Transcript POLS 425 US Foreign Policy - Cal State LA

POLS 425 US Foreign Policy
The State-Level of Analysis, Pt. 2
February 14, 2007
Professor Timothy C. Lim
California State University, Los Angeles
1
U.S. Foreign Policy
The 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)
2
U.S. Foreign Policy
The State Level of Analysis
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
3
U.S. Foreign Policy
The State Level of Analysis
Culture and Institutions of Governance
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 pacifism
A “vital” mission of Japan’s Self-Defense Force:
helping to build ice sculptures for Sapporo’s annual
ice festival
4
U.S. Foreign Policy
The State Level of Analysis
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 which
keep the military in a subordinate position
5
In Japan, peace activists are in the mainstream
U.S. Foreign Policy
The State Level of Analysis
Culture and Institutions of Governance
 Culture and Institutions in the United States
In 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, where
war is considered a right,
duty, and national mission: to be
anti-war is to be anti-American
Such a culture has allowed the
military-industrial complex to
thrive
6
U.S. Foreign Policy
The State Level of Analysis
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 that
democracies are inherently
more peaceful than
non-democracies
=
7
U.S. Foreign Policy
The State Level of Analysis
Culture, Institutions, and the Democratic Peace
Two distinct explanations of why democracies are (or should
be) more peaceful than non-democracies
1. Culture of democracy
2. 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
8
U.S. Foreign Policy
The State Level of Analysis
Culture, Institutions, and the Democratic Peace

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
9
U.S. Foreign Policy
The State Level of Analysis
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?
10
U.S. Foreign Policy
The State Level of Analysis
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
…
11
U.S. Foreign Policy
The State Level of Analysis
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]
12
Full text of speech, audio and video files are available online. Click here
U.S. Foreign Policy
The State Level of Analysis
Other Elements of State-Level Analysis
1.
2.
3.
4.
Party politics and intragovernmental divisions
Public Opinion
Interest Groups (including ethnic lobbies)
Media
13
U.S. Foreign Policy
The State Level of Analysis
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
14
U.S. Foreign Policy
The State Level of Analysis
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 tradeoffs
15
U.S. Foreign Policy
The State Level of Analysis
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
16
U.S. Foreign Policy
The State Level of Analysis
Other Elements of State-Level Analysis
Public Opinion: Three Views
 Pluralist Model (bottom-up)
 Elite Model (top-down)
 Public “Tolerance” Model (interactive)
The graphic shows American support for the Iraq war over a 2+ year period (Gallup Poll Results)
17
U.S. Foreign Policy
The State Level of Analysis
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
18
U.S. Foreign Policy
The State Level of Analysis
Other Elements of State-Level Analysis
 Interest Groups
Basic definition: Interest groups are nongovernmental 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)
19
U.S. Foreign Policy
The State Level of Analysis
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 same
Single 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
20
U.S. Foreign Policy
The State Level of Analysis
Other Elements of State-Level Analysis

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?
21
U.S. Foreign Policy
The State Level of Analysis
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?
22
U.S. Foreign Policy
The State Level of Analysis
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!
23