Public opinion and the making of foreign policy in the 'New Europe':a comparative study of Poland and Ukraine

Since 1989, by drawing a new boundary between the EU and its eastern neighbours, the European Union has created a frontier that has been popularly described in the frontier states as the new 'Berlin Wall'. This book is the first comparative study of the impact of public opinion on the making of foreign policy in two eastern European states that live on either side of the new European divide: Poland and Ukraine. Focusing on the vocal, informed segment of public opinion and drawing on results of both opinion polls and a series of innovative focus groups gathered since the Orange Revolution, Nathaniel Copsey unravels the mystery of how this crucial segment of the public impacts on foreign policy-makers in both states. In developing this argument, Copsey takes a closer look at the business community and how important economic factors are in forming public opinion. Filling a gap in the literature currently available on the topic, this book presents a fresh approach to our understanding of Polish-Ukrainian relations and how the public's view of the past influences contemporary politics. It is an ideal resource for those researching in the field of Russian and Eastern European Studies.

Foreign policy in the Grand Coalition

There is a strongly rooted assumption that foreign policy is an executive domain and rarely plays a role in the electoral struggle. Germany is something of an exception and this paper looks at the way foreign policy has provided a site for electoral competition in Germany. Its principal focus is on the two Grand Coalitions with an especial emphasis on the contest between Chancellor Merkel and Foreign Minister Steinmeier to turn foreign policy profile into party advantage. It concludes that this contest was won overwhelmingly by Chancellor Merkel but that in contrast to the first Grand Coalition that foreign policy was not transformative. © 2010 Association for the Study of German Politics.

Governance in foreign policy-making in Germany and Poland and Polish-German relations:the role of non-state actors

This thesis examines the influence of non-state actors on Polish-German relations by considering foreign policy-making towards Poland in Germany and vice versa. The approach chosen for this thesis is interdisciplinary and takes into consideration literature from domestic politics (Area Studies), Foreign Policy Analysis and International Relations (IR). The thesis argues that IR, by purely looking into the quality of inter-state relations, too often treats these relations as a result of policies emanating from the relevant governments, without considering the policies’ background. Therefore, the thesis argues that it is necessary to engage with the domestic factors which might explain where foreign policies come from. It points out that non-state actors influence governments’ choices by supplying resources, and by cooperating or competing with the government on an issue at stake. In order to determine the degree of influence that non-state actors can have on foreign policymaking two variables are examined: the institutionalisation of the state relations in question; and the domestic structures of the relevant states. Specifically, the thesis examines the institutionalisation of Polish-German relations, and examines Germany’s and Poland’s domestic structures and their effect on the two states’ foreign policy-making in general. Thereafter, the thesis uses case studies in order to unravel the influence of non-state actors on specific foreign policies. Three case studies are examined in detail: (i) Poland’s EU accession negotiations with regard to the free movement of capital chapter of the acquis communautaire; (ii) Germany’s EU 2004 Eastern Enlargement negotiations with regard to the free movement of workers chapter of the acquis communautaire; and (iii) Germany’s decision to establsh a permanent exhibition in Berlin that will depict the expulsions of millions of Germans from the East following WWII.

Issues in EU and US Foreign Policy, edited by M. Cebeci (Plymouth: Lexington Books, 2011, ISBN 9780739147177); vii+394pp., £51.95 hb.

Book review

Norms and Greek foreign policy: 1981--2000

From the end of WWII to the end of the Cold War Greek foreign policy was shaped by the dynamics of the Cold War. The major issues facing Greek foreign policy decision makers in the post-cold war era are its relations with its Northern neighbors, Albania, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), and Bulgaria, its relations with Turkey, and Greece's future in the European Union. Although the three issues overlap there is consensus among the Greek political elite that the relationship with Turkey is the most pressing since Turkey poses the most immediate security threat. In the last twenty-five years the two countries came to the verge of war three times over the continental shelf in the Aegean and Cyprus. The latest crisis was in 1996. Since then Greek policy makers have embarked on a conciliatory road towards Turkey that has gained momentum in the last three years. The purpose of this dissertation is to describe the process of the recent change in Greek foreign policy vis-à-vis Turkey, as reflected in the words and deeds (speeches, interviews, statements, policies) of the Greek policy makers. In addition, the study seeks to understand how this change is related to rules existing at the global, regional, and domestic levels. The central question to be asked is: how do rules existing at these levels regulate and constitute the foreign policy process of the Greek government. I utilize the theoretical insights and concepts provided by constructivism in order to carry out my research. The analysis establishes the relationship between the agents (Greek foreign policy makers) and the various rules and explores this relationship as an ongoing process by ascertaining the social context within which this process is unfolding. ^

Armenia's foreign policy, 1991–2004: Between history and geopolitics

This dissertation is the first systematic study of Armenia’s foreign policy during the post-independence period, between 1991 and 2004. It argues that a small state’s foreign policy is best understood when looking at the regional level. Armenia’s geographic proximity to Iran, Russia and Turkey, places it in an area of heightened geopolitical interest by various great powers. This dissertation explores four sets of relationships with Armenia’s major historical ‘partners’: Russia, Iran, Turkey and the West (Europe and the United States). Each relationship reveals a complex reality of a continuous negotiation between ideas of history, collective memory, nationalism and geopolitics. A detailed study of Armenia’s relations with these powers demonstrates how actors’ relations of amity and enmity are formed to constitute a regional security complex. Turkey represents the ultimate “other”, while both Europe and Iran are seen as ideational “others”, whose role in Armenia’s foreign policy, aside from pragmatic policy considerations, reflects a normative quest. Russia and the United States, on the other hand, represent the powerful structural forces that define the regional security complex, in which Armenia operates. This dissertation argues that although Armenia has been severely constrained in certain foreign policy choices, it was adept at carving a space for action that privileged the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh over other geopolitical imperatives.

Turkey and neo-Ottomanism: Domestic sources, dynamics and foreign policy

This study examined the relationship between the Turkish Islamic movements and the present government of the Justice and Development Party ( Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi, AK Party). Since the AK Party came to power in 2002 it implemented unparalleled political reforms and pursued to improve Turkey’s relations with the EU. Opponents argued that because of the dominance of the secular military in Turkish politics, the AK Party is forced to secretly advance its Islamic agenda using the language and symbolism of democracy and human rights. This study argued that the ideas of the AK Party show similarities with the “Ottomanist” thought of the late Ottoman era. With special reference to the preservation of the Ottoman State, Ottomanism in an eclectic way was able to incorporate Islamic principles like freedom, justice and consultation into the political arena which was increasingly dominated by the secular European concepts. Literature on Islam and politics in Turkey, however, disregards the Ottoman roots of freedom and pluralism and tends to reduce the relationship between religion and state into exclusively confrontational struggles. This conceptualization of the political process relies on particular non-Turkish Muslim experiences which do not necessarily represent Islam’s venture in Turkey. Contrary to the prevailing scholarship, Islamic movements in Turkey, namely, Naqshbandi, National View and Nur, which are discussed in detail in this study, are not monolithic. They all uphold the same creedal tenets of Islam but they have sharp differences in terms of how they conceptualize the role of religious agency in politics. I argue that this diversity is a result of three distinct methodologies of Islamic religious life which are the Tariqah (Tarikat ), Shariah (Şeriat), and Haqiqah ( Hakikat). The differences between these three approaches represent a typological hierarchy in the formation of the Muslim/believer as an agent of Islamic identity. Through these different if not conflicting modes, the AK Party reconnected itself with Turkey’s Ottoman heritage in a post-Ottoman, secular setting and was able to develop an eclectic political identity of Neo-Ottomanism that is evident in the flexibility if not inconsistency of its domestic and foreign policy preferences.

Organized labor and U.S. foreign policy: The Solidarity Center in historical context

During the Cold War the foreign policy of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), was heavily criticized by scholars and activists for following the lead of the U.S. state in its overseas operations. In a wide range of states, the AFL-CIO worked to destabilize governments selected by the U.S. state for regime change, while in others the Federation helped stabilize client regimes of the U.S. state. In 1997 the four regional organizations that previously carried out AFL-CIO foreign policy were consolidated into the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (Solidarity Center). My dissertation is an attempt to analyze whether the foreign policy of the AFL-CIO in the Solidarity Center era is marked by continuity or change with past practices. At the same time, this study will attempt to add to the debate over the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the post-Cold War era, and its implications for future study. Using the qualitative "process-tracing" detailed by of Alexander George and Andrew Bennett (2005) my study examines a wide array of primary and secondary sources, including documents from the NED and AFL-CIO, in order to analyze the relationship between the Solidarity Center and the U.S. state from 2002-2009. Furthermore, after analyzing broad trends of NED grants to the Solidarity Center, this study examines three dissimilar case studies including Venezuela, Haiti, and Iraq and the Middle East and North African (MENA) region to further explore the connections between U.S. foreign policy goals and the Solidarity Center operations. The study concludes that the evidence indicates continuity with past AFL-CIO foreign policy practices whereby the Solidarity Center follows the lead of the U.S. state. It has been found that the patterns of NED funding indicate that the Solidarity Center closely tailors its operations abroad in areas of importance to the U.S. state, that it is heavily reliant on state funding via the NED for its operations, and that the Solidarity Center works closely with U.S. allies and coalitions in these regions. Finally, this study argues for the relevance of "top-down" NGO creation and direction in the post-Cold War era.

Oman's foreign policy: Foundations and practice

The object of this dissertation is to record and analyze the foreign policy of the Sultanate of Oman from the early twentieth century until 2004. It challenges the central assumption of the contemporary scholarship on the subject that Muscat's modern foreign policy begins in 1970. It is often presumed that the pre-1970 era does not merit a thorough investigation to understand Muscat's modus operandi today. This study argues that for a comprehensive understanding of Muscat's foreign policy since 1970, the frontier of the historical analysis of Oman's regional and international involvement should be pushed back to the 1930's, when the young Sultan Said assumed power over the country divided by the "Treaty" or the "Agreement" of Sib. Indeed, the thrust of this research lies at once in repudiating the conventional wisdom regarding both the persona of Sultan Said and the customary political/historical narrative of Said's reign. The critical analysis of this period is utilized to rebut the pervasive and largely inaccurate historical narrative of the events prior to 1970, to recount an original interpretation of the period, and to use the narrative as a preamble for subsequent foreign policy directions and initiatives. Furthermore, this dissertation covers the gaps in the literature resulting from the absence of any materials that either record or analyze Muscat's foreign policy from 1996 until 2004. In addition, his study provides new information and a fresh analysis of the international relations of the region, including great power rivalry, especially the competition between the United States and Great Britain, and the attitudes of major regional actors, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. ^ The use of a thorough historical inquiry is vital to support the central claim of this dissertation; therefore, a large section of this dissertation is based almost exclusively on archival materials collected from the British Public Records Office, the University of Oxford and the Library of Congress. This project represents the most comprehensive use of archival materials on the subject matter to date. ^

Oman's foreign policy : foundations and practice

The object of this dissertation is to record and analyze the foreign policy of the Sultanate of Oman from the early twentieth century until 2004. It challenges the central assumption of the contemporary scholarship on the subject that Muscat's modern foreign policy begins in 1970. It is often presumed that the pre-1970 era does not merit a thorough investigation to understand Muscat's modus operandi today. This study argues that for a comprehensive understanding of Muscat's foreign policy since 1970, the frontier of the historical analysis of Oman's regional and international involvement should be pushed back to the 1930's, when the young Sultan Said assumed power over the country divided by the "Treaty" or the "Agreement" of Sib. Indeed, the thrust of this research lies at once in repudiating the conventional wisdom regarding both the persona of Sultan Said and the customary political/historical narrative of Said's reign. The critical analysis of this period is utilized to rebut the pervasive and largely inaccurate historical narrative of the events prior to 1970, to recount an original interpretation of the period, and to use the narrative as a preamble for subsequent foreign policy directions and initiatives. Furthermore, this dissertation covers the gaps in the literature resulting from the absence of any materials that either record or analyze Muscat's foreign policy from 1996 until 2004. In addition, his study provides new information and a fresh analysis of the international relations of the region, including great power rivalry, especially the competition between the United States and Great Britain, and the attitudes of major regional actors, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. The use of a thorough historical inquiry is vital to support the central claim of this dissertation; therefore, a large section of this dissertation is based almost exclusively on archival materials collected from the British Public Records Office, the University of Oxford and the Library of Congress. This project represents the most comprehensive use of archival materials on the subject matter to date.

Cooperation within nato: the influence of european democracies on U.S. foreign policy

Two NATO allies, Great Britain and France, exerted greater influence on US foreign policy than most analysts assume. They did so even during the 1950s and early 1960s when the United States enjoyed undisputed economic and military supremacy in the alliance. This study hypothesizes that the British and French influence on US foreign policy is explained both by the existence of transnational and transgovernmental coalitions and by the cohesion of weak allies toward the alliance leader. Yet although both cohesion and coalitions are complementary in influencing US foreign policy, the relationship between coalitions and influence is more critical. To investigate the proposed relationships, the study relies on an analysis of three events during which both Great Britain and France challenged US policies: the Korean War, the Suez crisis, and the 1958-1963 test ban negotiations.