POSC 2200 – Nationalism, Nation States and Foreign Policy

1. POSC 2200 – Nationalism, Nation States and Foreign Policy Russell Alan Williams Department of Political Science

2. Unit Three: Nationalism, Nation States and Foreign Policy “States as Actors – Foreign Policy” Required Reading: • Robert Jervis, “Hypotheses on Misperception,”World Politics, 20 (3), (April 1968), Pp. 454-479. (Available through e-journals, or as an excerpt from the instructor.) Outline: • Introduction • The role of “Individuals” in Foreign Policy • Theories of Foreign Policymaking • Avoiding Mistakes? • For Next Time

3. 1) Introduction: Unit goal: Examine range of ideas about what drives states’ foreign policy • The role of individuals? • Models of foreign policymaking? • Rationality and avoiding mistakes?

4. 2) Individuals in Foreign Policy: Role of leaders is unclear in foreign policy How can we clarify, or hypothesize, the role of individuals? • Examine individual psychological effects that may allow us to predict responses to events?

5. What is the role of leaders’ personalities or psychology? • Can they help us understand states’ behavior? • Research underdeveloped – leaders won’t submit to detailed observation and psychological analyses!!!! • However, Herman (1980) argued: • Two main types of leader personality that may effect foreign policy • The “Independent Leader” • The “Participatory Leader”

6. The “Independent Leader” • Policy Orientations: • High nationalism • High belief in control • High need for power • High distrust of others • Low understanding – conceptual clarity

7. The “Independent Leader” • Policy Orientations: • High nationalism • High belief in control • High need for power • High distrust for others • Low understanding –conceptual clarity Bush Chavez Putin

8. The “Participatory Leader” • Policy Orientations: • Low nationalism • Low belief in control • Low in distrust of others • High need for friendly affiliations • High understanding – conceptual complexity

9. The “Participatory Leader” • Policy Orientations: • Low nationalism • Low belief in control • Low in distrust of others • High need for friendly affiliations • High understanding – conceptual complexity Trudeau Clinton ?

10. Risk of “circularity”(?) • Problem: We don’t know their real personalities, only what they show in public roles • International structures and events make leaders exhibit “personality traits” • E.g. Clinton and Bush not so different . . .

11. 3) Theories of Foreign Policymaking: Each theory offers a different view of the state – has implications for thinking about how foreign policy is “made” • Leads to different ideas about how policy is made . . . . • “Realism” = Rational Model • “Liberalism” & “Constructivism” = Organizational/Bureaucratic Model • “Liberalism” = Pluralist Model

12. 1) Rational Model of Decision Making: • Assumes: State is a unitary actor • Tendency to assume all states use similar approach • A reasonable response to anarchy? • Stages: • State clearly identifies problem requiring decision • State has clearly defined goals • Decision Makers: • Identify list of alternatives – possible responses • Analyze costs and benefits of each alternative • Select action that gives best benefit for lowest cost Result: Foreign Policy that rationally pursues “National Interest”

13. 2) Bureaucratic/Organizational Model: • Assumes: Foreign policy driven by sub-national bureaucracies and agencies a) “Organizational Model”: Assumes “standard operating procedures” of ministry etc. prevents true rationality • Do what they have always done . . . • Could be associated with “Constructivism”

14. b) “Bureaucratic Politics Model”: Different agencies have different goals – Foreign Policy product of power struggles amongst them • Outcomes tend to “satisfice”: minimal compromise that all can live with =Very different then rational outcome . . . • E.g. Tensions between economic departments and security agencies over air safety • Assumed to be more common in non-crisis situations • Can be associated with “Liberalism” – more emphasis on sub-national actors

15. 3) Pluralist Model of decision making: • Assumes: Foreign policy a product of bargaining among a wide variety of societal actors • Could involve: • Interest Groups • Multinational Corporations • Mass Movements • Public Opinion • Most clearly seen in economic matters • E.g. Trade Protectionism • Less common in security decisions (?) • Closely associated with “Liberalism”

16. 4) Avoiding Mistakes: • Sadly, decision making never totally rational . . . . • IR presents observer with information overload • People use psychological shortcuts to “make sense” of what they observe • May influence foreign policy . . . .

17. Jervis: “Hypothesis and Misperception” Classic piece on the “irrationality” of rational foreign policy • Argues: Decision makers fit new information into existing beliefs • More likely when: • Facts ambiguous & situation complex • People think existing theories are right Result: Decision makers more likely to ignore new, contradictory, information than to change their existing theories.

18. Jervis: “Hypothesis and Misperception” • Example: “Domino Theory” • Theory that communist revolutions spread like a chain reaction • I.e. Success in North Vietnam would spread to rest of S. E. Asia . . . . • Required “containment” • Support for anticommunist allies • Result: US intervention in Vietnam

19. Jervis: “Hypothesis and Misperception” • Example: “Domino Theory” • US supports corrupt, unpopular, anti-democratic regimes • Supplant French colonial role in S. E. Asia • US suffers 60,000 casualties, ends war effort in defeat • No domino effect . . . . • Theory was well established and situation complex

20. Jervis: “Hypothesis and Misperception” Solutions? See Jervis’s Safeguards – good advice! 1) Beaware that observations are biased 2) Beskeptical of supporting ideas that are not logically linked to one another • E.g. Iraq: WMD and Democracy

21. Jervis: “Hypothesis and Misperception” 3) Be sure concepts are clearly spelled out – makes it possible to know when your ideas are wrong or failing • E.g. “Victory Conditions” 4) Be sure to consider critical interpretations of new facts – don’t be surrounded by like-minded ideologues – Avoid “groupthink”

22. 5) For Next Time . . . Unit Four: International Law, International Organizations, and Non-Governmental Organizations “International Law” Required Reading: • Globalization of World Politics, Chapter 18. • Kenneth Roth, “The Case for Universal Jurisdiction,”Foreign Affairs, 80(5), (Fall 2001), Pp. 150-154. (Available through e-journals, or from the instructor.)