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.
What do Leaders Want?
Leaders of states are usually looking out for the interests of their nation, but also have varied interests that affect how they decide foreign policy
Strong ideological beliefs is an example: Hitler’s extreme ideologies led him to seek a ‘living space’ for the German people —> invasion of Poland and Soviet Union
Varied ideas, personality traits, and prior life experience also changes interactions with foreign policy
Leaders also have less romantic motivations: being in office has a lot of additional benefits
Benefits such as ego boost, opportunities to enrich self/friends, ability to shape policy —> leads to states people seeking ways to obtain office, and how to secure that hold on their power
How do those motivations affect leader decisions about war and peace?
Leaders’ hunger for power explains why a lot of domestic interests matter in decision making
Leaders are responsive to those in control of their political fate, which is why they listen to groups such as voters, interest groups, the military —> this responsiveness is why the wish to remain in office matters in almost every aspect of this chapter
This does not mean leaders are instruments of other actors—they usually use policy control to shape their political environments. Example: using force abroad —> enhance personal hold on power domestically
The Rally Effect and the Diversionary Incentive
The idea that leaders further their interests by fighting war is supported by the rally effect: people’s tendency to become more supportive of their country’s government in times of dramatic international events, such as crises or wars. More apparent in countries where public opinion polls popular levels of support for a leader.
The onset of war makes approval ratings jump; seen with Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands War. Biggest jump was post-9/11, with Pres ident George W. Bush’s ratings jumping from 51—>86 percent.
Explanations for rally effect
(1) members of a group feel greater attachment/loyalty when faced with outsider conflict
(2) at times of emergency, political opponents will dampen their criticisms of government, allowing the government to crack down on dissent and dominate the political discourse
(3) Int’l conflict creates a diversion from leader’s problems such as economic troubles or scandals —> dissolves domestic divisions as foreign policy drives those issues out of headlines
(4) Int’l conflict provides struggling leaders with an opportunity to blame foreigners for country’s problems (scapegoating)
Existence of rally effect —> leaders face diversionary incentive (the incentive that state leaders have to start international crises in order to rally public support at home)
This effect poses a danger: leaders facing a diversionary temptation may prefer staying in power, preferring war over a negotiated settlement
Leaders who engage in this behavior often are insecure domestically due to public discontent with policies or hard economic times: their choice to start wars is referred to as gambling for resurrection (taking a risky action when the alternative is certain to be very, very bad)
Example: hockey teams trailing in final minutes will make their goalie into an attacker, which increases the chance of scoring a goal but also makes it easier for the other team to score. Leaders who think they’ll lose office will see a very large upside to starting a war. (pg 158)
Do Leaders “Wag the Dog”?
The Political Costs of War
Are Women Leaders More Peaceful than Men?
More women have come into military and legislative positions of power since 1980
Research shows that women are less aggressive than men and seek compromise more often: states with higher gender equality use less violence and spend less on militaries
Yet, women leaders are a slight bit more likely to initiate at least one military conflict than male leaders—female prime ministers/presidents engage in more conflictual behavior!
Can be explained by the fact that women who go through the political process compensate for a lack of women’s empowerment by engaging in conflict, in order to run counter to the gender stereotype of ‘not being tough’
Can also be explained by the fact that military conflict is between two states: when faced with a woman leader, other states expect her to be dovish and give greater demands which increases the risk of conflict. Male leaders may also not want to ‘back down’ to a woman adversary
Do Countries Fight Wars to Satisfy the Military or Special Interest Groups?
Britain engaged in the costly Boer War between 1898 and 1902, to divide and colonize the continent of Africa. Why did they expend so many young lives and so much money to acquire and defend this colonist empire?
Answer: it didn’t benefit Britain as a whole but it did benefit small groups: wealthy people (investment in railroads, mines, properties), military leaders (glory and larger budgets) and arms manufacturers (profits)
British economist J.A. Hobson’s theory that wars are fought to benefit military/business interests is a familiar thesis—echoes the words of President Eisenhower as he discussed the military-industrial complex: an alliance between military leaders and the industries that benefit from international conflict, such as arms manufacturers.
They don’t necessarily want to cause wars, they want to increase the conditions under which a state would consider fighting a war
Bureaucratic Politics and the Military
The decision to wage war lies in the hands of leaders, but the machinery of government that deals with war is much larger/complex
Wars are planned by state military, negotiations done by diplomats, information about other militaries is collected by intelligence agencies
Interests of bureaucratic organizations also matter: while they care about their country, they also care about resources and influence they wield
Seek bigger budgets, policy making input, opportunities for promotion —> will press for policies that boost their status/fit their worldview
Ex: prior 2003 Iraq War, Defense and State departments disagreed between how to deal with war. These debates consist of the saying “where you stand depends on where you sit.” The military is the most influential bureaucratic actor