Foreign Policy PDF

Foreign Policy Question: Quick Caveats: 1. Individuals are important (but not reductionist) - But they are not always the solution, and they do not always reduce the situation down. You also can't blame one person - Ex. If Hitler was killed, there would’...

Foreign Policy Question: Quick Caveats: 1. Individuals are important (but not reductionist) - But they are not always the solution, and they do not always reduce the situation down. You also can't blame one person - Ex. If Hitler was killed, there would’ve been no WWII = FALSE 2. Action is always constrained, by: - International and domestic environmental constrain individuals - Govt and bureaucratic constraints - Decision making process (individual and Internal ones) --> the way we all process information to make decisions (rational or irrational) 3. Foreign Policy is NOT International Affairs a. Foreign Policy = events and decisions b. INTA = patterns of events that reccur - International affairs is the large trends and event patterns 4. Don't lose sight of the larger context - Think about level of analysis, Time, Permissive and efficient Causes, Theoretical lenses - Look from the perspective of tree vs forest. Don't focus too much on the tree Ideal Decision Makers Who are we talking about? - President, policy makers, NSC, etc. - All levels inside bureaucracy (veto, etc.) - These people should be mind>heart (Everyone wants them to be RATIONALE) o Examples of when mind>heart include buying something, hooking up, and drinking o A maximizing of the utility curve (cost < benefit) o Absence in many ways of Passon or Subjectivity o Making lists/spreadsheets ≠ rational So, the argument goes... Perfect world policy makers act according to RAM (Rational Act Model), which can never be completely followed Question: Model of Decision Making: RAM (on-paper) 1. Clarify Goals (what do you want to do): Pass class 2. Order them by Importance: Studying, hanging out, parents 3. List Alternatives: What to do/possibilities 4. Investigate Consequences of each alternative: Weigh outcomes and schedule 5. Choose: What’s best for you to achieve goals Simple Question: What's your maximum goal and minimum costs? The goal is going to be subjective to lower costs and maximize the national goal Model of Decision Making: RAM (Realistic) Question: Why does RAM not exist/can’t be always followed? : 1. Misperceptions/Selective Perceptions (external issue) a. Information screens b. Selectively perceiving what you want to see 2. Affective Bias a. Emotional of decision makers = bias b. Strong feelings about person or state toward which a decision is directed c. Rich’s Stereotypes about the South: i. Country music, dumb, truck driver d. Created environment based off biases ; Applies to countries and places 3. Cognitive bias (internal issue) - Limited ability to process information - Increase cognitive balance on decrease cognitive dissonance Justification of effort, wishful thinking, hardened image of the enemy, mirror image, projection of feelings, historical analogies (POLICY MAKERS ARE LIKE THIS). Policy makers have different leadership styles, use certain language codes, and dont write their speeches During war, people in power think: can my country affect the war? There is a need for power and over importance PERSONALITY MATTERS (STEPHEN DYSON) - READING - What is leadership Trait Analysis? o Traits that are important to see personal decisions are analyzed - REALISTIC RATIONALITY RAM? 1. The model of BOUNDED RATIONALITY a. Optimizing = pick the best option b. Satisfying = find satisfactory or “good enough” solution to problem i. Typically, leaders choose first decision that meets requirements, which is scary 2. PROSPECT THEORY: a. Decision makers go through 2 phases: i. EDITING phase --> take out things not needed ii. EVALUATION phase b. Is incremental decision making = small changes only (ie. Vietnam) In-Group Bias/ RAM Continued All leaders have in group bias. The need for power is necessary for war. In group bias allows distrust etc. High complicates things for conceptual complexity... Qualities of leaders include: dogmatic, authoritarian, domineering, narcissistic Question: What about Groupthink? A deterioration of critical thinking, mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgement that results when the group members’ striving for unanimity overrise their motivation to realistically appraise alt courses of action. LSL DPD HO 1. Loyalty = most important objective to the group 2. Seek to foster harmony (mixed gender) 3. lack of questioning rooted from loyalty (scary) =  a. People in groups think alike b. Bad b/c no questioning and different groupings of people c. Decisions become extreme and irrational 4. Dissent is seen as disloyal 5. Pressures nonconformists a. When this becomes a threat, it becomes group think b. Convince others of your decision and that others want it (gaslighting) 6. Decisions are believed to be moral a. Ie. Slavery as a moral right 7. Hard-headed attitude a. They are all right not matter what (ie. Reagan) = won’t listen to others 8. Over-optimistic and invincible a. Ie. America b. Firebombing of Japan (“this is what must be done”) Importance of social interaction deviates from rational problem solving = “Risky Shift” Larger Groups Decision Making = hierarchy, looser control at top, can’t handle new events Organizational-process model = shows how organizations work - Standard operating procedures (SOPs) - “Management by muddling them” = no real plan, figuring things out as you go along... “States as unitary actor” = never, except classical realism Organizations have very strict procedures - Great efficiency for everyday activities - Foreign policy is not routine = every country has different SOP o “Better to do something better than nothing” = not the case for foreign policy BPM – Bureaucratic Politic Model/Govn’t Bargaining Model = tighter control at top - Foreign policy decisions result from the bargaining process among various government agencies with somewhat divergent interests in the outcome - “Where you stand depends on where you sit” - who in what position (ie. Cuban missile crisis and SRTSAC) Hegemone “Hegemone” Definition: top of a system (global or regional) hegemony LEADS; not dictate (unipolarity) - U.S. Global Hegemone but weakening by hour...rising power is China “Standard Operational Procedures” (SOP) Definitions ? : issue w/ SOP is that its already restrictive...developed on past issues. NOT things that evolve and CANT handle new occurrences Cuban Missile Crisis Example and SOP: The secretary was like blockade is communication. The admiral was like no we need to enforce blockade with SOP... SOP is usually like: there are 2 ships. 1 st fire shell is like what's up? Stop moving... 2 nd is to disable router. Third is to attack Other Influences on Foreign Policy? - Interest Groups = coalitions w/common interest who attempt to shape decisions and outcomes o Liberal vs Realist vs Constructionist - Public Opinion: o More impact in democracies than in authoritarian governments o Less effect on foreign policy than on domestic policy - LEGISLATIVES: less dependent actors, more of a contest for the two o Can act as veto which slows fp o Reactionary to executives Conclusions? : 1. Foreign policy in different than IR, but... 2. Is often determined by Position in Hierarchy 3. To understand FP, you have to understand that state > its leaders 4. It’s Foreign Policy that complicates IR more than the other way round (Rich’s opinion) --> people make dumb decisions on the foreign scale, which complicates INTA FUTURE OF THE NATION STATE: We have worked under the assumption of the state as the primary actor, but will this remain to be the case --> America will remain #1, but states are not solid (we did not always have states) Arguments? 1. Extreme = world govt or no govt (regional organizations) 2. Evolve to 1 type of govt = Fukuyama 3. Find a new way to organize = Huntington Fukuyama: end of Cold war 1. Liberalism won out (consent to be governed, universal freedom, economic organization) 2. No new ideological challenges 3. End of History = End of Conflict 4. Progressed to “end of History” - progressive (we are actually regressive) Huntington - “Clash of Civilization” Hypothesis: Greatest decisions and conflict will be CULTURAL Hegemony = top of the system (you lead, not necessarily dictate) --> ie. US and President, people in every major continent (Japan, UK, Brazil, NOT AFRICA) Civilization is highest cultural grouping and broadest level of cultural identity (language, history, religion, customs, institutions – self-identification of people) “Fault Line” Definition: differences that cause problems; divisive issue that has serious implication of consequences His 6 Cultural fault lines: 1. Difference is real and basic (culture matters) 2. World becoming smaller (# of interactions increase_ 3. Globalization (less connected to their state, people turn to religion) 4. Dual Role of the West (are the leaders, but resented by east) 5. Cultural/political difference (politics have no/little compromise and negotiation) 6. Econ Growth Creates “us” vs “them” - WEST vs REST  - “The values that are the most important in the west are the leader important worldwide” - Western viewpoint for privileged - Choices for the EAST: o Isolation o Band wagoning (not likely) o Balancing Classifications of War (Essay Question) HTLCG Hate to love cool grass: hegemonic, total, limited, civil, guerilla Useful because it helps us understand potential causes and solutions but may not be clean cut. 1. Hegemonic War (worst type) - For control of entire world argument + often massive = ie. WWII - Professor argues there is no regional hegemonic war - We can still see hegemonic shifts without war - - Cold war not an example o Extremely rare and debatable - most powerful states are friends - New challengers? Probs China.. Why? Not West Not a Democracy Huge Share of Global Economy Already moving on West Balancing Populous Military capacity because of the motives of fear, preparation, and dominance  2. Total War - Warfare waged by one state to conquer and occupy another (primary) - Ability to start a war (secondary) - Entire society of the enemy considered a legitimate target (dehumanization of opponent group) - Entire society involved o Total war example: Afghanistan 3. Limited War - Military actions seeking objectives short of surrender and occupation of the enemy; example: raids (limited warlike activities that consist of a single action) - Huge risks because they can become a low intensity conflict- sustained, localized military actions short of total or conventional war. Restrained, cheap and normally to enforce compliance - US engages a lot (air raids, naval raids) - Singular action, localized military effectors o Ukraine and Middle East Easy to go from military actions, huge risks, and legitimate target 4. Civil war - Between factions within a state... usually one is already in power - Not just 2 sides - Factions in the state are trying to create and/or prevent a new government for entire state or territorial plot - Refugees, state institutions, and human rights concerns drives civil war 5. Guerilla War (Irregular War) - Warfare not at front lines... with irregular forces operating in midst of civilian population (KEY to this war) - Usually conducted in dense population areas Theories of Causes of War SDPPAC -----> So Dope PP Aaah Cutie 1. Scapegoat Argument - Bad economic conditions, ethnic divisions, increasing political opposition  - Leaders will initiate conflict w/ EXTERNAL for? - Take care of foreign threat, take care of problem... typically unjustified Used in authoritarian governments Happens a lot in Africa 2. Diversionary Theory - Similar to above, however, its a distraction - Manufactured conflict but no premise - Start a war...manufactured conflict - Authoritarian does this - Reflects unstable/faulty domestic issues ***Both 1 and 2 divert attention away from main problem!!!!! 3. Power, Size, and Development - More internal organizations and alliances - Greater capacity to act - Greater sense of responsibility to rectify balance of power - Sizeable empirical support for this - You have it, you use it - You have disposable military, you use it - Shift in power cause allyship 4. Power Transaction Theory - Inequality in the distribution of power between the hegemon and primary challenger - Lack of support for the status quo by the hegemons allies Hegemon vs Challenger = 2 nd state supporting challenger usually comes out on top (ie. WII where America comes out on top of Germany vs Europe argument) Government less related to number 3. 5. Arms Races - Progressive and competitive; peacetime increase in armaments by 2 states or coalitions of states resulting from conflicting purposes and mutual fears. - It's a psychological thing... there is the idea that there is a threat - Which lead to wars?  o Balance is thrown --> one side gets way better (threat goes up) Dramatic Shifts in Diatec shift o Motivations of State: When one states purpose is revisionist = wants to change status quo o Unstable races (Really quick arms race and reaction is preferable SO no large gaps and people can catch up) Longer arms race is less stable; no one side will gain an advantage 6. Cycle Theories - Wars linked to long economic waves (Kondratieff Cycles) - Largest wars linked to 100 year cycle of creation or decay of the world - WWI is an example of cycle theory - Cycle theory has quick highs and lows - Condensed because gloablization is present - Tends to captured by movements NOT looking how things can stay constant Nations and Self-Determination... our “Fit” Problem Different cultural (ethnic) boundaries don't coincide with political boundaries - 40% contain 5+ - 40% percent of nation states has 5+ subnations (cultural and ethnical nations) 5 types of “fit”... some are recipe for conflict One nation, one state - 10% of world fits into this - U.S. falls in to this o 90% live domestically Multinational states (MOST COMMON) - Roughly 30% of world countries - Canada good example, Quebec (Native, English, French) One nation, multiple states - Overlapping multiple boarders - Ex: Korea One nation, no state - Ex: Kurds (no state representation) Multiple nations, multiple states (worst case) - So many nations inside internal and surrounding states - Example: Afghanistan, Former Yugoslavia, basically worst type but most common - ***3 to 5 = inc of conflict Questions to worry about with War and Conflict (tie in with Fukuyama?) 1. “Security Community”? Europe a. War among the leading great powers – the most developed states – will not occur in the future and indeed is no longer a source of concern for them b. “The community are not all the great powers, but the most developed ones” ** Above is not right, published before 9/11 2. Maybe non-trad warfare? a. Insurgencies b. Great powers no longer control Inta system, just influences c. Gray Zone Conflict (propaganda, econ, nonstate entities) 3. No one knows what the future holds? a. Depleting Resources (environmental policy) b. Global Warming? Humanitarian Issues (immigration, refugees, etc) 4. If we tranisiton to “Nominal Democracy”.... what’s that? (africa) a. Is there such a thing as “reverse democratic peace? b. 5. We may live in the most dangerous time in history (Dr. Rich) --> nukes, Military spending inc, democratic slide, middle class slips a. Military building = influencing factor Conventional Forces: 1. Land forces (army) - take, hold, defend territory  a. Industrialized states always have advantage over poorer ones = campaigns costly and labor-intensive 2. Naval Forces --> control passage and attack coastline a. Power projection: ie. Aircrat carrier b. Very expensive, few states can afford one 3. AirForce – power projection, but punitive a. Strategic bombing b. “Close air support”/ airlift supplies c. Interception and Reconnaissance 4. Coordinating Forces: Logistics and Intelligence a. Many moving parts b. US only nation to fully have them c. Anti-fog of war Russia and China as exceptions – time period of Europe and US peak stability TERRORISM: Hundreds of definitions --> developed by govt = legal ; developed by individuals = theoretical and broad Matters b/c: 1. Practical implications 2. Recognizes bias 3. Separates tactics from perp ** Violence and motivation makes a terrorist (never the state) Terrorist vs Criminal vs Guerilla fighters Terrorist: Political motive, carved out of org or w/clear goal; individual/group often believes in greater good Criminal: personal satisfaction; criminal act does not intend to create psychological after- effect; not trying to change system PAPE READING: Arms and Intelligence-Shelling 1. Terrorism is strategic a. “The rationality of irrationality” - utility function involved 2. Coerce democracies into concessions (public influence) a. Targets audience, audience pushes democracy  3. Terrorism is on the rise b/c it’s effective and pays 4. Moderation is important (too much is bad) 5. Confidence to contain terrorists a. Terrorism will never be eradicated FORMS OF TERRORISM: 1. Demonstrative Terrorism: gain publicity to recruit; gain attention of soft-liners on other side or 3 rd parties to exert pressure ---> demote detonation 2. Destructive Terrorism: inflict real harm on members of target audience ; risks losing support/sympathy ; looks to mobilize supporters ; escalation of violence against target audience ---> targets are innocents 3. Suicide Terrorism: (most severe) --> risking losing supports on both sides ; maximizing coercion is primary goal (9/11) a. “attempts to inflict enough pain on the opposing society to overrule their interests in resisting terrorists demands” b. Reverses causal chain of coercion i. Shelling state – strong coerces weak ii. Suicide terrorism: Weak coerces strong 1. Credible b/c already occurred ; idea of future damage c. Every state sees terrorism differently: i. INTERNATIONAL vs DOMESTIC Terrorism 1. Domestic = concerns of individual states (terrorism cannot bring down state) HOW TO REDUCE THREAT OF TERRORISM: 1. Military? Prevents # of problems a. Problems w/identification and mobile targets b. Involves Innocent c. Increases anger of targeted population (Islam) d. Death does not deter suicide terrorism e. Pyramid of Terrorism problem i. Groups within the org 1. Leaders (Small) 2. Foot soldiers (medium) ---> Coordinates 3. Money (funders) --> very broad sourcing 4. Supporters --> very very broad 2. Traditional Unilateral Counterterrorism: a. Focuses on Core  b. Improved Intelligence 3. Antiterrorism: Reduce Vulnerability ; Increased Security 4. International Coop: best for combined effort a. Share intel (combine and further efforts) b. Deny the publicity they seek (hard to do) 5. Most Successful = Alienate societal and political situations that cause it a. Increased financial support b. Genuine Support in Regions c. Recognize and Respect Societal/Cultural Differences International Law International Law is a set of rules, customs, and principles that states recognize as obligatory in relations with other states; enforced by societal norms rather than policy (domestic) - No firm legal code b/c no overarching authority = horizontal power Questions: Why follow international law? 1. Routine reduces conflict We want to create a routine so people can know how to act 2. Provides predictability and stability - States hate instability. They want stable action. 3. Easier for states to pursue national interests a. Most states comply w/ international law most of the time b. When exceptions occur, they can be traumatic Notes: Domestic law has a fear of enforcement. International law does not. There are also no international police Most states comply with most rules of international law most of the time but...International law builds regime Definition: What is the regime? Regime is a topic where institutions built around it to provide the expectations around issue area. When built, all members know expected/unexpected behavior Definitions: Soft Law VS Hard Law Soft law- Accepted norms and principles. Examples: nuclear states do not harm non- nuclear states... However, Russia is obviously breaking this law. People are condemning Russia because the envision is outside the norm. Hard law- written rules put into paper and signed. Something that is NOT hard law becomes soft law Question: Sources of International Law 1. Customs Practice of states (or other entities): “legal obligation” is KEY. Fear of retribution comes from legal obligations NOT kindness. The Paquete Habana: first case that recognized International law. Important because U.S. young country with young court and we haven't had a war with ourselves. SO the only way to understand the case was outward NOT inward. - Domestic VS Int Customs: as it expands, there wont be a dominant equivalent. Privilege is states prize what is found in international law over domestic law. International law tells new phenomena in other places, is wider - Regional Customary Law: Can triumph international law because customs are backbone for international law AND Regional customary law cant be placed above international law - Special or Local Custom: only applicable locally. Is not foundation for higher law. 2. Jus Cogens (Crimes everyone agrees upon) Completely agreed upon: torture, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, slavery and piracy 3. Definitions: Treaties and Conventions - hard fast stuff? - codification of Customary law Treaties: small number of states (3-4) involved Conventions: targets the entire international community Both can create binding obligations on the outside like customs due to repetition 4. Judicial Decisions and Writings Definition: No stare decisis: decided cases used to inform and not constraint. Judicial decisions made at domestic level but held at international level Previous cases decide future cases, but not in INTA International Criminal Law Includes: Save PP Cause Gents TT (Twill Terrorize) 1. Slavery 2. Piracy (can be held individually – refer to state behavior) 3. Peace Time/ Hostage Taking 4. Crimes Against Humanity 5. Genocide 6. Torture 7. Terrorism – Terrorism might not be Jus Cogens Sweet PP CG TT 1. Slavery --> multi-lateral conventions (1840) ---> Convention to Suppress Slave Trade and Slavery (1926) - No real enforcement mechanism (state obligation weak --> Jim Crow Law) ---> significant issue today (human trafficking) 2. Piracy Definition: any illegal act created for private ends (not just laws of sea but also air); equipment dependent on territorial lines. a. Rare places; PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL (personal gains) b. Do the act (on high sides or airs) ; against another vessel or person or property on vessel c. Legal personality individually 4 possible acts:  1. Acts of deprivation on or over high seas against other ship/aircraft OR person or property on aircraft.. Example: boarding illegal places on cruise or stealing more wine on cruise 2. Any voluntary action to make ship/aircraft pirate. Example: letting friend go on ship 3. Any act of incitement or facilitation of pirate. Example: Celebrating pirate 4. Trying to size pirate, you become one.. Only govt or officials can detain pirate 3. Peacetime Hostage Taking: a. 1979 Convention Against Hostage Taking b. Key tries when it doesn’t apply (wartime) 4. Crimes Against Humanity a. Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportations, and other inhumane acts committed against Civilian populations, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds (all, not even war in safe) 5. Genocide --> an act committed w/the intent to destroy, in whole or part , a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group a. Intent = politic --> Unless written intent is always interpreted b. 5 Identifiable Acts: i. Killing members ii. Bodily harm or mental harm to group iii. Creating conditions that are life dependent iv. Imposing conditions to prevent births v. Forcibly transferring children 6. Terrorism: a. The INTA convention for the suppression of Terrorist bombings (1997) b. The INTA Con for suppression of Financing of Terrorism (1999) c. CTC (2001) --> deals w/states not the terrorists themselves **Above relates itself to the pyramid Inside all protocols (above), reality is that all are very limited and 4 key points needed to be addressed 1. No Asylum --> states/people can give asylum to terrorists 2. No Mandatory Extradition 3. If no, then vigorous prosecution 4. No Common “terrorist” definition  7. TORTURE --> amnesty INTA started this a. 1975 Declaration b. 1984 Conventon c. 2002 OPCAP How does enhanced interrogation fit in? --> American term only 1. Conditioning Techniques: detainee has no control over basic needs Public nudity, sleep deprivation, dietary manipulation 2. Corrective Techniques: limited physical interaction Done to “correct, startle” and achieve objective (obtain info) Breaks them down 3. Coercive Techniques --> physical and psychological stress Walling, water dousing, wall-standing, confinement, waterboarding Just War: Principles are related to “Just War Theory” = all war Laws are based on this Jus Ad Bellum (Just cause of War) --> what makes war Justified Jus in Bello (Just Conduct) --> actions in war (moral behaviors in war) 2 principles: (ONLY APPLICABLE TO STATES) 1. Discrimination --> non-combatants cannot be targeted 2. Military Proportionality --> only needs to do what must be done militarily UN Charter 4 Types of Handling Disputes: 1. Good Offices --> direct negotiation; willing 2. Mediation --> 3 rd party mediator (owls) 3. Conciliation a. Most popular is Arbitration --> court of Arbitration – part of INTA chamber of commerce b. All parties must be willing c. 3rd party decides (proposes settlement) --> must be enforced d. Focus is on INTA Commerce and Trade disputes  4. Commissions of Inquiry a. Establish factual evidence, best hope investigation bear fruits b. Through investigation Human Rights Define – political, social entitlements recognized as inalienable and valid for individuals in all countries by virtue of their humanity = no agreement on what these are, just that they exist 2 forms: 1. Positive Rights – things states and treaties tell you you can have (personal entitlements) ie. Liberty, etc (written) 2. Normative Rights = human dignity and moral claims The Idea of Human Rights = evolutionary, obligation towards community, basic construction of society, Govt restrictions and obligations, all inside context of Pol. Lib. - Protection of Human Rights is 20 th century idea - Religion = Christianity emphasis on worth and dignity; something beyond the state Events that Basis of Human Rights 1. UN Charter Preamble 2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights =-- foundation of what we think of “human rights” 3. INTA Covenant on Civil and Political Rights = states must act to protect rights --> “First gen” 4. INTA Covenant of Econ, social, and cultural Rights = “second Gen” --> high level of development, progressive nature to advance them (aspirational) (ehnahces previous one)