Arnold Wolfers: Milieu and possession Goals reinterpretted

To differentiate between milieu and possession goals enables the scholar to differentiate between different types of foreign policy committed by different states. Typically it requires more than just an observation of state behaviour to understand its foreign policy, but the point is to address the direction of any given state. Before analysing a couple of examples, let us first address the theory itself as sketched out by my former teacher Mette Skak.

A milieu goal

The milieu goal focuses on the environment the given state exist in (Skak, 2000: 10). Assume a state in Europe in a pre-Eu context. If the state observes its surroundings in realist (pdf) terms, it feels threatened. It has two options. One is to promote institutions of different kinds. Another is to wage war against the neighbours (see below). Our state is small and prefers institutions rather than impossible wars. These institutions could be international law, the United Nations or other mechanisms that promote peace instead of war (ibid.). In other words what we are talking about are goals that one state cannot claim as its own. Others can benefit from it. The one thing my teacher stressed was the problem of nativity. In other words a given behaviour of any state must not be accepted at face value. Rather keep a good portion of scepticism. An example of such an approach could be the Russian defence of Serbia during the 1990s by stressing the importance of international law and the UN. This is milieu goals. However, it is also important to remember that Russia had issues home of similar type as the civil war in Kosovo. I am thinking of Chechnya.

A possession goal

Let us recycle the assumptions used above. The only change is the size of the state and its capability to wage war. This state might more aggressively pursue goals that opposite the goals mentioned above, only it can enjoy. Say for example membership of the UN Security Council (Skak, 2000: 11). The key word is competition. For example there is a limited amount of seats in UN Security Council. Hence any state is in a situation where they have to compete. The key words is in other words competition. Obvious examples of possession goals are the Russian invasion of Chechnya in 1994 / 1999 and the American invasion of Iraq.

In other words it is possible to place the foreign policy of a state on a continuum stretching from pure milieu goals to pure possession goals. Since a given state can have more than one foreign policy it is also possible that a state can pursue different goals at the same time. This conclusion leaves us with one unexplored question. As mentioned vaguely above I admit, a state can pursue often possession goals guised as milieu goals. How do we depict them? This is where my thinking separates with that of my teachers. To be able to differentiate between these two kinds of the same goal, it is necessary to measure the amount of violence used to pursue the goal (see below).

Application of power

To fully understand the application of power it is important to explore what "applicated" power is. Basically power is the use of military force or force related to the military structure of any country (intelligence services etc.). In other words if a state uses any of these means, it is using power in its foreign policy. Table one below sketches the different possibilities a state has.

Table 1.    Application of power
	Active (force)	Passive (without force)
Milieu goal	Activist pursuing of milieu goals	Classic pursuing of milieu goals
Possession goal	Active pursuing of possession goals	Passive pursuing of possession goals

The first option is a modern pursuit of a milieu goal. Typically this is embodied in the foreign policy of strong states with a capacity to wage wars. America is perhaps the best example of such. I have called it activist because it is related to a promotion of a given set of values. A notable example of such is liberalism by imposition. Assume a state that wants to install a regime similar to the one you have back home. Democratic states tend to avoid waging wars against each other (see also this). The Soviet Union did the same in the 1970s and 80s when it promoted the world revolution[1], because it assumed that Soviet inspired socialist and communist systems would not wage war against the Soviet Union itself. The alternative to this type of milieu goal is the classic one already mentioned above. This one is related to the pursuit of milieu goals through creation of international institutions.

The second option is the pursuit of possession goals in either an active or passive form. While the normal way to do it is through conquest, the Russians especially through the late 1980s and 1990s pursued passive possession goals. Or they pursued possession goals through passive means. That is the misuse of international institutions to protect their possessions for example in ex-Yugoslavia[2] (Skak, 2000: 13).

Concluding words

Following the logic of this essay it makes sense to 1) talk about different kinds of goals in the conduct of foreign policy of different states; 2) split foreign policy in milieu goals and the possessive ditto; 3) to split the milieu and possession goals in an active and passive dimension in order to be able to catch the different policy options a given state has.

_________________________________

Notes:
1) "Frunze proceeded to attempt to establish his proletarian military doctrine on the basis of the experiences of the Red Army during the Civil War, and the class characteristics of the Russian Republic. Oversimplifying somewhat, he assumed that "[...] the couse of the historical revolutionary process will force the working-class to go over to the offensive against capital whenever conditions are favourable." [...] to educate our army in the spirit of the greatest activity, to prepare it for achieving the goals of the revolution by means of energetic offensive operations, decisively and courageously carried out". (Baker, 1976: 40). The Soviet Union gave up on Frunze during the 1980s under Gorbatjov due to financial problems.

2) "In Russia there is deep shock at the military actions of NATO against sovereign Yugoslavia, which is nothing other than naked aggression. Only the Security Council of the United Nations has the right to take decisions regarding measures, including military measures, needed for the support or establishment of international peace and security. Such decisions regarding Yugoslavia have not been taken by the Security Council. This violates not only the UN charter, but also the Founding Act of mutual relations, cooperation and security between Russia and NATO. A dangerous precedent has been set creating a policy of diktat through force, placing in jeopardy the entire contemporary framework of international law. In fact, we speak of an attempt by NATO to enter the 21st century in the uniform of a world policeman. Russia will never agree to this." (NUPI, 1999).