diaspora and foreign policy diasporas are endemic to the international system, having a capacity for...

Diaspora and Foreign Policy

• Diasporas are endemic to the international system, having a capacity for independent and assertive political action.

• The diaspora becomes a key constituency of concern for homeland leaders, for the governments of their host states, and, through their international diplomatic activities, for other states as well.


• Diasporas act as more than just domestic constituencies within their host states.

• They also function as an important “domestic” constituency for homeland political leaders and, moreover,

• as transstate players, acting on behalf of their entire people in interactions with third-party states and international organizations


• Diasporas may actively influence the foreign policies of their homelands

• When they achieve transnational economic or political clout (or both), diasporas can, and do, directly affect identities and homeland policies

• They may also influence the foreign policy of their host states depending on the host state political institutions and diaspora’s organizational power.


• Robert Putnam : international negotiations are a “two-level game,” rather than merely a government-to-government interaction, RATHER state leaders balance two competing spheres at once in an international negotiation; they must satisfy both domestic political constituencies and also meet the negotiating counterpart’s minimum demands

• In some cases, with the involvement of diaspora this can become a three-level game.


• These elements are usually neglected in traditional international relations scholarship, which bases its understanding of state behavior on limited assumptions about a state’s identity and interests.

• As an increasing proportion of violence within and between states has centered around issues of communal identity rather than power and wealth, international relations scholars have struggled with the nature of national identity and how it shapes states’ understanding of their interests.


• Constructivist theoretical developments are most hospitable to this type of analysis, but they tend to focus on identities as derivatives of system-wide norms, or of domestic political cultures.

• Instead, there is a need to add a transnational form of identity that takes into account the continual and ever changing character of the “people” inside and outside the state.

• The identities and interests of states are both flexible and mutually constitutive and several propositions about the identities and interests can be made that engage diasporas in homeland communal conflicts are noteworthy.

•


• Factors Affecting the Diasporic Influence • When homeland state is weak/new: Diaspora

communities identify themselves, and are identified by others, as part of the homeland national community.

• In the case of new and weak states, the national identity was often “held in trust” by the diaspora during the initial years/decades.

• Robert Wieber argues that when homelands are well established states, kin communities abroad are less inclined to channel their ethnic identity into diasporic activity.


• The degree to which one influences the other depends on their relative strength, which is determined by, among other factors, monetary flows, cultural productions, community leadership, and transnational political parties

• Diasporas may influence the foreign policies of their host countries. This is especially true of diasporas integrated into democratic societies, where they often organize as interest groups that influence the foreign policy of their host government.

• Host states, particularly Western democracies, take into account the interests and political power of diaspora communities in formulating policies toward homeland conflicts


• Democratic polities respond to preferences of its constituents. So it is not surprising that diasporas’ voices are heard. However, cohesion and access are crucial to understanding the conditions under which their influence will be critical at the national level of policymaking

• Diasporas always have the potential to influence their host country’s foreign policy. But that potential will remain unrealized unless the immigrant community is sufficiently large, has access to the corridors of political power, and speaks with a single voice.


• The Reasons for Diasporic Involvement in Homeland Affairs

• The diasporic connection with events at home may belargely social and psychological, through their identification with their homeland’s aspirations and struggles.

• Homeland conflicts can also affect diasporas more directly: economically, socially in terms of their self-image and how their host society views them, and even through physical threats directed against them by those groups engaged in the conflict against their homeland kin.


• The ethnic identity of a diaspora group is made up of elements that are shared with their kin in the homeland (historical, social, and cultural ideals) as well as other elements that are unique to the diaspora and derive from its separate experiences.

• The diaspora’s identity is also affected by the degree to which its leaders (and members) are actively engaged in domestic affairs in the homeland.


• The “wholeness” or inviolability of the homeland’s territory is also a key marker of the nation’s well-being for the diaspora. Thus, an interstate conflict or internal separatist movement generally becomes a major ingredient in diasporic identity.

• A threat to the homeland’s survival from conflict serves as an important mobilizing force for diasporic communities, enabling them to build institutions, raise funds, and promote activism among community members .

• Since the threat to the homeland is a powerful tool to mobilize diaspora community members to fund diaspora organizations and engage in political activity in the host state, peace itself can threaten diasporic identity.


• Diaspora-Homeland• While kinship identity can be negotiated between homeland

and diaspora, the structure of modern international relations gives the prerogative of constituting, elaborating, and implementing the national interest to the state not to the diaspora

• BUT states may consider their diasporic kin as part of their national security equation under the premise of mutual responsibility. Israel, for example, declares itself, by law, responsible for the well-being of all Jews around the world. It also regards the Jewish diaspora, and especially Jewish-Americans, as “one of Israel’s strategic assets.”


• Yet in practice, struggles often erupt between homeland and diaspora groups over the definition of the nation, and therefore over the proper balance between the interests of the homeland and those of “the people.”

• The diaspora attempts to promote its own view of the ethnic community’s identity and interests, a view which is not always congruent with the view of the homeland authorities.


• The national interests articulated by the homeland government with respect to the resolution of a violent conflict with a neighboring state or an internal ethnic minority can have a significant impact on the identity of the transnational community.

• Disputes erupt between diasporic elements and homeland authorities not only over the definition of nationhood, but also over the conceptualization of the homeland’s territorial boundaries, often a critical component both in conflict perpetuation and conflict resolution.


• When the conflict is hot and the homeland is under severe threat, diaspora concerns about the homeland’s existential survival are paramount, and divergent opinions may be subsumed under a broader show of support. But when the possibility of peace arises, homeland-diaspora debates and power struggles reemerge.


• In many cases, the policies of homeland authorities with respect to their ongoing violent conflicts may also impinge on diaspora communities’ political or social status in their host society.

• When kin states violate norms that are valued by the host state (such as, for the United States, democracy or human rights), diasporas are often implicated or held accountable morally and politically.

• The U.S. government and perhaps even the U.S. public may expect diaspora leaders to persuade or pressure their homeland government to alter its policies in a more congenial direction.

Diaspora and Foreign Policy• Diaspora-Host State:Diaspora’s access to political power,

determined largely by the political institutions of each host society.

• Countries that extend citizenship and grant participatory rights to immigrant groups will reflect immigrant influence over their foreign policy to a greater extent.

• It is commonplace to attribute certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy to the pressures brought by immigrant groups. The question is whether this phenomenon is universal.

• In host countries that facilitate the acquisition of citizenship and grant other participatory rights, diasporas will have participate the political processes more and therefore will have greater influence over their host country’s foreign policy.


• Diaspora politics has been bolstered by the collapse of the Soviet Union, which resulted in a decline in the influence of traditional political elites, who dominated U.S. foreign affairs throughout the Cold War.

• Accordingly, America's loss of its Cold War enemies has undermined political leaders' ability to rally the nation around a unifying cause.

Diaspora and Foreign Policy• The American melting-pot concept, which stresses

assimilation into a Protestant Anglo-Saxon culture, has given way to a pluralist creed that recognizes ethnicity as integral to American life.

• Thus, immigrants are no longer required to give up their ethnic identity, language, or attachment to country of origin to become Americans. Hyphenation is well respected.

• Since they are less and less subjected to charges of disloyalty, ethnic officials and their constituencies are more inclined to reconstitute and strengthen their ties with their ancestral countries.

• Efforts on behalf of ancestral countries are widely recognized as legitimate political practices, licensed and encouraged by the nature of the American party system and the power of each congressional representative.


• How does Diasporic influence bears on America's national interest abroad, on ethnic relations inside the United States, and on American civic culture in general?

• What is the relationship between an ethnic group gaining an effective voice in U.S. foreign policy and its adoption of American political ideals?

• What function do ethnic lobbies serve in America's global role as the champion of democratic ideals?

• And does ethnic commitment to ancestral countries impede U.S. domestic cohesion and encourage subnational loyalties?


• The growing influence of diaspora politics on foreign policy has led many to question whether:

• America's national interest is undermined by such partisan forces and whether the commitment of ethnic Americans to their ancestral countries impedes U.S. domestic cohesion by encouraging subnational loyalties.

• Old American anxiety that the devotion to ancestral homelands undermines national cohesiveness by exacerbating ethnic strains.

Diaspora and Foreign Policy• They point to many instances of ethnic rivalries inside the United

States that areprompted or fueled by diaspora relations with ancestral lands, such as the feuds between American Turks and Greeks, between blacks and Jews over such issues as Israel's relations with South Africa during apartheid and black support for the Palestinians, and between American Serbs and Croats.

• Such concerns are compounded by the uncertainty regarding America's future international role. As U.S. strategic interests become less clear than they once were, and as U.S. decision makers appear unable to articulate or execute a coherent global strategy, foreign policy becomes more susceptible to pressures by diasporic lobbies.

diaspora and foreign policy diasporas are endemic to the international system, having a capacity for...

Documents