INR2002 Test 2 Study Guide Chapter 4 share Whose Interests Count in Matters of War and Peace National versus Particularistic Interests A general interest is something that most if not all actors within the country example virtually everyone has an interest in their countries physical security and economic well being If most people within a state share a common reli gious or ethnic identity then the state s foreign policy interests likely reflect those identities Interests are so widely shared that they can be attributed to the state as a whole Narrow or Particularistic interests are those held by a relatively small number of actors within the country example a particular business an ethic minority group or individuals within government Interactions Institutions and Influence Domestic institutions determine how decisions are made and therefore which actors interests are taken into account In some countries decisions are made by a very small number of individuals perhaps even a single person who do not have to consider the interests of anyone else More commonly a ruler may only have to worry about maintaining the loyalty of the military by catering to that organization s interests Democratic political institutions require leaders to win free and fair elections This requirement forces leaders to think about how the voting public will respond to their policy choices Relatively small groups can be more effective at cooperating to further common interests than large groups Small groups of highly motivated and informed individuals are better able to organize and coordinate their activities and prevent others from free riding Large disbursed groups in which each individual has only a small stake in or knowledge about the policy decision are generally very hard to organize Example United Fruit stood to lose millions of dollars of property in Guatemala the intervention only cost each U S tax payer only a few pennies State leaders decide when to make threats what demands to issue and ulti mately whether to wage war These individuals matter most because by whatever rules of politics operate in their country they have the authority to make the decisions Bureaucratic actors and interest groups are groups within a country that have sufficient organization and recourses to influence the decisions made by political lead ers The general public is the third set of actors The influence of ordinary citizens varies considerably with domestic institutions In democratic countries free and fair elections provide individuals with a low cost way to participate in deciding who gov erns Do Politicians Spark Wars Abroad in Order to Hold On to Power at Home What do leaders want Statesmen or Stateswomen are looking out for the best interests of the nation they are also individuals with many varied interests of their own Some may have very strong ideological beliefs that increase their willingness to pay costs or run risks in for eign policy Politicians think a lot about how to obtain office and once in power how to secure their hold on it They make choices with an eye toward how those choices will influence their chances of staying in power The desire to stay in power means that leaders have to be responsive to the interests of those who control their political fate voters organized interest groups the military The desire to hold office explains how the interests of actors within a country can matter at the level of policy making Strategic politicians can use their control of policy to shape their political con straints rather then just respond to them The Rally Effect and the Diversionary Incentive The idea that leaders can further their own political interest by fighting a war flows from the so called rally effect The rally effect refers to people s tendency to become more supportive of their country s government when it experiences dramatic international events such as wars Example George W Bush s approval rating following the September 11th attacks Went from 51 to 90 percent The existence of rally effects suggests that political leaders may at times face a diversionary incentive a temptation to spark an international crisis in order to rally public support at home Popularized by 1997 movie Wag the Dog Do Leaders Wag the Dog Scholars have found little consistent support for the hypothesis that leaders sys tematically resort to force when they are in trouble domestically The first explanation is that the domestic political benefits relative to peace have to be large in order to eliminate the possibility of a peaceful bargain This observation reminds us that war is the product of an interaction between at least two actors and not the choice of a single actor The Political Costs of War A second reason why diversionary effects might be weak is that war can com pose domestic political costs in addition to promising benefits i e Falklands The initial surge of patriotism that generally accompanies the onset of war can quickly give way to discontent and rebellion if the war goes badly Public support for war changes as costs mount Most wars start with high level of support and then support went down as U S battle deaths went up Do Countries Fight Wars to Satisfy the Military or Special Interest Groups Bureaucratic Politics and the military Although the ultimate decision to wage war may lie in the hands of a few individu als the actual machinery of government that deals with matters of war and peace is much larger and more complex Wars are implemented and planned by the states military usually a massive organization with thousands and in some cases millions of individuals Negotiations with other countries are conducted by a host of diplomats around the world typically overseen by a ministry of foreign affairs Information about other countries countries military capabilities and intentions are collected and analyzed by collection organizations C I A MI6 SVR The observation opens up the possibility that decisions about war and peace are shaped not only by state leaders but also by the interests of the bureaucratic involved in the decision making process War and the Fate of Leaders War Outcome Stayed In Power Lost Power Victory Small Loss Big Loss 68 47 16 32 43 84 Interest Groups Economic and Ethnic Lobbies In the wake of the 2003 U S invasion of Iraq Vice president richard Cheney s former company Halliburton was awarded contracts worth billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq s infrastructure and supply American troops By
View Full Document
Unlocking...