READINGS:COX AND STOKES CH 1, 2 AND 10

WALTFRIEDMAN AND MANDLEBAUM

THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO US FOREIGN POLICY

Guiding Questions

How do we approach the study of foreign policy?

What external/internal variables do common theoretical outlooks emphasize?

What is “American exceptionalism”?What role does it play in US foreign policy?What is “grand strategy”?How is “grand strategy” linked to theories of

foreign policy?

How Do We Approach the Study of Foreign Policy?

Schmidt 2008 (Cox and Stokes)Many factors shape foreign policy:

International system Social/domestic political situation Governmental structure Bureaucratic roles Personalities of individual leaders

But while all of these factors theoretically shape foreign policy, some may be more important than others. Many different explanations or predictions for foreign policy Theory helps us simplify complex processes

There may be no one theory that is always correct. But it does not mean that the “truth” is necessarily a mix of all factors

Systemic Theories of Foreign Policy

Schmidt 2008Emphasize systemic (international) factors over

domestic factors Realism emphasizes the distribution of power as critical for

shaping foreign policy decisions Different types of realist approaches exist

Defensive realism vs. offensive realismThe two approaches share similar outlooks about the

international system. 1) International system is anarchic 2) States are the most important international actors 3) States adopt “self-help” techniques to ensure survival 4) Relative power shapes state foreign policy

DEFENSIVE OFFENSIVE

States should only seek the amount of power necessary for security

States are security maximizers Expansionism is counterproductive

Provokes counter-responses

Geography, technology, military doctrine can bring security even in an anarchic environment Domestic politics can undermine

security by pushing to states to engage in behavior that is contrary to their security goals

States should seek as much power as possible Only w ay to ensure survival

States should maximize power Global hegemony is every state’s

goal, but it is unachievable ‘Stopping power of water’

Regional hegemony is attainable, but states do not like competition Hence aggressive behavior may

be necessary to deter the rise of other regional hegemons

Comparing Realist Theories

Domestic Theories of Foreign Policy: Liberalism

Schmidt 2008International system is anarchic and states are motivated by

security Similar to realism

But improving domestic political situations through trade and absence of war can be beneficial Can reduce unemployment and raise living standards

But how can states overcome anarchy? International institutions can create opportunities to trade in an

anarchic environment Repeated interaction provides opportunities for reciprocity Going to war becomes costly

Security can also be advanced through promoting interactions with like minded states

Democratic peace

Domestic Theories of Foreign Policy: Marxism

Schmidt 2008Emphasis on domestic economic structuresInternational capitalism shapes foreign policy

US foreign policy aims to protect international capitalismMarkets are unjust and class conflict is inevitable

Expansionism and imperialism necessary to maintain growth levels in core states

Foreign interventions aim to provide access to new markets or new materials in the face of domestic economic crises Requires control over the periphery

Integrating Domestic and Systemic Factors: Neoclassical Realism

Schmidt 2008Attempt to “square the circle” between domestic

and systemic factors Power matters but interacts with domestic politics

Systemic factors (i.e. relative power) shape the range of possibilities within a system Broad framework is set by a state’s relative level of power

Great powers have more options than small powers

Domestic factors (e.g. political leaders, policy debates, etc.) shape specific policy choices Explains why certain policy choices are made over others

Constructivism

Schmidt 2008Identity and interests are malleable not fixed

Both are relational (i.e. state identity varies depending upon the other state) Identity and ideas shape foreign policy decisions Conceptions of threat/security vary depending upon

identity Anarchy is “what states make of it”

US foreign policy is a function not only of its interests but also of its identity 9/11 and the US as “global guardian of freedom” American exceptionalism

American Exceptionalism?

Deudney and Meiser 2008 (Cox and Stokes)US has always seen itself as an “exceptional state”

“Shining City on a Hill” “Last Great Hope for Mankind”

Often used as a rationale to justify foreign policy decisions

Is the US “exceptional”? US is the sole superpower (militarily, economically, politically) US diversity, religiosity, makes it “different” from other western

nationsCore explanation of US exceptionalism lies in its

“liberal nature” Individual freedom and commitment to the rule of law central

to conceptions of economics, society, and politics

American Exceptionalism?

Friedman and Mandlebaum 2011 America was “exceptional” and may once again become “exceptional”

Liberal nature of the regime is key Exceptionalism is a not a ‘given’ it must be maintained

US malaise is a function of its inability to respond to current challenges US “wrong footed” on globalization, the information revolution,

deficits, and energy consumption A “new world” exists and the US must change with it.

Liberal history gives it a flexibility that makes the US very marketable

Addressing weaknesses will spur US economic growth And also helps the international system which relies on the US for

economic, political and global stability Requires political resolve; not in evidence in Washington today.

American Exceptionalism?

Walt 2011Although ‘American exceptionalism’ motivates

US foreign policy, it is a myth Power shapes US foreign policy, not these myths But the rhetoric can ‘backfire’

US dominance not always seen as sanguine Raises questions of US hypocrisy

The concept of ‘American exceptionalism” extends beyond the ‘liberal nature’ of the regime Offers a “top 5” list of myths which underlie this rhetoric

American Exceptionalism

Walt 2011 1) “There is something exceptional about US exceptionalism”

There isn’t. All great powers make these claims 2) “The US behaves better than others do”

Not one of the most brutal states (Stalin’s Russia/Hitler’s Germany) but is one of the most expansionist in modern times (Manifest Destiny)

Refuses to sign many human rights treaties (e.g. not a party to the ICC) 3) “Success is due to ‘special genius’ ”

Admits liberal nature; claims success has also been a function of luck (geostrategic positioning) and timing (other great powers occupied with wars)

4) “US is responsible for most of the good in the world” Has made contributions (Marshall Plan, Bretton Woods) but other nations

also deserve credit. Present leadership on many civil rights issues (LGBT rights, economic

equality, criminal justice, etc.) belongs to Europe 5) “God is on our side”

Hubris is dangerous; financial crisis is a case in point

Critical Theory

Rowley and Weldes 2011 (Cox and Stokes)Critical constructivist/postmodernist theory

Reality is “socially constructed” Discursive practices shape identity, which in turn

shapes US interests and US policies Conceptions of “self” always framed in relation to “other”

US as “free world” vs. USSR as “evil empire” “Global war on terror

Feminist theory Very diverse. One common thread debates whether men and women

are essentially different as policy actors.

What About Neo-conservatism?

Kennedy-Pipe 2008 (Cox and Stokes p. 408) Originally liberals but responded adversely to postmaterialist movements

Focus less on how the world works today and more on how it can be ‘improved”

Neo-conservatism and realism Share a focus on states but differ over its role Realists disagree with using state power to impose democracy.

Believe that foreign policy should advance normative goals Neo-conservatism and liberalism

Share a focus on democracy but differ over international organizations. Liberals dislike neocon willingness to ignore international law and launch

unilateral military strikes. See US as a force of good

Significant impact on the policies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

From Theory to Grand Strategy

Schmidt 2008 (Cox and Stokes) Grand strategy: overall vision of a state’s national security goals and the most

appropriate means to achieve these goals Neo-isolationism

Focus on US national interests first; ‘Interest based’ or ‘strategy of restraint’ Defensive realism; Cites US geostrategic position and hegemony as allowing for

the US to pull back from the world Often associated with early US foreign policy

Resurgence following the end of the Cold War; re-evaluated after 9/11 Liberal internationalism

Liberalism; International institutions project a liberal capitalist order which is good for the US and good for the world. International institutions provide legitimacy for US actions and a basis for

spreading democracy Pulling away would be destabilizing

International institutions reduce the “threat” of US hegemony Clintonian grand strategy

From Theory to Grand Strategy

Schmidt 2008 (Cox and Stokes)Primacy

Preserve US hegemony by ensuring no future challenger rises up Spend more than any other state on military, station troops

internationally and prevent a rising China Multilateralism may provide legitimacy, but a hegemon

can act unilaterally Views international institutions suspiciously

Unilateralism is not ALWAYS problematic Differences exist over how to promote primacy

Focus on US interests (offensive realism) vs. promoting democracy (neo-conservatism)

Conclusions

Most of the foreign policy debate we will have in this course will be over “grand strategy” Although the ‘right’ strategy is often debated from a specific

theoretical perspective.Though the theories disagree on which factors ‘matter’,

the truth is not necessarily somewhere in the middle. Which factors “best” explain US foreign policy is the goal. Not whether or not “every possible factor” matters to some extent.

When reading ask yourself the following: 1) What is the argument? 2) Which theoretical background is the author coming from? 3) What works in their argument? 4) What does not work? 5) How would other perspectives respond?

Next Unit

No class next Friday 13 April 2012 Theme: Historical Contexts and US Foreign Policy

Cox and Stokes CH 3-5 Fukuyama (End of History)

http://www.wesjones.com/eoh.htm Huntington (Foreign Affairs-Summer 1993)