Transcript POLS 425 US Foreign Policy - Cal State LA

POLS 425 U.S. Foreign
Policy
The System-Level of Analysis
February 21, 2007
1
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
Quick Review: Individual, State, and System
 Individual-level: “Getting inside the ‘heads’” of policy makers;
based on assumption that cognitive processes are important to
understanding how decisions are made
 State-level: Going beyond the individual to the state or societal
level (“getting inside the state”); based on the assumption that
individual-level decisions are deeply if not unavoidable shaped by
broader processes, institutions, and forces that exist within a
state and society
 System-level: Going beyond or outside national or societal
boundaries; based on the assumption that
individual- and state-level decisions are profoundly
shaped by the dynamics of the international
system as a whole
Individua
l
state
system
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
Some Questions: Individual, State, and System
 Do states act the way they act because of who leads them?
 Do states act the way they act in the world because of what
they are, or how they are organized at a domestic level, or
which domestic actors are important?
 Do states act the way they do because of where they sit in the
world (as defined by their relationships with other states in the
international system)?
These are basic questions in any analysis of
foreign policy behavior – in any understanding or
explanation of why states act the way they do
towards other states in the world
Individua
l
state
system
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
Key Assumption in System-Level Analysis
 States behave the way they do because of the position they
occupy* in the international system (note: this basic
assumption applies to both realism and Marxism)
At the simplest level, this tells us that the options available to states
are determined largely by their position in the world relative to other
states: “Big” (or strong) states act in one way, while “middle” and
“small” states act in a different way in virtue of their power
This is especially true of great powers,
superpowers, or the hegemonic Power
(i.e., the United States)
* Does not refer to geographic position
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
Key Assumption in System-Level Analysis
 To most realists, a state’s position in the international system
does not necessarily dictate what specific policy choices are
made, but it does determine the basic parameters of state
behavior
Examples. Small and medium-size powers are more likely to
establish alliances with major power; in addition, they are
essentially compelled to play subservient or subordinate roles in
these alliances (i.e., they are “Junior partners”)
Major powers, on the other hand, are more likely to use force
against weaker countries--especially those weaker countries that
are not allied with other major powers; conversely, major powers
are more likely to avoid confrontation with other major powers
unless absolutely necessary
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
Power in System-Level Analysis
 The importance of relative power in the international system is
paramount to realists; this is why realists are primarily
concerned with the “major players” (or great powers)
Major Players: Possess the capability to stabilize, undermine
or even destroy balance in the entire system
“Minor League” Players: Can damage or disrupt the
operation of the system, but are still relatively unimportant
“Pee Wee League” Players: Irrelevant
Important
Irrelevant
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
Power in System-Level Analysis
 Consider the following countries. Which are Great Powers (“major
league players”), which are Middle Powers (or “minor league
players”), and which are Small Powers (or “pee wee leagues
players)” on the international field?
Russia
Great Britain
Canada
China
Israel
Haiti
Mexico
Iran Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
India
Japan
North Korea
Australia
How about al-Qaeda?
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
“Power” in System-Level Analysis: A Side
Trip
 In determining the relative strength of states it is
imperative to have a clear definition of power, but
this poses a problem because …
… there is no agreement among political scientists
about the concept of power--what it is and how it
should be defined and measured
So, what is power?
For now, just think about this question …
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
“Power” in System-Level Analysis: A Side
Trip
 “What is power?” is an important question, but we
must also consider other related questions …
What are the sources of power?
How is power increased? How is it “lost”?
Are there limits on power? If so, what are these
limits? Do the same limits apply in every
circumstance?
Again, just think about this questions for now …
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
“Power” in System-Level Analysis: A Side
Trip
 Does power only grow out of the barrel of a gun (or
a missile, or a tank, or bomb) as Mao Tse Tung
famously put it?
 In other words, is power strictly a
function of tangible military strength?
Or, are there are critical aspects
Power grows out of
barrel of a gun.
of power?
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
“Power” in System-Level Analysis: A Side
Trip
 Tangible sources of power are important; they create a certain
level of state capability
 “But capability does not translate directly into influence. A
highly capable state may not be
able to influence the foreign or
domestic policies … of another state”
 Consider the example of the U.S. mission
to restore law and order to Somalia: Despite
overwhelming military dominance, the
United States’ ability to restore order was
essentially nil • In this regard, Somalia
underscores the fact that military superiority
can be and often is limited
QuickTime™ and a
h264 decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
“Power” in System-Level Analysis
 Current conflict in Iraq also demonstrates limits
of military power
 While overwhelming military superiority quickly
disposed of Saddam’s regime and military,the same
superiority cannot be applied to the insurgency
 In fact, from the end of “major military operations,” the
insurgency quickly strengthened and has since
remained strong despite the overwhelming military
capacity of the American forces
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
Chart shows that American military power has been ineffective in stopping the Iraq insurgency
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
The Limits of Military Power
 The indiscriminate application of military force can be
counterproductive depending on the context in which
force is used
 More generally, the indiscriminate application of military
force can lead to a loss of influence (and relative
power)
This discussion tells us that realist conceptions of power
are very narrow, imprecise, and potentially misleading (at
least to critics of realism)
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
Who Gets to Be a Great Power?
 To most realists (and many others), however, the debate over
how to precisely define power is interesting, but ultimately
unimportant; what matters is that we be able to clearly draw a
line separating the “Also-rans” from the real “Powers,” and the
line is fairly clear …
Great Powers
“Also-Rans”
United States
United Kingdom
Russia
China
France
Germany
Japan
Israel
India
Pakistan
South Korea
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
Definition of a Great Power
“Great powers are states with both (extraordinarily)
large military and economic capabilities, global
political interests, and the will to protect and
maintain those interests”
 NOTE: This definition tells us, in part, that great power status is
at least partly self-determined: even states with tremendous
economic and military capabilities and global interests, may
(intentionally) lack the will to protect and maintain those interests,
e.g., Japan
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
The Importance of Being (a Great Power)
 The activity of great powers, while always self-interested, often has a
extremely positive impact on a range of other states (thus making the great
power appear to be altruistic)
 In a related vein, great powers have an interest in maintaining (or
undermining) the status quo of the system as a whole; thus, their interests
are wide-ranging and generally extend beyond their immediate self-defense:
great powers will use force to protect even non-vital interests
 Great powers attained their positions through the largely unrestrained use of
force, but great powers generally push for more and more restrictions on the
use of force by others
 Great powers employ grand strategies to identify, manage, and deal with
threats, both potential and explicit
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
The United States as the Great Power
 As the great power, the United States clearly fits the
realist model of behavior …
 U.S. behavior is unequivocally self-interested, but often has a veneer of
altruism
 Since the end of WWII, the U.S. has played the central role in
maintaining and in restoring the status quo of the system as a whole:
e.g., U.S. led the struggle against the Soviet Empire; in so doing, America
engaged in several major conflicts beyond the country’s immediate selfdefense: the Korean war, Vietnam, Iraq (1990), among many others
Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. has led effort to spread “free
markets” to the entire world; to deal with “rogue states”; to combat global
terrorism, and so on
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
The United States as the Great Power
 As the great power, the United States clearly fits the realist
model of behavior (continued):
 American preeminence is premised on the massive use of force
against enemies--e.g., the U.S. is the only country in history to
use atomic weapons against human beings, mainly civilians
 At the same time, the United States
is currently in the forefront of efforts
to ensure that other countries never
have the chance to possess
weapons of mass destruction
From a realist perspective, it is important
to understand, such behavior is rational
and predictable
QuickTime™ and a
h264 decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
The United States as the Great Power
 As the great power, the United States clearly fits the
realist model of behavior (continued) …
United States has had a grand strategy designed
to enhance American interests over the long-run
What are the elements of
America’s grand
strategy?
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
The United States as the Great Power
 Elements of America’s (Postwar) Grand Strategy
 Based on the principle of an “iron fist in a velvet glove”:
What is the “velvet glove”
of America’s grand
strategy?
What is the “iron fist” of
America’s grand strategy?
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
The United States as the Great Power
 Elements of America’s (Postwar) Grand Strategy
 Velvet Glove: Economic and humanitarian aid programs;
international cooperation and negotiation (through
international organizations, such as the United Nations)
 Iron Fist: Use of military power and threats to achieve
national goals; willingness to subvert, even flout,
international law and norms and to ignore international
organizations whenever doing so serves American
purposes
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
The United States as the Great Power
 Why bother with the “velvet glove” at all? Why not
all “iron fist” all the time?
Simple answer: Using non-coercive means to
achieve goals has two basic advantages …
costly
First, it is less _______________
than military force
Second, it creates a veneer of ___________________
.
legitimac
y
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
The United States as an Institution-Builder
 During the postwar period, the US has expended a great deal
of energy constructing international organizations, regimes,
and institutions:
 The United States was the architect of the United Nations, the
International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the General
Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (the predecessor of the World Trade
Organization), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development, among many others
 The U.S. (and other major powers) pushed the establishment of
numerous weapons’ treaties: the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty,
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
Biological Weapons Convention, Chemical Weapons Convention,
Seabed Arms Control Treaty, etc.
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
The United States as an Institution-Builder
 Repeating Key Point: International institutions were created,
first and foremost, to protect and promote American (and other
great power) national interests
“… realists believe that international
institutions are shaped and limited by the
states that found and sustain them and have
little independent effect”
Kenneth Waltz
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
The United States as an Institution-Builder
 International institutions are also used to justify the
use of force by and for the United States
 The reason (again) is clear: international
justification or legitimation of military force lowers
the costs of intervention
Examples
US intervention against Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait
US invasion of Iraq following the “failure” of sanctions
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
The United States as an Institution-Builder
 In both cases, the United States attempted to use
the Security Council of the United Nations to
sanction military force
 In Gulf War I, Security Council sanctioned force and costs to US
were minimal, while key objective was achieved
 In Gulf War II, Security Council did not sanction use of force;
predictably, however, the US ignored the SC when its decision
contradicted American will and interests: the United States
accused the UN of being “irrelevant”
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of
the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered
a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the
world now faces a test and the United Nations a difficult and
defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be
honored and enforced or cast aside without consequence?
Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or
will it be irrelevant?
George W. Bush, speech to the United Nations
September 12, 2002
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
Recap: (Realist) system-level analysis …
 cannot explain every micro-level decision the United States makes with
regard to foreign policy, but it can explain the underlying rationale and
motivation of US foreign policy as a whole
 “predicts” that the United States will remain focused on protecting and
deepening the status quo
 “predicts” a double-standard in US foreign policy
 tells us that international institutions, regimes, organizations are created
and used as tools to further American interests
 underscores the continuing importance of national self-interest, but
allows us to understand that how and why great power behavior
sometimes appears altruistic
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
Marxism and SystemLevel Analysis
“States behave the way
they do because of the
position they occupy in the
international system”
Would a Marxist
agree with this
statement?
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
Marxism and System-Level Analysis
 Marxists also talk in terms of great powers and smaller
powers, but they use different terminology and adopt a
different perspective
agents
To Marxists, states are the _______________
of global
___________________
(the dominant capitalists of today)
economic elite
The “great powers” are not states per se, but instead are
focal points in which great wealth is located; these focal
points of wealth form acore
global _________ or center
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
Marxism and System-Level Analysis
Unlike realists,
Marxists draw
the line
between the
core and the
periphery:
those in the
core are “great
powers”
peripher
y
COR
E
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
Marxism and System-Level Analysis
CORE
 Determining which states belong to the core and which belong to the
periphery is generally straightforward: Core “countries” are
distinguished by a high concentration of wealth (especially
surplus capital), control of technology and manufacturing knowhow, dominance of key markets, and a concentration of high valueadded employment
United States
Japan
Great Britain
France
Italy
Germany
Canada
(A few others)
Haiti
El Salvador
Jamaica
Morocco
Ghana
Zimbabwe
BangladeshNepal
Philippines Kyrgyzstan
Cuba
Indonesia
Pakistan Egypt
(Many others)
Any problems with this list?
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
Marxism and System-Level Analysis
 An Aside
 Division of the world into only two “camps,” the core and the
periphery, may be too simple; other Marxists (especially in World
Systems Theory), argue that there should be a third division, the
semiperiphery
The semiperiphery is equivalent to the “middle power” category,
and would include such places as …
South Korea Israel
South Africa China
Russia
Argentina
Ireland
Mexico
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
The Importance of Being (a Core Power)
 Core power behave a lot like great powers, except that there it is not national
self-interests that determine foreign policies; rather it is the self-interests of
economic
elite
the
_________________________.
 Core elites also have a deep interest in maintaining the status quo of the
system as a whole; thus, their interests are wide-ranging and generally
extend well beyond immediate domestic economic concerns: Core powers
will use force to protect their economic interests anywhere in the world
 Core powers attained their positions through the largely unrestrained
exploitation of the world’s resources, the environment, and of whole
societies; they want to continue these practices while denying them to others
 Core powers employ grand strategies to identify, manage, and deal with
threats to global capitalism, both potential and explicit
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
The United States as the Core Power
 As the core power, the United States clearly fits the
Marxist model of behavior …
The history of US foreign policy is a history of the protection of the interests
of the economic elites that dominate the country. Some examples …
Chile: the overthrow of a democratic government to protect the interests of ITT
Iran: the overthrow of democratically elected government (1952) to protect the interest of big oil
Guatemala: the overthrow of a democratically elected government (1954) to protect American
economic interests of United Fruit Company (again in 1967)
Iraq: two wars (and numerous interventions) to protect US oil interests
Vietnam: to protect the establishment expansion of capitalism in Asia
Cold War against the Soviet Union: to prevent the spread of non-capitalist economies
For a more complete list, click here
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
The United States as the Core Power
 As the core power, the United States clearly fits the Marxist
model of behavior …
QuickTime™ and a
h264 decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Secrets of the CIA: Iran
QuickTime™ and a
h264 decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Secrets of the CIA: Chile
For more videos, type in “Secrets of the CIA” in YouTube: includes segments on Indonesia, Laos,
Bolivia, Cambodia, Iraq, Congo, Cuba, Nazi Germany, Nicaragua, among others
“Falling Dominoes” Speech, Dwight
Eisenhower, April 7, 1954 • The Logic of U.S.
Foreign Policy
Q. Robert Richards, Copley Press: Mr. President, would you mind commenting on
the strategic importance of Indochina to the free world? I think there has been,
across the country, some lack of understanding on just what it means to us.
A: You have, of course, both the specific and the general when you talk
about such things. First of all, you have the specific value of a locality in
its production of materials that the world needs. Then you have the
possibility that many human beings pass under a dictatorship that is
inimical to the free world.
Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you
would call the "falling domino" principle. You have a row of
dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to
the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could
have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound
influences (…)
38
“Falling Dominoes” Speech, Dwight
Eisenhower
The Logic of U.S. Foreign Policy
[CON’T] Now, with respect to the first one, two of the items from this
particular area that the world uses are tin and tungsten. They are very
important. …. Then with respect to more people passing under this
domination, Asia, after all, has already lost some 450 million of its peoples to
the Communist dictatorship, and we simply can't afford greater losses.
But when we come to the possible sequence of events, the loss of Indochina,
of Burma, of Thailand, of the Peninsula, and Indonesia following, now you
begin to talk about areas that not only multiply the disadvantages that you
would suffer through loss of materials, sources of materials, but now you are
talking really about millions and millions and millions of people.
Finally, the geographical position achieved thereby does many things. It turns
the so-called island defensive chain of Japan, Formosa, of the Philippines
and to the southward; it moves in to threaten Australia and New Zealand. It
takes away, in its economic aspects, that region that Japan must have
as a trading area or Japan, in turn, will have only one place in the world
to go -- that is, toward the Communist areas in order to live.
39
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
The United States as the Core Power
 As the core power, the United States clearly fits the
Marxist model of behavior …
In broad terms, American foreign policy has been and is
premised on creating global institutional framework designed to
protect trade and investment, to provide international financial
stability, and to promote “free markets”
In Sum: Global institutional framework designed to …
“Make the world safe
for capitalism”
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
The United States as the Core Power
 An example: Consider the role and function of the World
Trade Organization (WTO); the Marxist view is expressed clearly
in the video, “The Truth Behind the WTO” …
QuickTime™ and a
h264 decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
The United States as the Core Power
 The U.S.-Saudi Relationship
Provides a concrete example of how elites’ economic interest
can outweigh American “national interest”
Reflects a Patron-Client relationship that serves the interests
of elites both in Saudi Arabia and in the
United States; the interests of the
large majority of citizens in both
countries, however, is not necessarily
promoted in such relationships
Roosevelt meeting with the Saudi King,
POLS 425 U.S. Foreign Policy
System-Level Analysis
The United States as the Core Power
 The U.S.-Saudi Relationship: Background Video
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
President Roosevelt
Meets Middle East
Leaders [Etc.] 1945 •
From the National
Archives and Records
Administration
Available on YouTube
Click here to view video
online
Note: Due to the size of
the video, it will not be
available on the my
online notes page