1 POLS 425 US Foreign Policy The State-Level of Analysis, Pt. 2 February 14, 2007 Professor Timothy...

1

POLS 425 US Foreign Policy

The State-Level of Analysis, Pt. 2

February 14, 2007

Professor Timothy C. LimCalifornia State University, Los Angeles

2

U.S. Foreign PolicyThe State Level of Analysis

Culture and Foreign Policy

Key Point

National identity is tied to culture, but a “culturally maintained national self-image does more than just influence the broad notions and directions of a country’s foreign policy” (p. 84)

3


Culture and Institutions of Governance

Culture also influences the specific types of institutions constructed within a state and the foreign policy decision making authority allotted to those institutions

Example. In a realist world, one wouldn’t expect to see huge differences between Israel and Japan (or Japan and Britain), particularly with regard to the institutional arrangements that determine their foreign policies, but there are major differences

4



Japan as an example: Military as an institution occupies subordinate position

No army, only a “Self-Defense Force”Security-related institutions have little authority

JDA (Japan’s defense agency) lacks cabinet-level status

Constitution is premised on pacifismA “vital” mission of Japan’s Self-Defense Force: helping to build ice sculptures

for Sapporo’s annual ice festival

5


Culture and Institutions of Governance Japanese “Peace Constitution,” Article 9:

“Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized”

Key point: The Constitution creates institutional and “cultural” constraints on the use of force, constraints that impact all political regimes and leaderships in Japan, and whichkeep the military in a subordinate position

In Japan, peace activists are in the mainstream

6



Culture and Institutions in the United StatesIn contrast to Japan,military and security-related institutions occupy the center of power in the U.S.

America, one might argue, has a “military” culture, wherewar is considered a right,duty, and national mission: to beanti-war is to be anti-American

Such a culture has allowed themilitary-industrial complex to thrive

7


Culture, Institutions, and the Democratic Peace

Some scholars argue that certain cultural systems (i.e., those based on democratic principles) can have a more general, even universal, impact on foreign policy making in all countries that share that particular set of values and practices, regardless of national self-image

Basic argument is thatdemocracies are inherentlymore peaceful thannon-democracies =

8



Two distinct explanations of why democracies are (or should be) more peaceful than non-democracies

1. Culture of democracy2. Institutions of democracy

Culture of democracy: “Liberal democracies are more peace loving than other states because of the norms regarding appropriate methods of conflict resolution that develop within society”

Institutions of democracy: The institutions of democracy constrain the behavior of foreign policy decision makers such that conflicts with other democracies are almost always resolved peacefully

9



Are democracies inherently more peaceful than non-democracies?

Some evidence

Despite some disagreement on how to define a democracy, it is unequivocal that democracies, in general, do not fight other democracies--this is close to an “empirical law”

Evidence also demonstrates that democracies are more cooperative than non-democracies

Consider the case of Europe in the post-war and post-Cold War era; consider the democratization of Germany and Japan

10


Democratic Peace and the United States: Discussion

As a democracy, the United States has fought in numerous wars, albeit all against “non-democracies”

Does the experience of the United States undermine the democratic peace thesis?

Is the United States less likely to go to war against another democracy (say, Canada)?

In general, does the United States behave and respond differently to non-democracies than it does to other democracies?

If the democratic peace thesis has validity, would it be in the interest of the United States to promote democracy around the world, including in the Middle East?

11


Democratic Peace and the United States

Questions about the import of democracy are not merely “academic”: If the democratic peace thesis is correct, the implications to the conduct of US foreign policy are immense

They go to the heart of what the US foreign policy in the new millennium. One path was articulated by President Bush in 2003 …

12


Democratic Peace and the Bush Administration

Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo. Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace. [Remarks by the President at the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, November 6, 2003]

Full text of speech, audio and video files are available online. Click here

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html

13


Other Elements of State-Level Analysis

1. Party politics and intragovernmental divisions

2. Public Opinion3. Interest Groups (including ethnic

lobbies)4. Media

14


Party Politics and Intragovernmental Divisions

Partisan politics: Democrats vs. Republicans

Intra-party politics: Competing for influence with an administration

Bureaucratic Politics: The role of governmental organizations and agencies

Key point: Foreign policymaking, especially outside of “crisis” situations, can be affected by a range of political and governmental actors who do not necessarily share the same interests, values, and goals

15


Party politics and intragovernmental divisions

The Impact of Intragovernmental Divisions

Basic argument: Within any complex, modern government are dozens, if not hundreds of competing actors and organizations, all with their own modes of operation, goals, and interests

Each organization may, in a broad sense, be acting on the basis of a common goal—i.e., national security—but conceptions of national security or national interest are not necessarily the same

As these various governmental actors endeavor to achieve their goals and promote their interests, they invariably come into competition with one another for influence and power: this leads to power struggles, but also negotiation, compromise, and trade-offs

16


Organization of the Federal Government

This chart gives a sense of the organizational complexity of the federal bureaucracy

State-level analysts tell us, in part, that this complexity engenders a particular organizational and institutional dynamic that necessarily shapes policy decisions, although the influence of various agencies is likely to differ from issue to issue and from administration to administration

17



Public Opinion: Three ViewsPublic Opinion: Three Views

Pluralist Model (bottom-up)Pluralist Model (bottom-up)

Elite Model (top-down)Elite Model (top-down)

Public “Tolerance” Model (interactive)Public “Tolerance” Model (interactive)

The graphic shows American support for the Iraq war over a 2+ year period (Gallup Poll Results)

18


Public Opinion: Public “Tolerance” Model

Based on the premise that public opinion sets basic policy “parameters” or limits, the transgression of which can bring increasingly high costs

Public opinion has an important indirect effect in influencing coalition-building among elite groups

Public opinion is a crucial political resource for policy makers

Public opinion does not have the same effect in every political system or every political context

19



Interest Groups

Basic definition: Interest groups are non-governmental or social actors engaged in advocacy; by definition, interest groups are influence governmental action on a specific policy or in a specific policy area (click here for more information)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_interest

20


Interest Groups: General Points

In analyzing influence of interest groups, it is essential to consider the specific policy issue

Economic issues are, in general, more susceptible to influence than security issues

Not all interest groups are the sameSingle issue groups often times have less influence than interest groups with “broad leverage over many different policy areas” (e.g., human rights groups vs. farm and trade groups)

The effectiveness of interest groups may be related to their level of integration into mainstream politics

For example, ethnic interest groups that espouse a radical agenda at odds with American “values” are likely to remain highly marginalized, while those groups that embrace mainstream values are likely to exercise more influence

21



Media and Foreign Policy

Media are powerful instruments of information in society, but does this necessarily mean that media play an important role in shaping foreign policy decisions?

22


Media and Foreign Policy

In analyzing the role of the media, we must consider a number of questions …Do the media set the public policy agenda or do they simply reflect an agenda set by others?

Are the media independent gatekeepers of news and information are they “instruments of control” for elite groups? (E.g., are the media “weapons of mass deception”?)

Do the media shape public opinion or are the media shaped by public opinion?

Are the media capable of gathering and reporting on news of vital interest to Americans? Is this an objective of contemporary mass media?

23


Summing Up: The State-Level

Basic Points

State-level analysis deals with a (very) wide range of factors--certainly more than what we discussed

The line between individual, state, and system-level factors is often blurred (e.g., democracy can be affect decision making at the individual-level, at the state-level and even at the system-level)

There is no consensus on the role of various state-level factors, either individually or collectively: this makes analysis of foreign policy complicated and difficult

In a related vein, state-level factors likely play different roles and have varying degrees of influence depending on the specific policy issue and the particular political context--another complicating factor!

1 POLS 425 US Foreign Policy The State-Level of Analysis, Pt. 2 February 14, 2007 Professor Timothy...

Documents

Transcript of 1 POLS 425 US Foreign Policy The State-Level of Analysis, Pt. 2 February 14, 2007 Professor Timothy...