Summary and Rating of Selected Readings
“Opportunity, Willingness, and Small States: The Relationship between Environment and Foreign Policy” by Maria Papadakis and Harvey Starr
“Peacekeeping: Did Canada Make a Difference? And What Difference Did Peacekeeping Make to Canada?” by J.L. Granatstein
By Gennadiy Velichko
IR 725 Foreign Policy Analysis
Professor Pentony
Introduction
Both articles presented for my assessment and analysis, provide explicit linkage to key theoretical postulations made by Laura Neack in her work titled “The New Foreign Policy”. Without getting into extensive review due to the format constrain of this summary-paper, I would like to identify a concept of “soft power” as being central to Neack’s, as well as, Granatstein, Starr, and Papadakis’s commentaries on system level of analysis, state interdependence and foreign policy. Below, I specify central ideas of both articles and provide my personal discourse as to the validity of theoretical and empirical examples to contemporary foreign policy analysis. Finally, in conclusion I attempt to establish parallel between Neack’s view on the power theory and Granatstein, Starr, and Papadakis’s approach to redefine that theory, making it multi-dimensional by introducing additional variables, such as disruptive potential, interdependence, and transnationalism.
“Opportunity, Willingness, and Small States: The Relationship between Environment and Foreign Policy” by Maria Papadakis and Harvey Starr
Central idea
In their work, Maria Papadakis and Harvey Starr, introduce environmental model as an overarching macro-theory of comparative foreign policy study. Authors recognize work that has been done by other scholars in the field, particularly Rosenau, McGowan, Hermann and East, yet, Papadakis and Harvey acknowledge that, comparative foreign policy, rather than comparative foreign policy processes have been studies extensively, yet no cumulative variables have been found and agreed upon among scholars, which makes theorizing about comparative foreign policy less reliable. Similarly to Neack’s analysis of system level foreign policy through the lens of constructivist approach, Papadakis and Harvey were trying to develop theoretical framework of small states foreign policy, by integrating substantive concept of foreign policy, the processes of making and implementing foreign policy, and the implementation of a physical act – behavior, into dynamic model of foreign policy. Authors look at environment as being a matrix that combines different levels of individual, system and societal levels and that matrix can only be absolute if we understand the relationship between state and environment. However, in order to understand the relationship between state and environment, one ought to recognize the complex scheme of environment that goes beyond capacity and willingness to act based on material resources available to the state. Building on Sprouts’ environmental possibilism, environmental probabilism and cognitive behaviorism, Papadakis and Harvey conclude that, “the state is an entity in an environment, and the environment may be divided into different levels with different sets of variables characterizing each level. The environment defines the context within which a state may act, but how the state actually acts or deals with its environment depends upon a number of factors: the set of opportunities that the characteristics of the sub-environments “objectively” provide to state, how the state perceives its environment, its willingness to take particular course of action, and o on”[1].
Applying environmental model to foreign policy of small states, Papadakis and Harvey altered traditional concepts of power theory, focusing on «influence» and «interdependence» rather then «power» and «sovereignity». By going away from traditional explanation of power theory, authors were able to identify three conditions of foreign policy behavior of small states: (1) power emerges from factors other than material resources and nonpower activity is possiable, (2) size of states makes a qualitative difference in the nature of states beyond raw power capabilities, and (3) power and influence can be exercised selectivly and at less then system level. What it means is that instead of being smaller «clone» versions of large states, small states can utilize different set of opportunities in order to pursue their political agenda. Instead of consentrating on power maximization – the game which they (smaller states) cannot win due to some obvious limitations in size, capabilities and regulatory mechanisms, smaller states utilize other variables, such as «disruptive potential», action efficency, research capacity, and timely policy responses. All of the above variabeles makes the foreign policy of smaller states to exert influence on other states in the international system
Rating
I would give this article rating 2, for its theoretical conceptualization of power theory. Papadakis and Harvey took Sprout’s cognitive behaviorism concept and went further demonstrating that the number of environmental conditions play significant role in the foreign policy of small states, “willingness, which is based on cognitive behaviorism and environmental probabilism, equates with the process of choice taking, and decision makers, either consciously or unconsciously, perceive and are shaped by the environment”[2]. The lack of empirical evidence made the argument a bit weaker and stopped me from giving the authors the highest rating grade.
“Peacekeeping: Did Canada Make a Difference? And What Difference Did Peacekeeping Make to Canada?” by J.L. Granatstein
Central idea
Second article, by J.L. Granatstein provides an empirical case of Canada’s involvement with peacekeeping operations, while other great powers were either reluctant or incapable to occupy that niche. Both Granatstein in his article and Laura Neack in her book, assign Canada under the system of middle powers, Neack writes, “Middle power diplomacy involves international mediation, peacekeeping, consensus building within international organizations, and other similarly cooperative behaviors. According to some analysts, middle power diplomacy derives from a moral imperative found in cultures of the middle powers”[3]. Although, Granatstein agrees with Neack that in case of Canada, its peacekeeping aspirations emerged from countries “missionary strain in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to bring the word of God to India, Africa, and China”, he also acknowledges that on many occasions, Canadian “peacekeeping foreign policy” was in contrast to American Unilaterismß and militarism. Author concludes that, “peacekeeping was a role that made us noticeable different form Americans”[4]and “peacekeeping was so popular…primary because it was something we could do and the Americans could not”[5]. Thus, in case of Canada, peacekeeping played a dual role, on one hand, bring idealism, legalism, internationalism, and cooperation to the international community, but on the other hand, establishing a sense of identity, and self-importance for many middle powers such as Canada. Lastly, author deems necessary for Canada to choose its peacekeeping missions, rather than assume responsibilities for every peacekeeping operation on the international arena. Granatstein believes that perception of total commitment to peacekeeping missions, on the part of Canadian government, on several occasions went against national interests of Canada, such as during the Suez Crisis. Therefore, key suggestion that Granatstein gives to Canadian foreign policy makers is simple, do not let peacekeeping substitute foreign policy and thought, moreover, “Governments, like individuals, are supposed to be capable of rational decision making. And automatic responses – whether “My country right or wrong” or “Send in the Canadian peacekeepers” – are no substitutes for thought”[6].
Rating
I would give this article rating 3 and for the following reasons. Granatstein’s concept of “peacekeeping foreign policy” being different vis-à-vis great powers seems too simplistic and needs additional theorizing. In my opinion, Canada’s geographic proximity to world’s superpower became an important constraint to more “offensive” foreign policy. Canadian government realized that it will not benefit countries national interests to try to compete with United States as another regional power, unless, Canada can find a niche, which will require Canada’s international cooperation, yet, will be peaceful in its nature, not to “upset” its neighbor – United States. I wish Granatstein spent more time, theorizing moral imperatives of middle powers, by constructing “middle power – internationalist” identity, based on cooperation, mutual benefits, institutionalism, and sense of responsibility for acting unilaterally, rather than in cooperation with partners.
Conclusion
In conclusion I would suggest key distinction between Granatstein’s approach to middle powers and Papadakis’ and Starr’s essay on small powers. Whereas, Papadakis and Starr theorize about cognitive behaviorism being an important variable in small states foreign policy making, Granatstein believes that Canadian foreign policy for a very long time has been build around overarching idea of Canada’s special role in bringing peace and security to world’s community. Granatstein adds that more rational foreign policy approach is needed if Canada wants to be an important player on the international arena. However, both authors deal with state or individual level of analysis, where states pursue rational interests or demonstrate opportunity and willingness to associate themselves with certain decisions. Neither author discusses system level of analysis within small power or middle power environments and how interactions among actors within the environment determine foreign policy conceptualization and decision-making.
[1] “New Directions in the Study of Foreign Policy” edited by Charles F. Hermann pp.414
[2] “New Directions in the Study of Foreign Policy” edited by Charles F. Hermann pp.419
[3] “The New Foreign Policy” U.S. and Comparative Foreign Policy in the 21st Century” by Laura Neack pp.163
[4] “The New Foreign Policy” U.S. and Comparative Foreign Policy in the 21st Century” by Laura Neack pp.231
[5] “The New Foreign Policy” U.S. and Comparative Foreign Policy in the 21st Century” by Laura Neack pp.232
[6] “The New Foreign Policy” U.S. and Comparative Foreign Policy in the 21st Century” by Laura Neack pp.234