Tai Lieu Chat Luong NATIONALISM IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Advances in Foreign Policy Analysis Series Editor: Alex Mintz Foreign policy analysis offers rich theoretical perspectives and diverse methodological approaches. Scholars specializing in foreign policy analysis produce a vast output of research. Yet, there were only very few specialized outlets for publishing work in the field. Addressing this need is the purpose of Advances in Foreign Policy Analysis.
The series bridges the gap between academic and policy approaches to foreign policy analysis, integrates across levels of analysis, spans theoretical approaches to the field, and advances research utilizing decision theory, utility theory, and game theory. Members of the Board of Advisors: Allison Astorino-Courtois Zeev Maoz Steve Chan Bruce M. Russett Margaret Hermann Donal Sylvan Valerie Hudson Steve Walker Patrick James Dina A. Zinnes Jack Levy Betty Hanson Published by Palgrave Macmillan: Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making Edited by Alex Mintz Studies in International Mediation Edited by Jacob Bercovitch Media, Bureaucracies, and Foreign Aid: A Comparative Analysis of United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, and Japan By Douglas A.
Van Belle, Jean-Sébastien Rioux, and David M. Potter Civil-Military Dynamics, Democracy, and International Conflict: A New Quest for International Peace By Seung-Whan Choi and Patrick James Economic Sanctions and Presidential Decisions: Models of Political Rationality By A. Cooper Drury Purpose and Policy in the Global Community By Bruce Russett Modeling Bilateral International Relations: The Case of US-China Interactions By Xinsheng Liu Beliefs and Leadership in World Politics: Methods and Applications of Operational Code Analysis Edited by Mark Schafer and Stephen G. Walker Approaches, Levels and Methods of Analysis in International Politics Edited by Harvey Starr The Bush Administrations and Saddam Hussein: Deciding on Conflict Alex Roberto Hybel and Justin Matthew Kaufman Nationalism in International Relations: Norms, Foreign Policy, and Enmity By Douglas Woodwell NATIONALISM IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS NORMS, FOREIGN POLICY, AND ENMITY Douglas Woodwell NATIONALISM IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Copyright © Douglas Woodwell, 2007.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. First published in 2007 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN™ 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N. 10010 and Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, England RG21 6XS Companies and representatives throughout the world.
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Macmillan® is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in the European Union and other countries.
ISBN-13: 978–1–4039–8449–4 ISBN-10: 1–4039–8449–2 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available from the Library of Congress. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Design by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd. First edition: September 2007 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America.
CONTENTS List of Figures vii List of Tables ix Acknowledgments xi 1 Introduction 1 PART I 2 Nationality, Nation, and Ethnicity 13 3 Sovereignty and Self-Determination: Conflicting Norms as the Basis for International Conflict 25 4 The Determinants of Aggressive Behavior in Irredentist-Type Situations 41 5 Empirical Assessment 55 PART II Introduction to Case Studies 6 Somalia, Ethiopia, and Kenya 99 7 India, Pakistan, and China 129 8 Greece and Turkey 157 9 Conclusions and Implications 187 Notes 201 Bibliography 211 Index 219 This page intentionally left blank LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Transborder Dyads in the International System 3 1.2 Theoretical Framework and Interrelation of Models 5 3.1 Causal Chain Linking Transborder Demographics to Bilateral Instability 27 3.2 Irredentist-type and Contending Government Systemic Interactions 35 4.1 Foreign Policy Formulation in Homeland States 42 6.1 Percentage of MID and Fatal MIDs per Dyad-years in Global Regions 100 6.2 GDP per capita (in Real 1996 U. Dollars)—Kenya and Somalia 121 6.3 Somalia GDP per capita (in Real 1996 U. Dollars) and MIDs Initiated 122 6.4 Somalia–Kenya–Ethiopia Capabilities 123 7.1 Pakistani GDP per capita (in Real 1996 U.2 Ratio of Indian to Pakistani Capabilities 147 7.3 Predicted Bilateral Dispute Probabilities and Actual Pakistani Dispute Initiation 148 8.1 Greco-Turkish Bilateral Relations during Different Eras 158 8.2 Capability Index Scores (pre-World War II) 182 8.3 Capability Index Scores, 1945–1991 182 This page intentionally left blank LIST OF TABLES 1.1 Demographics and Associated Nationalism 2 1.2 Major Wars and Transborder Nationality (1946–1990) 8 3.1 International and Societal Norms, Predictive Relationships 28 3.2 Predicted Effect of Norms on State Behavior 29 5.1 Normative-Demographic Model Results 62 5.2 The Effect of Significant Systemic Variables on Bilateral MID and FATAL Probability 64 5.3 The Effect of Significant Systemic Variables on TERRMID, POLMID, and GOVMID Probability 65 5.4 Factors Affecting Bilateral MIDS during the Period 1992–2001 in Comparison with the Period 1951–1991 66 5.5 Domestic Foreign Policy Formulation Model Results (For Putatively Irredentist Homeland States) 68 5.7 Domestic Foreign Policy Core Model—Baseline Probability Changes 70 5.8 Classification Tree Interactive Regression Results 72 5.9 Hypothesis Outcomes and Associated Variables 74 5.10 Factors Associated with Increased Dispute Initiation Solely within Irredentist-type Dyads and within Both Irredentist-type and “General” (Non-Transborder) Dyads 77 6.1 Predicted versus Actual MIDs and Fatal MIDs in Dyads 101 6.2 Somali Nationalism and Relations with Kenya 104 6.3 Somali Nationalism and Relations with Ethiopia 113 6.4 Somali Decision-making Factors and Fatal MID Initiation 119 7.1 Predicted versus Actual Bilateral MIDs and Fatal MIDs in Dyads 130 8.1 Military Interventions and subsequent Greek and Turkish Foreign Policies 179 This page intentionally left blank ACKNOWLEDGMENTS he involvement of many friends and colleagues made this work possible. First, T I must thank Nicholas Sambanis and Bruce Russett for the many, many hours that they have spent reviewing my work and seeing me through this effort from start to finish.
I would also like to thank Sharon Goetz and Chinyelu Lee for their editorial assistance and suggestions as well as their support and friendship. I am grateful to James Vreeland, John Lapinski, and Keith Darden, who took time off from their busy schedules to offer their input at different phases of the research and writing process. I also extend my appreciation to the faculty of the Department of History and Political Science at the University of Indianapolis for offering me my current position (without which I may not have completed this project). Last, but not least, I would like to thank my parents for their support and patience over the many years I spent as a “professional student.” This page intentionally left blank CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION eopolitical struggles surrounding the competing ideologies of communism, G capitalism, fascism, and democracy heavily influenced the course of events in twentieth century international relations.
However, focusing on great powers, great wars, and great ideologies lends itself to the neglect of what has been the one con- sistent source of conflict throughout the century—the influence and destabilizing implications associated with the pursuit of nationalist objectives by revisionist states. From the Balkan Wars to the Gulf War and beyond, nationalist goals have led not simply to the fracturing of states and empires, but to conflict among preexisting states as well. Transborder Nationalism and Transborder Nationalities The term nationalism, as used in this work, and further explicated in the next chap- ter, refers to preferences stressing the rejection of excessive or illegitimate foreign influence and/or control over national populations or territory. This volume inves- tigates the effect of nationalism on international relations by examining situations in which state boundaries divide national groups.
I hypothesize that given the presence of demographic situations involving these transborder nationalities, interstate relations will systematically suffer in comparison to cases in which a transborder presence is absent. Nationalism arising from transborder situations spurs aggressive state policies that sow the seeds of regional suspicion, enmity, and instability. Three broad demographic situations affect relationships between states by intro- ducing the potential for nationalist preferences into the calculations of foreign policy decision makers. The three demographic situations are referred to as 1.
minority-majority situations—the majority of one state is constituted by one national group whereas another state has a sizeable, or politically notable, minority population of the same group; 2. majority-majority situations—the majority of the population of two states is constituted by the same national group; and 3. minority-minority situations—two states each have a sizeable, or politically notable minority of the same national group. 2 NATIONALISM IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Table 1.1 Demographics and Associated Nationalism Demographic Situation Associated Nationalism Minority-Majority Irredentist-type (MINMAJ) Majority-Majority Contending Government (MAJMAJ) Minority-Minority Minority-Minority (MINMIN) Each of these demographic constellations is associated with a different type of potential transborder nationalism: irredentist-type, contending government, and minority-minority nationalism (see table 1.
The three types of nationalism may breed instability and mutual suspicion between states, although to different degrees and in different ways. The existence of regionally unstable interstate relations does not require concrete manifestations of nationalist aggression by governments. The very threat of potential aggression by revisionist states seeking the recovery of, or interfering with, diaspora1-inhabited territory is sometimes sufficient to breed mis- trust and violence. The first type of nationalism, associated with minority-majority demographic clusters, is irredentist-type nationalism, which represents the preferences of nationalists within a homeland state for higher levels of self-determination for conationals within a kin state.2 At its strongest, irredentist nationalism seeks to eliminate control of a foreign government (kin state) over a diaspora group and the incorporation of that group and the territory it inhabits within the homeland state.
I tend to employ the term irredentist-“type” nationalism, however, to connote the fact that policies may be designed to promote higher levels of conational self-determination3 rather than seeking overt annexation of a territory. A precondition for the existence of irredentism, as it is commonly used, is that a segment of a national group exists in significant numbers in two or more states. For the sake of clarity, the usage of the terms irredentism and irredentist-type nationalism in this work will only be associated with demographic situations in which the shared nation constitutes the majority of the population in at least one state and a minority of the population of another (i., “minority-majority” transborder demographics). On the other hand I label examples such as the Kurdish situation, whereby the nationality in question never forms the majority of a single state’s population, as a distinct category of “minority-minority” nationalism.
I refer to the second type of transborder nationalism, associated with majority- majority demographic populations, as contending government nationalism. Contending government nationalism exists when two or more governments claim legitimate ethnonational representation of the peoples and territories of the same nation. Concerned primarily with the division of state control within a larger national com- munity, contending government nationalism can be broken down into stronger and weaker forms. Hechter (2000) refers to the strongest form as “unification national- ism.” Unification nationalism, brought to fruition, implies the transfer of power from two or more state authorities to a single state authority—either peacefully or through INTRODUCTION 3 violent “regime change” and absorption.
Governments may also be willing to accept more limited territorial gains that fall short of the wholesale destruction of another state. As with irredentist-type situations, the presence of a common nation residing on both sides of an international border promotes limited annexations within contending government demographic situations. Contending government nationalism occurs between states that might be con- sidered administrative divisions of a larger nation, meaning borders themselves lack the same strength of legitimacy accorded to states with borders dividing more divergent populations. Although this work focuses primarily on irredentist-type nationalism, the importance of contending government nationalism in terms of the larger scope of transborder national issues will be frequently noted and periodically analyzed, where appropriate, alongside the primary focus on irredentism.
As such, the cursory treatment of contending government dyads will provide an important starting point for further research investigating the highly destabilizing effect that such nationalism introduces into interstate relations. A third form of transborder nationalism involves ties between minority groups within different states.