1
•Problem-solving vs. Critical Approaches to Foreign Policy Analysis
•Problem-solving vs. Critical Theory
•Robert Cox:
–‘Theory is always for someone and for some purpose’
–Main starting point for critical theories of IR
–Based on the assumption that knowledge cannot be objective and timeless in the sense that positivists would like to claim
•A key implication:
–All theorists inevitably bring their value to bear on the analysis
–Cox:We need to look closely at those theories, those ideas, those analyses that claim to be objective or value free, and ask who or what is it for or serve the interests of
•Problem-solving theory:
–Theory which accepts the parameters of the present order and thus helps to legitimate an unjust and deeply unequal system
•Critical theory:
–Theory that challenges the prevailing order by seeking out, analysing, and assisting social processes that can potentially lead to emancipatory change
•Problem-solving vs. critical theories of foreign policy
•Allison’s three models
–Account for foreign policy behaviour of states
–Three models that complement each other
•Allison as a problem-solving theorist
•Allison’s purpose
–Present a better account of states’ foreign policy behaviour
–Show how difficult and uncertain crisis management is
–so that in the future crises would be better managed or averted
•Critical theories of foreign policy
•Whereas Allison takes a foreign policy problem as given and tries to account for the policy behaviour of those who try and solve it
•Critical theories are interested in the construction of foreign policy issues as ‘problems’ that need to be solved
•Jutta Weldes’ argument
–‘crises are social constructions that are forged by state officials in the course of producing and reproducing state identity’
•If crises are constructed in relation to state identities, events that are the same may be constructed as different crises, or not as a crisis at all
•Problem-solving theoriesof foreign policy
–Take foreign policy problems as framed by policy-makers
–Do not question whether this was a problem or not
–Do not question the purpose behind policy-makers’ framing the issue as a crisis
–Try and account for foreign policy behaviour once a problem has been represented as a problem/crisis
•Crises are times of
–Threat
–Opportunity
•policy-makers may represent issues as problems or even crises
–If it serves their purposes
–If their state ‘identity’ is constructed in a way that enables the framing of issues as crisis
•Critical theories of foreign policy
•Question whether the ‘crisis’ was a ‘crisis’ after all
•Try and uncover the processes through which a foreign policy issue is represented as a ‘problem’ or a crisis
•Try and show that there is nothing obvious about crises—they can be averted if framed as problems to be dealt with
•Weldes’ argument: The missile deployment in Cuba was a crisis rather than, say, a mere nuisance, because the deployment of the missiles in Cuba by the Soviet other challenged the very identity of the United States, not only as the leader of the ‘Free World’ but also as the guarantor of freedom in the Western hemisphere
•Relationship between state identity and foreign policy
•Two-way relationship
–State identity enables crises
–Crises enable state identity
•Identity and foreign policy
•David Campbell’s study of US foreign policy
–The making of ‘foreign’ through foreign policy making
–Self/Other
•societies exist by defining themselves against an external standard
•Without an Other the Self could not see itself as distinctive
–Campbell’s argument: US foreign policy in the post-war was not simply a reaction to Soviet policies and the Containment Policy not simply a reaction to Soviet ‘expansionism’
•US foreign policy behaviour in the post-war era could be viewed as ‘expansionist’ when viewed from the Soviet perspective
•The nature of the struggle between the USA and the USSR was represented by US policy-makers as geopolitical and military
•But, it was ideological and cultural as well
–US policy of containment was not simply a reaction to Soviet policies, but constitutive of US identity as a democracy and the leader of the ‘Free World’
•Once constructed in opposition to a Soviet ‘other’, US identity enabled policies such as
–The formation of NATO
–Leadership of the ‘Free World’
–Duty to defend and extend the ‘Free World’
•Cold War as a struggle between US ‘self’ and Soviet ‘other’
•Campbell’s contribution: US foreign policy could be understood as a political practice central to the constitution, production and maintenance of American political identity
•Implications of Campbell’s contribution:
•US foreign policy could be studied in a similar fashion in the post-Cold War era
•A new ‘other’ (or others) could be found to replace the Soviet ‘other’
•Thus, foreign policy needs to be understood as giving rise to a boundary rather than acting as a bridge
•problem-solving/critical theories of foreign policy
•Problem-solving theories view foreign policy as a practice used to solve problems between countries
–Try and understand how specific problems are solved
•Critical theories view foreign policy as constitutive of those problems the others take for granted
–Try and understand how specific problems are ‘constructed’
•Conducting critical analyses of foreign policy
•RAM
–Weigh costs and benefits
–Decide which is the most rational course of action
–Does not question ‘national interest’ but takes it as given
•Critical approaches to foreign policy analysis
–Studies the process through which ‘national interest’ is constructed
•Deciding whether the situation faced by the state is a threat to ‘national interest’ or not, required interpretation by policy-makers
•Contra-realism, threats are not self-evident
•Threats and states’ national interests in the face of threats are matters of interpretation by policy-makers
•This is not meant to suggest that no threats exist
•What is socially constructed are the meaning of things and their social effects, not physical existence