.

The trajectory of Australia's foreign policy during the 2010s was set remarkably early in the decade. Over a period of just five months, beginning in April 2010, then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd abandoned his Emissions Trading Scheme, Rudd's Labour colleagues subsequently dumped him as leader in favour of Julia Gillard, and Hugh White's essay Power Shift: Australia's Future between Washington and Beijing was published.1 These events decisively framed three enduring and unresolved national questions that defined the past decade of Australian foreign policy: how should we respond to climate change?; are our political leaders still capable of delivering large-scale reform in the national interest?; and how do we navigate a world in which our key security partner and our key economic partner are not the same?

Many scholars of European integration have treated the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) as a specific area of the EU. This is due to the fact that CFSP, and before it the European Political Cooperation (which was a nucleus of CFSP), have remained primarily an intergovernmental framework, although other EC pillars evolved to a much higher supranational degree over the years. For some theorists of European integration it was a clear sign that foreign and security policy would always remain the realm of national governments, which occasionally were willing to coordinate their national interests. According to the old dictum of Stanley Hoffmann, this area of state activity belongs to so-called “high politics,” meaning that advanced integration in this field, in the sense of a creation of supranational institutions, will never materialize. This train of thought, called neo-realism in the discipline of International Relations, regards foreign policy as a highly controversial area guarded by national governments. This is so because foreign policy is essential to the survival of states and their citizens. It is also claimed that sovereign foreign policy is crucial for democracy, since civil and political rights can only be safeguarded by nation-states. Thus, national governments regard the issues of foreign and security policy in terms of relative gains, that is, states define the utility of political decisions with regard to gains of other states (other states should not be allowed to gain more from cooperative arrangements than oneself because they may abuse their lead).

Do political parties matter when it comes to Canadian foreign policy? Conventional wisdom says they do. We often hear the argument that some past decision would not have been made if only another had been in power, or that some current policy is likely to be overturned as soon as another comes into power. The parties themselves have worked hard to encourage this way of thinking, playing up the coherence and continuity of foreign policy priorities within parties and the supposedly stark differences between them. Yet there are some enduring patterns in Canadian foreign policy that seem to over-ride differences. Governing parties sometimes pursue policies that seem starkly at odds with what they have told us about their purposes and priorities. And while Canadians seem to have strong feelings about parties' foreign policy choices, opinion polls suggest that foreign policy issues usually have little to do with most Canadians' voting decisions. In fact there are a number of reasons why we might expect political parties to matter very little in Canada, perhaps even less than in other comparable countries. How do we reconcile these apparent discrepancies? When and how does make a difference?Much has been written about the question of parties and foreign policy in Canada, but most of it takes the form of a passing reference here or there, never really explained or supported. We still do not yet have any sustained efforts to think about the question theoretically, or to try to answer the question systematically (as opposed to anecdotally) . This is particularly striking in the textbooks on Canadian foreign policy. Most of them have paid at least some attention to the role of parliament - or, in most accounts, the non -role of parliament - in foreign policymaking. But their concern is with the relationship between the prime minister and parliament as an institution, or between the cabinet and parliament in general terms, and they refer to parties and partisanship only incidentally.1 Kim Richard Nossal' s landmark The Politics of Canadian Foreign Policy - which, as the title suggests, is specifically concerned with the political institutions and processes that bring about foreign policy decisions - covers political parties in about three pages.2 Nossal concludes that parties generally have not been important, mostly because of the broad consensus between the two major parties on foreign policy issues during the Cold War.3 This is probably correct, and might still be true even after the end of the Cold War. But even where there is broad agreement on foreign policy goals, there can still be important disagreements about how to pursue them, and these differences over means and details could still leave plenty of room for parties and partisanship to play a pivotal role in foreign policymaking.The question of parties and partisanship deserves more attention than it has received so far, whether we ultimately decide that parties are important or not. If parties and partisanship do matter, then we need to say more about when, why, and how, in much the same way that we would want to assess and explain the role of interest groups, the bureaucracy, or the news media. If parties don't matter, or matter very little, then that would seem to be important in itself, if for no other reason than the possible negative implications for Canadian democracy.4Before we can get started on answering the question, we need to untangle some of the different ways in which we might say that party matters. It might be that the major parties have consistently had different priorities when it comes to foreign policy, and that these different priorities have more or less consistently translated into different policies. It might be that the major parties do not have consistent priorities, but that their efforts to outmaneuver one another in the electoral game have shaped their positions on various foreign policy issues, which are sometimes translated into effects on actual policy outcomes. …

This article seeks to contribute to the discussion of how the gender gap in foreign and security policy issues can be explained by examining how early the gender differences manifest themselves. All told, 251 Swedish children between the ages of six and nine were interviewed about their views on foreign aid, refugee policy, weapons exports, armed resistance, self-defense, and concern or fear about the outbreak of war. Opinion differences between boys and girls were then compared to the differences between adult men and women. The results showed that the differences between boys and girls were very small or nonexistent. Only in the question of fear about the outbreak of war did girls differ significantly from boys, displaying a much higher degree of worry. In the conclusion, these results are discussed in relation to different theories about the causes of the gender gap in foreign policy issues.

The research focuses on the ratification of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which has become an important global issue in international security. The research aims to analyze the factors that influence countries' decisions to ratify the TPNW, as well as to explore the challenges and concerns that individual countries face regarding this issue. The benefits of the research include a deeper understanding of the political, economic, and security dynamics relating to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Results show that complex political and economic interests influence the decision to ratify the TPNW. In Oceania, countries such as Australia and Fiji demonstrated concerns for strategic alliances and regional security. In contrast, smaller countries such as Kiribati and the Marshall Islands prioritized domestic issues and political considerations. In the Americas, the United States rejects TPNWs as contrary to its national security policy, while NATO commitments often bind countries in Europe. In Asia, resistance from nuclear-armed states such as China and India reflects broader geopolitical strategies, while in Africa, many states do not prioritize the issue due to domestic instability. Identified in-depth understanding of how individual states respond to TPNWs in specific contexts. Comparative analysis across regions provides a new perspective in understanding the interaction between foreign policy and non-proliferation issues. The importance of international dialog and a more holistic approach in addressing non-proliferation challenges. Countries' decisions on ratification of the TPNW are highly dependent on their localities and challenges, which include both domestic and foreign policy issues. The TPNW is not only a non-proliferation issue but also reflects the complexity of international relations and national security policies in different parts of the world.

The United States is a country that implements a free and most open immigration foreign policy in the world as evidenced by the acceptance of hundreds of thousands of regional and international immigrants each year. The government that is given the responsibility to lead the country will give priority to immigration issues to be formulated in foreign policy. In the era of President Donald Trump, the issue of immigrants was focused on solving the problem of illegal immigrants at the Southern border with an America First approach and securitization measures. This research will focus on the factors that became the basis for President Donald Trump's consideration of securitization in order to change United States immigration policies, using the framework of The Politics of Foreign Policy Change, namely the identification of global and domestic conditions with political and economic elements as factors that underlying changes in a country's foreign policy. This study argues that President Trump's securitization actions in the context of changing US immigration policy are based on global political conditions, namely the presence of transnational crimes such as identity fraud, drug smuggling, and criminal acts. Global economic conditions, related to immigrants with low wages undermine the standard minimum wage for American workers. Political domestic factors are related to the fulfillment of President Trump's campaign promise to protect the homeland and people of the United States from the threat of illegal immigrants on the southern border. Domestic economic factors are related to American jobs which are occupied by illegal immigrants by falsifying their identities at companies and impacting the loss of the right to social security for United States citizens.
 
 Keywords: Foreign Policy Changes, Immigration Policy, Securitization.

The article deals critically with the doctrine according to which in the process of shaping and implementing foreign policy, the executive branch of the government has many advantages over the legislative and should prevail over it. Foreign policy making in Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States is examined, both on the basis of the results of field research conducted by the author himself and on the findings of other authors. According to the author, the widely made assumption that in all countries foreign policy is almost the exclusive domain of the executive is not correct. In some countries, Parliament plays a relatively important role in this area. The role of the legislature in shaping foreign policy does not substantially depend upon the role a country is playing in world politics or on the content of the policy it pursues. This role depends much more on the character of the political system of that country. The legislature takes a much more active part in foreign policy making in a presidential system than in a parliamentary one. Accordingly, its role is much more important in the United States than in Sweden or the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the legislature is more influential in shaping the future orientation of a country's foreign policy than in current foreign policy making. In the interaction between the executive and legislative branches of government, the legislative process itself is not the focal point. In shaping foreign policy, discussions in the parliamentary committees on foreign affairs and hearings arranged by them are not less but even more important than general debates on the floor of the parliament. Private conversations between MPs and executive officials and contacts between them at various commissions, councils, and delegations have consequences as well. From the adoption of the 1992 Constitution which made Lithuania a semi-presidential republic, its President has formal authority to make the main decisions concerning foreign policy issues. The President's constitutional powers in foreign and domestic policy are unequal: he has little to say on domestic issues but foreign policy is his domain. Yet in practice, foreign policy making has been concentrated recently mainly in the Foreign Ministry and Cabinet chamber. Now both newly elected President Valdas Adamkus and Parliament under the leadership of Vytautas Landsbergis are making attempts to play a much more active role in foreign policy making.

The European Union continues to develop the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Adopted in March 2022, the EU’s “Strategic Compass for Security and Defense” in the next decade should become a roadmap for the development of the EU’s ambitions, stated in the 2003 and 2016 EU Strategies. The Strategic Compass offers a list of measures to strengthen the defense component in EU policy. They are concentrated in four main areas: crisis management, resilience, capacity building and partnerships. A significant innovation is the proposal to apply the qualified majority voting procedure on certain issues of foreign policy, security and defense policy. As part of the new EU Strategy, it is proposed to create a group of Rapid deployment forces and increase investment in the defense sector. The innovation will also be the holding of EU exercises and the EU Security and Defense Partnership Forum. Specific action plans for the announced initiatives should be developed by the end of 2022, and their implementation is scheduled for 2030. The Strategic Compass was perceived ambiguously — the key points of criticism are the inability of the Union to ensure its own strategic autonomy. In the context of the changed geopolitical situation in Europe, which coincided with the publication of the new Strategy, the EU countries continued to follow the lead of US policy. The emphasis in Compass on the complementarity of the foreign and security and defense policy of the EU in relation to the Alliance confirms that the countries of Europe will tend to rely on the usual institutions of NATO as opposed to the creation of new structures of the European Union. In addition, significant disagreements in the perception of threats by EU member states, as well as the general amorphousness of the Union’s foreign policy initiatives, remain a problem. It is likely that a significant breakthrough in the creation of effective institutions of European foreign policy, security and defense policy will not be achieved, but the acquisition of new powers by the European Commission will strengthen supranational control over the policies of EU member states in these areas.

The Cadillac, the mother-in-law, and the ballot: Individual and contextual roots of ambivalence in Swiss direct democracy

In the traditional view of foreign policy making in the United States, the President is considered the primary authority and Congress is seen as playing a subsidiary role. Marie T. Henehan looks at the effects of events in the international system on both the content of foreign policy and what actions Congress takes on foreign policy. Henehan argues that the only way to understand the way congressional behavior varies over time is by looking at the rise and resolution of critical issues in foreign policy, which in turn have their origin in the international system. When a critical foreign policy issue arises, congressional activity and attempts to influence foreign policy increase. Once the debate is resolved and one side wins, a consensus emerges and Congress settles into a more passive role. Using a data set consisting of all roll call votes on foreign policy issues taken by the Senate from 1897 to 1984 to generate indicators of Congressional behavior, together with the rise and fall of critical issues in international relations, Henehan is able to develop a more nuanced understanding of Congress's role in foreign policy making over time.In recent years political scientists have begun to consider the impact of the international system on domestic policy. Part of the difficulty of some of this work, as well as work on Congress's role in foreign policy, is that it has been limited in terms of time and the number of events the analysis considered, depending on case studies. This book offers a systematic consideration of the effects of international events on domestic politics, crossing many different kinds of international activity, and provides a unique longitudinal view of Congressional action on foreign policy.This book will be of interest to scholars of international relations, American foreign policy making, and Congress.Marie T. Henehan is Assistant Professor of Political Science, Vanderbilt University.