Lecture 8: Cold War, Bipolar Security and the Foreign Policy of Great
Powers
1. Bush versus Obama versus Trump: Unilateralism and isolationism in American foreign
policy?
Recap:
The postwar integration process in Western Europe took place within an Atlantic context and as part of th
economic and military cooperation under the banner of Pax Americana. This ‘American peace’ was the logical
consequence of the decisive role that the US played in the Allied victory over Hitler’s Germany, a role that was
comparable in terms of impact only to that of the Soviet Union. It gave US a political and moral leverage over
the political leaders and populations of countries freed by American troops.
However, American post-war hegemony is declining. Americans are especially increasingly confronted with the
reality of emerging powers and the renewed assertiveness of Russia. The 1980s saw the relaunch of the process
of European integration – single market, single currency – accompanied by a growing assertiveness and a
strengthening of European competitiveness on the world market. Moreover, the introduction of the euro
created an alternative to the dollar as a means of international payments and as a reserve currency. The 1990s
showcased the globalization of neoliberal ideas as well as the rise of the so-called emerging economies and the
emergence of an independent and multipolar state system. Since the turn of the millennium, we have
increasingly seen that the US no longer has the exclusive right to a world order strategy.
Traditions is American foreign policy:
Isolationism versus internationalism.
Isolationism:
o Scientists have begun to argue that the US is close to moving away from the stage of world politics
towards a more isolated position. The basis of this is that the US is rather inward looking, and not
involved in the issues of international politics.
After WWI and WWII, there was a lot of writing and research about this apparent American
isolationism.
However, it was not really isolationism that they were practicing, as they opened themselves to
European integration and the world.
o Then, after the Vietnam war, which was coupled with the decline of American hegemony, talks about
American isolationism surfaced again:
Both Obama and Trump speculated about America first strategy in US foreign policy,
withdrawing troupes from Afghanistan in the case of Obama and withdrawing troupes of Syria in
the case of Trump.
Plus, both presidents also started to turn their back on the European Union.
o In any case, it can be said that in spite of these trends, America is too big to isolate themselves from
world affairs, and isolationism is only a historical theme and not something characteristic of Americana
action.
Varieties of internationalism:
o ‘Hamiltonianism’ or ‘Wilsonianism’ (Walter Russell Mead: Special Providence, 2002):
, Hamiltonianism: Foreign policy is explicitly based on national interests. Active foreign policy
must be developed to meet national goals.
Wilsonianism: This is an open-door strategy which aims to make the world safer for democracy.
It is thus directed towards national self-determination which means that every country in the
world has the right of self-determination. This type is considered as being against the European
colonies.
o Realism or idealism:
The two are seen as realism versus idealism:
Realism is a foreign policy based on national interest and national goals.
Idealism is somewhat foreign policy in the best of all interests, so in the interest of the
whole world and its citizens.
o Unilateralism or multilateralism:
Unilateralism: Doctrine that supports one-sided action, such as the intervention of the US in Iran
(if the UN had accepted the intervention, it would have been multilateralism).
Multilateralism: An alliance of multiple countries pursuing a common goal. This is based on the
coalition of the willing:
If US could not obtain an agreement in the sphere of the UN, it would still go tis way and
offer the possibility to all countries to get involved.
o Republicans versus Democrats?
Republicans: Soft Power
Democrats: The hard power, or the hawks.
However, there is not clear difference between the two parties in terms of foreign policy.
2. Decision-making theories + Foreign Policy Approaches (J/S/M)
Foreign policy involves goals, strategies, agreements, and so on, by which national governments conduct international
relations with each other and with international organizations and non-governmental actors.
The traditional approach to foreign policy holds that it is important to be informed about a government’s
external policies. It is a matter of gaining insight into the activity of foreign policymakers, either from experience
or by careful scrutiny of past and present foreign policies.
Decision-making theories and foreign policy approaches:
Rational Actor Model/ Cybernetics:
Similar to a neorealist perspective on foreign policy
There is a primacy of national interest.
The state is seen as a unitary, single actors which takes decisions based on rational assumptions.
Rational choice is an important element.
It is one of the simplest ways of looking at foreign policy.
An aspect of this model is cybernetics:
A large percentage of foreign policy is about SOPs: Standard operating procedures. A large
extent of foreign policy is based on standard operating procedures. Routinized practices and
standard responses.
, E.g.: if you are moving abroad and you lost your passport, you have to go to the
embassy and get a new passport. This is a standard operating procedure: fixed rules that
can be followed in any country.
Another example is the policy of Israel with respect to terrorist attacks: Do not
negotiate, and immediately send troops.
Bureaucratic-politics model:
A state is not a closed entity or a single unitary actor:
Comes as a critique on RAM
There are different elements within a national bureaucracy and all have their own particular interest:
Focus on organizational context of decision making.
There is detailed attention to the concrete way policies are carried out in the bureaucratic
milieus.
Bureaucrats and bureaucracy are driven by agency interests in order to ensure their survival. Agencies
are involved in a constant competition for various stakes and prizes. The net effect is a policy process
whereby struggles for organizational survival, expansion and growth, and imperialism are inevitable:
Competition produces intra-agency bureaucratic culture and behaviour patter.
Group thinking is present: This describes a process by which a group arrives at irrational decisions. When
groupthink occurs, the group fails to consider alternative ways to arrive at the best possible decision.
The awareness of the effects of groupthink is the way to avoid them next time:
A particular section of the bureaucracy is having its own interest and ideas, and this may result
in all kind of conflict with other sections of the bureaucracy. So, in the end not the most
rational/logical decision is made:
The outcome always depends on a power struggle between different parts of the
bureaucracy. Policy made in the arena of bureaucratic politics is characterized by
bargaining, accommodation, and compromise.
There is a collective rationalization, coupled with out-group stereotypes and self-
censorship, as members feel inclined to avoid deviation from consensus. But this also
brings an illusion of unanimity.
E.g. In the US there are the president, the vice-president, each of them has their own staff, which also
advices the president based on certain dynamics. Plus, there are the congress, senate, and military.
So, it is not necessarily that the whole bureaucracy will agree on a foreign policy strategy.
US-EU:
Directorates-general EC:
o Agriculture and rural development
, o Competition
o Economic and Financial affairs
o Education and culture
o Employment, social affairs and inclusion
o Energy and transport
o Enterprise and industry
o Environment
o Maritime affairs and fisheries
o Health and consumers
o Information society and media
o Internal market
o Justice, freedom and security
o Regional policy
o Research and innovation
o Taxation and customs Union
Cognitive processes/ Constructivist turn:
This is another critique on rational choice theory and to some extend a critique on bureaucratic politics
model which puts too much focus on the bureaucracy as a whole, and too little focus on the individual
actors, such as the president.
Emphasizes psychological aspects of decision making. The focus is on the individual decision maker with
a particular attention to the psychological aspects of decision making.
The constructivist turn is about the importance of ideas, values and traditions in foreign policy. What
kind of strategic culture one country has that is the focus of the foreign policy. They trace the influence
of ideas and the discourse of policymakers on the processes and outcomes in foreign policy.
E.g. In Ireland, the strategic culture in foreign policy is one based on neutrality.:
They want to be as far away as possible from collective security organizations, so be neutral in
terms of defense.
Another aspect of a security/foreign policy culture of Scandinavian countries is that they have a strong
tradition in developing-assistance:
It was agreed that all the rich countries would spend 0,7% of their welfare on development
assistance. Only Scandinavian countries are following this decision. Thus, they have an active
foreign policy directed towards the developing world. These are examples of a strategic culture/
a foreign policy culture.
Theory of the Military Industrial Complex:
Goes somewhat in the direction of the rational choice theory.
Based on soft rational choice or bounded rational choice.
They say that both cognitive and constructivist approaches are too contingent in their explanations and
there must be found an explanation for foreign policy.
Rational choice is not always in the national interests, but it has also a social purpose:
Rational interest is not in everyone’s interests but it is bounded by the interest of a specific
group.
It is an elite theory that argue for the position of elites in society.
, The most important actors are thus the military defence. The stuff and the defence industry. These
three will always group together around one common interests, which is more spending on defence.
Strengthens the position of the military and the minister of defense and creating bigger profits
of defense industry. They form an entity which can push for the extension of military expanses.
Comparative politics approach:
A behaviorist, quantitative research, way of looking at foreign policy.
The ambition was to build systematic theories and explanations of the foreign policy process in general.
Relevant sources of foreign policy were defined and grouped into five categories:
Idiosyncratic
Role
Governmental
Societal
Systematic variable
It selects some variables and looks at what correlations can be made between the characteristics of the
state and the way it behaves in foreign affairs.
E.g. The type of regime a country has can influence the country’s foreign policy:
Comparing foreign policy:
Sets of variables Urgency and Instrument
immediacy
Characteristics of decision- Crisis versus Persuasive
maker Non-crisis diplomacy
Regime type Coercive diplomacy
National identity Military
Geographic location intervention
Economic development
Comparative Political Economy and Foreign Policy:
o This compares the foreign policy and external relations of nation-states – thereby assessing the
likelihood of international cooperation and/or integration.
o Attempts to identify relevant independent variables for explaining foreign policy without making
statements about the relative weight of individuals.
o Factors that can influence foreign policy of a state include:
The geographic location
The degree of socioeconomic development
The political regime types
The character traits of the political leaders
The national identity and foreign policy tradition of a country
Level of Analysis approach:
