International Relations deel II
Lecture 8: Cold War, Bipolar Security and the Foreign Policy of
Great Powers
Traditions in American foreign policy
● Isolationism versus internationalism
There is always a chance of the United States turning inwards: starting a foreign policy of
isolationism. This has to some extent to do with the first 100 days of the American president.
Normally US presidents are very well known when it comes to domestic politics, but are
rather immature when it comes to foreign policy. There are very few exceptions of a new
president that is experienced in foreign policy. If Joe Biden would win the next elections, he
would be an exceptional new president because perhaps he knows more about foreign
policy than about domestic policy. Ronald Reagan when he came to power traveled to Latin
America, mixed up Colombia and Bolivia. A new American president is not so well-known
with all the countries.
Once in a while there is this rumour that the US is going to turn in
wards and start a new policy that is isolationist. For instance: after WWI. There was this
climate in the US arguing: If these European states want to fight with each other, we are not
going to intervene anymore because an American involvement in European affairs is too
costly.
argument and debate in American foreign policy: why should we bother, it is too costly. Why
should we bother with faraway small countries? And why should we intervene?
After ‘89 Fukuyama: argument that in this new world the US is no longer in need of
intervening in other parts of the world.
If you compare the foreign policy of Obama and Trump, unlike you would intuitively argue,
there is much more continuity in the American foreign policy of Obama and Trump than
discontinuity, because a large part is based on national interest, which does not change
overnight from one president to another.
Instead of a constant choice between isolationism and internationalism, we can conclude
that isolationism is a historical thing in American foreign policy and no longer of use to
explain American involvement in international affairs. Internationalism will be even stronger
in the coming decades, that has to do with the power transition that is going on.
● Varieties of internationalism
○ Hamiltonianism or Wilsonianism (Walter Russell Mead: Special Procidence,
2002)
Mead is a specialist on American foreign policy. Hamiltonianism refers to Alexander
Hamilton, who lived from 1755-1804, American minister of finance, a very influential
politician. Hamiltonianism is about power politics. In 1823 we have the Monroe-doctrine and
the basic line is that the US will defend its vital interests in Latin America in the case of a
European attempt to intervene in Latin American affairs. US is afraid that Spain wants to
intervene, so the Monroe-doctrine is a warning to Spain. Hamiltonianism is about power
politics, defending American interests abroad. That is a neo-realist tendency in American
foreign policy.
,Wilsonianism refers to Woodrow Wilson, who had his open door politics. He claimed for a
world safe for democracy, national self-determination and open markets: the removal of all
kinds of barriers to trade. That is a world order strategy aiming at cooperation between
sovereign nations.
○ Realism or idealism
○ Unilateralism or multilateralism
Example unilateralism: after 9/11 Bush wants to intervene in Iraq and he tries to get a
security council permission, but that does not materialise. So as a substitute for a multilateral
intervention, guaranteed by a security council, he is embarking on a road of coalition of the
willing: every country that wants to participate in an intervention, be our guest, if not we are
going to do this all by ourselves.
○ Republicans versus Democrats?
If you take a historical overview comparing American presidents, for instance Kennedy, a
democratic president, making a serious effort to beat out the communists from Vietnam. The
escalation of the Vietnam war is by and large a product of a president from the democratic
party. Whereas a republican, Nixon, is responsible for stopping this war. So perhaps there is
more continuity than discontinuity.
Foreign policy analysis is one of the most important traditional topics in international
relations. IR very state centric, very much oriented to the role of states in international
affairs. So the foreign policy of sovereign states becomes a very important topic.
Neorealists would argue: it doesn’t make any difference whether it is a republican or
democratic president. States are seen as snookerballs, they are acting in action reaction
patterns in the international system. That makes the international system unique, and that’s
why we have a two-level analysis: looking at domestic national affairs and looking at foreign
policy as a separate realm/ as a distinct environment where states act and react to each
other.
Decision-making theories
● Rational actor model / cybernetics
They start from the primacy of national interest. So the foreign policy of the US, China, the
Netherlands. If we have a change of government in the Netherlands our foreign policy does
not change substantially. Why? Because there is one single national interest, which is
applicable to the social party, to the liberal party, the green party etc.
The state is a unitary actor. It acts in the international system as a unitary actor. And it acts
on the base of rational choices. That is a very prominent foreign policy theory. It’s about
standard responses, standard operating procedures. Standard operating procedures count
for most of the policy of a state. For example: if you travel abroad and you lost your passport
you can go to an embassy and a standard operation will make sure that you can return
home safely. Another example: standard operating procedure in the policy of Israel: no
negotiating with terrorists.
● Bureaucratic politics model
One prominent critique is: the state is not a unitary actor. Just look at the US.
, Directorates-general EC
Almost every directorate general is in some way or another involved in international affairs,
in the external relations of the European Union.
Two critiques of rational choice. First: the state is not a unitary actor. If you look inside the
state, you can see different interests. Second: group think. Every directorate-general is first
and foremost looking at for example agriculture, and they fail to consider alternative ways.
So the final decision will be suboptimal, it will be to a certain extent irrational.
● Cognitive processes / constructivist turn
Thanks to social-constructivism we have a different way of looking at foreign policy analysis.
In trying to analyse the foreign policy of states, we should look at norms, interests, value
systems of states. This is called: strategic culture, where norms and values have an
important role to play in the foreign policy of a state. For example: UK-US relationship.
Another example: the foreign policy of Germany after WWII is embedded in restriction, a kind
of sense of guilt. A military intervention with German soldiers is very tricky. Another example:
the politics of neutrality of Ireland. Ireland is not a member of NATO because it is neutral.
Also: the very fact that Scandinavian countries have a strong position in development
assistance, in financial aid to third world countries.
Instead of looking at material interests, social-constructivists look at values, norms, ideas,
that are strongly embedded in foreign policy of a state.
The second contribution of social constructivism is arguing that it is not so much the
bureaucracy, or elements within the bureaucracy, that counts for foreign policy. But they
argue that the bureaucratic politics model, that is starting from the premise of group
thinking, underestimates the role of decision making, of personalities, of the character of
leading persons in the foreign policy establishment. So you cannot understand the foreign
policy of Russia without taking into account the personality of Putin. So the cognitive
characteristics of the decision maker are very important. That’s why a social constructivist
would allow for irrational decision making. Irrationality is part of this way of looking at foreign
policy.
● Theory of the Military Industrial Complex
This an elite theory which to a certain extent is moving back to rational choice. But they
argue that it is not about THE national interest and THE national rationale choice but it is a
very important powerful group of people and institutions within a state that can dominate the
foreign policy of a state. So it is not about the national interest, it is a specific rationality
related to a very specific group. It is rational choice always for someone and for some social
purpose.
, Example: the powerful merging of interests between ministry of defence (the army) and the
defence industry. Eisenhower, a member of the Republican party, warned the American
people for something that could occur.
Some quotes (Eisenhower)
○ Four major wars among great powers
○ Industry: shifting from plowshares to swords
○ Permanent armaments of vast proportions
○ Conjunction defense establishment and arms industry
○ MIC: potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power
○ Endanger our liberties and democratic processes
this label (MIC) is taken by scholars to explain the post-WWII American foreign policy plus
the post-war Soviet foreign policy by saying in those countries there is this MIC popping up,
creating establishment of military defence politicians and arms industry that is so powerful
and so closely connected to a vast interest. What is the vast interest? The military wants to
have better and more weapons. The defence industry wants to sell weapons. Here we have
a perfect combination of interests, which is not necessarily THE national interest, but a very
group-related interest. Is it rational? Yes!! from the perspective of the army and of the arms
industry. Is it rational nationwide? No!!!
● Comparative politics approach
This is a very scholarly way of looking at foreign policy. We have lists of variables and these
variables are independent. What’s the dependent variable? The foreign policy of the state.
And we try to find the independent variable/ the explanatory factors in order to understand
the foreign policy of a certain country.
We have soft power and we have hard power. But there are people that say that we should
be talking about smart power. Smart power is the perfect combination of soft power
instruments and hard power instruments. Joseph Nye is a person that is rather important in
this kind of thinking about soft, hard and smart power.
● IPE and foreign policy
International Security Studies
Sometimes standard operating procedures, initially rational, become irrational. The biggest
example of a fundamental change in conditions is ofcourse the end of the Cold War. As a
result of the end of the Cold War, we are no longer talking about a bipolar conflict between
two ideological systems. The foreign policy of Western countries was anti-communist, as a
kind of standard operating procedure. That doesn’t function anymore after ‘89, simply
