1. POLS 425 US Foreign Policy The State-Level of Analysis, Pt. 2
February 14, 2007
Professor Timothy C. Lim
California State University, Los Angeles

2. 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)

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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
In Japan, peace activists are in the mainstream

6. 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

7. 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 =

8. 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
Culture of democracy
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

9. 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

10. 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?

11. 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 …

12. 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]
Full text of speech, audio and video files are available online. Click here

13. U.S. Foreign Policy The State Level of Analysis
Other Elements of State-Level Analysis
Party politics and intragovernmental divisions
Public Opinion
Interest Groups (including ethnic lobbies)
Media

14. 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

15. 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 trade-offs

16. 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

17. 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)

18. 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

19. U.S. Foreign Policy The State Level of Analysis
Other Elements of State-Level Analysis
Interest Groups
Basic definition: Interest groups are non-governmental 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)

20. 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

21. 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?

22. 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?

23. 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!