POSC 2200

1
POSC 2200 The State, Decision Making and
Foreign Policy

• Russell Alan Williams
• Department of Political Science

2
Unit Three The State, Decision Making and
Foreign Policy

• Foreign Policy
• Required Reading
• Mingst, Chapter 5
• Krasner, Sovereignty, Mingst and Snyder, pp.
  143-149.
• Outline
• Foreign Policy Decision Making
• Diplomacy and Economic Statecraft
• Diplomacy and the Use of Force
• Compellence and Deterrence

3
1) Foreign Policy Decision Making

• Several models each can be broadly linked to
  one of the major theories of IR and their view of
  state
• Rational Model Realism
• Organizational/Bureaucratic Model Liberalism
  Constructivism
• Pluralist Model Liberalism
• Each could apply to democracies and
  non-democracies

4

• 1) Rational Model of Decision Making
• Assumes State is a unitary actor
• Tendency to assume all states use similar
  approach
• Reasonable response to anarchy?
• Unlike Public Policy, less concern in IR for the
  information problems of this model
• Stages
• State clearly identifies problem requiring
  decision
• State has clearly defined goals
• Decision Makers
• Clearly identify range of alternatives possible
  responses
• Analyze costs and benefits of each alternative
• Select action that gives best benefit for lowest
  cost
• Result Foreign Policy that rationally pursues
  National Interest

5

• 2) Bureaucratic/Organizational Model
• Assumes Foreign Policy driven by sub-national
  bureaucracies and agencies
• a) Organizational Model Assumes standard
  operating procedures of ministry etc. prevents
  true rationality
• Do what they have always done . . .
• Could be associated with Constructivism

6

• b) Bureaucratic Politics Model Different
  agencies have different goals Foreign Policy
  product of power struggles amongst them
• Outcomes tend to satisfice minimal compromise
  that all can live with
• Very different then rational outcome . . .
• E.g. Tensions between economic departments and
  security agencies over air safety
• Assumed to be more common in non-crisis
  situations
• Could be associated with Liberalism more
  emphasis on sub-national actors

7

• 3) Pluralist Model of decision making
• Assumes Foreign Policy a product of bargaining
  among a wide variety of societal actors
• Could involve
• Interest Groups
• Multinational Corporations
• Mass Movements
• Public Opinion
• Most clearly seen in economic matters
• E.g. Trade Protectionism
• Less common in security decisions (?)
• Closely associated with Liberalism

8
2) Diplomacy Economic Statecraft

• a) Diplomacy The practice of states efforts
  to influence the behavior of other states
• Involves non-coercive actions
• Bargaining Negotiation
• Restraining from coercive actions
• Appealing to foreign publics
• Goal Target states should change policy
• E.g. Harper and NATO troop commitments in
  Afghanistan
• Get Europe to make more effort by threatening
  pullout . . . .
• Successful diplomacy requires that parties have
• Credibility
• Desire to help each other make a deal (!)

9
Example Putnam's Two Level Games

• Argument Diplomats negotiating with each other
  and with own domestic interests
• Implications Help one another satisfy their
  domestic constituencies
• E.g. NAFTA Negotiations Environmental Accords
• E.g. Harper and Afghanistan revisited
• Most diplomacy creates mutually desired outcomes
  otherwise states would not have used diplomacy

10

• b) Economic Statecraft The use of economic
  incentives and punishments as diplomacy
• Sanctions Economic and diplomatic actions
  designed to achieve diplomatic goals
• Negative Trade sanctions against problematic
  states
• Example South Africa Apartheid
• Example Cuba Communism
• Positive Inducements used to reward changes in
  domestic behavior
• Example China and WTO MFN
• Effective sanctions require
• Asymmetry of power potential
• Interdependence

11

• Diplomacy seems to highlight many factors
  emphasized by liberal analyses
• Role of domestic actors
• Public relations of summits
• Two Level Games
• Role of interdependence
• More interdependence more diplomatic levers to
  pull . . .
• However Realists emphasize underlying centrality
  of use of force

12
2) Diplomacy and the Use of Force

• Use of force, or the possible use of force
  (threats), can also alter behavior of target
  states . . .
• A) Compellence Threatening or intimidating a
  target state to get it to take a specific action,
  or to un-do a specific action
• E.g. Gunboat Diplomacy
• E.g. 1991 Gulf War UN military build up

13

• b) Deterrence Maintaining sufficient military
  capabilities to discourage potential aggressors
  from taking action
• Acquisition of weapons
• Ronald Reagan and the Cold War
• Demonstration of credible commitment to punish
  aggressors
• North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

14

• Realist explanation for post WWII era of peace?
• Deterrence provided by NATO and the Warsaw
  Pact nuclear arsenals
• a) Second Strike Capability Ability to
  retaliate with nuclear weapons in event of
  surprise attack
• E.g. SSBNs
• Impact so negative aggressor will not risk attack
• b) First Strike Capability Ability to launch a
  first strike that eliminates possibility of
  second strike
• If feasible, this reduces deterrence(!)

15
US Missile Defense Initiative

• Response to Nuclear Proliferation
• Create capability to shoot down incoming missiles
• Implications
• Reduces possibility of successful first strike
  capability against US
• Reduces possibility of successful second strike
  capability for other states
• Impact on deterrence?
• Impact on balance of power and stability?
• Impact on Canada?

16
5) For Next Time . . .

• Unit Four The Individual
• Required Reading
• Mingst, Chapter 6.
• Jervis, Hypotheses on Misperception, (excerpt) -
  Available in Mingst and Snyder, Essential
  Readings in World Politics. 2nd Edition, (Norton
  2004), pp. 189-199, or from instructor.