IR Chapter 4 Reading
Puzzle: War is costly for states but what if there are actors within the state—such as politicians, businesses, or the military— who see war as beneficial and who expect to pay few or none of its costs? Do states fight wars to satisfy influential domestic interests?
Context
(1982, Buenos Aires) There was huge protests against Argentina’s military government —> a week later, demonstrators were for the military regime. Between that week, Argentina’s navy had invaded a small group of islands that were disputed by them and Britain
(1954, Washington D.C.) United Fruit Company representatives complained that the Guatemalan leader, Jacobo Arbenz, had seized their land for a land reform program. The govt demanded 16 mil from Guatemala—June that year, CIA agents infiltrated Guatemala. In fear, Arbenz resigned and a pro-American leader was instated.
While past chapters have discussed states as physical actors, they are really legal and political constructs. Choices and actions are by the people, and waging war is done by leaders.
Interest groups (business and ethnic lobbies) can also affect decision making
Different actors within a state may place more or less value on the issue in a dispute. A piece of land may be of profit or national pride to one group but useless to another.
War, for example: Soldiers pay high and direct costs, others may have economic costs, and some groups benefit from war
Why Doesn’t Politics “Stop at the Water’s Edge”?
Explanations of international events are explained at first by treating states as unitary actors, then secondary domestic actors and institutions
This is to simplify international events by only looking at broader states and not their domestic interests
Realism posits this, that states’ choices are dictated by external factors. States are most at risk concerning sovereignty, so that takes importance over domestic issues.
Nationalism (a political ideology that prioritizes attachment to one’s nation, where nations are groups defined by common origin, ethnicity, language, or cultural ties): states will encourage unity in order to defend against external threats and put national interest over personal interest. They do this through education, public events, holidays, etc.
This isn’t the most effective argument b/c nationalism can have different effects in different countries at different times—countries that are very diverse sometimes struggle with uniting a nation (think Ukraine—half Russian minority, half Ukrainian, with the Russian half seeking autonomy in a civil war since 2014)
Even with those two putting external interests over personal ones, entire groups still disagree over how to achieve external interests. Ex: Americans understand that China is a threat—some think military action is best (hawks) and others argue for closer trade relations (doves).
Differences can arise from economic interests.
Ex: Trade policies with China—some want confrontational policy (if they are harmed by Chinese trade—labor unions) or closer relations (Multinational companies who benefit)
Both have access to the political system and lobby the government to sway their policies towards Chinese trade
Nationalists vs. Internationalists
Nationalists: emphasis on nationalism (Trump, some European countries). High value on gaining territory, downplay the use of military force to achieve ends. Seen with Russia seizing the Russian-majority Crimea (part of Ukraine) and China seizing the South China Sea
Internationalists: sensitive to the cost of using force to gain back lost territories
Overall, the idea of domestic politics having no influence on external affairs is wishful thinking.
Whose Interests Matter?: Interactions, institutions, influence
Figuring out which actors matter the most in foreign policy lies in looking at institutions and interactions
Institutions: domestic institutions make the nations go round. Example: monarchs hold absolute power over decisions and are decided through birth order, some states have leaders who hold the most military power, and some states are democratic and decide their leaders via popular support.
Some political systems will have rulers who dictate decisions independently, or within a small, elite group. Others will delegate power between branches, such as between an executive and legislative.
In systems with absolute rulers, diverse interests don’t need to be considered. Yet, in democracies, its necessary to listen to the public opinion in order to be reelected—as well as garnering money from supporters/groups that want certain policies
Smaller interests groups are far better at getting policy to go their way—as smaller groups can organize and concentrate efforts better than a diverse, large group (think United Fruit encouraging a CIA operation vs. taxpayers each having to give a few pennies to this operation—not worth it/realistic for taxpayers to organize
Discussions of domestic interests concern four actors: leaders, bureaucracies, interest groups, the general public
Leaders: decide foreign policy decisions and choose when to threaten, demands to issue, or wage war
Bureaucracies: Military, diplomats, and intelligence agencies wield power due to massive resources and knowledge. The military especially can be a deciding factor in decisions due to use of force in implementation and influence over political leaders
Interest groups: Groups of individuals with common interests that organize in order to push for policies that benefit their members. Some of importance are economic interest groups (companies) and ethnic lobbies.
General public: Really only matters in democracies (voting) as authoritarian states just put down dissent through military or police
Do Politicians Spark Wars Abroad in Order to Hold On to Power at Home?
Think Argentinian-British war that was discussed—that dispute was near useless as Britain was already pulling out of those islands (which were of little value) and taking away British citizenship from its inhabitants—yet Britain steamrolled Argentina and took back the islands after they occupied for 74 days, even though they were relinquishing force earlier on.
Argentina picked this fight because the junta (military group) that took power was very unpopular, and they also faced economic downturn—so a war was perfect in order to reclaim nationalist sentiment, distract from economy, and legitimize the military government
For Britain, Margaret Thatcher was worried about her political survival. The country was in recession, high unemployment, so Thatcher became very unpopular. Yet, her response to the islands caused her poll numbers to soar.