“Domestic political game is primary for any government, regardless of government type” Leaders two-level game between domestic and international: leaders.

“Domestic political game is primary for any government, regardless of government type”

Leaders two-level game between domestic and international: leaders aimto balance between domestic and foreign policies

National level- pressure of domestic grpups and colations on government to adopt policies they favor

International level- government seeks to satisfy domestic pressure

EX: India’s nuclear programIndia is not the party of Nuclear Non-

preoliferation Treaty (NPT), Since 1974 (nuclear testing) international communiy (mainly the U.S) prohibited to buy nuclear fuel and technology.

9/11 and changes of US policies

2005 India allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for inspection of its civilian nuclear facilities/ beginning of trade partnership betwwen India-U.S

Analysis of Domestic Politics: Indian communist parties in colation object the treaty (becuase of increasing India-US relations)

Congress Party needed communist parties to stay in colaition to passed legislation

If communist party withdraw from coalition early election will be callled without guaranteeing enough seats to control governemnt

It is important to hold power at home for leading parties

Political power to set actors policy agenda and maintain policy coalitions

Domestic political games: bargain with opponents, attempt to strike comprimise positions

Why certain kinds of countries might engage in risky foreign policy behaviours, specifically use of force or war?

Three political startegies leaders use to manage challange of opposition (Joe Hagan) and pursue to deal with domestic constituencies in policy making

1-Accomadation: bargaining with opposition, contain oposition to avaoid publicly dispudet policies to make country weak in international affairs

bargaining with domestic actors to build a coalition of supporters to ensure ratification and implementation of the policy

2-Insulation: supressing or overriding opposition, neutralizing oppisition with favors and promises in order to maintain foreign policy by reducing the domestic constrains

the leader is able to maintain sufficient support to

ensure the ratification and implementation of any international agreements and to ensure continuation in political power.

3-Mobilization: manipulation of foreign policy to take advantage by risk taking, confront opposition through appeals to nationalism, “scapegoating” foreigners

attempt to convince the constituency to accept the leader's policy preferences, without bargaining

when pursued successfully, lead to domestic support and legitimation for the leader and his or her policies

Leaders claim that they have capacity to maintain country’s security and status abroad not their domestic opponents

Nationalism and historical enmity can be exploited by leaders to unify, mobilize, or strengthen the state

Leader to attempt to mobilize support for his or her foreign policy, which is best

accomplished by demonizing the enemy and creating a societal "enemy image”

Implications of these startegies on foreign policy choices

Three stage aggrement between Israel and PLO for the transfer of lands (WestBank and Gaza captured by Israel in 1967 war)

In 1993 Israel and PLO signed a peace treaty

Three-stage Agreement in 19981st stage Netenyahu (Likud Party) completed

first stage of transfer of land and defeated by Ehud Barak One Israeli colaition in 1999

2nd stage E. Barak continued to transferring lands and released 200 prisoner in 1999

3rd stage failure of Camp David in 2000 (initiated by B. Clinton) peace process- Arafat anounced in September possibility of PA unilateral decleration independence absent further agreement with the Israeli government

Hagan framework to explain responses to the conflict on both Israeli and Palastenian sides.

Palastenian side: domestic opponent of Arafat; leader of Hamas (Sheikh Ahmed Yassin) opposed to Fatah and PLO and oppose to agreemnts made by Israeli and Arafat (both Arafat and Hamas believe that Israel aim to destroy Islam and they will destroy Israel) but Arafat changed his view in 1989).

When Arafat threat to unilateral deceleration of independence he deploys Mobilization startegy

to face growing opposition of Hamas and assterted a hard face toward Israel so he shows his commitment to Plastenians and special capacity to lead statehood because his leadership began to be called into question!!!!!

Because in the face of growing opposition by Hamas an his worsening public opinion

However this mobilization staretgy gave advantage to Hamas and forced Arafat adopt violent pose by supposrting ‘day of rage’ initiated by Hamas against peace process, Arafat also supported to second intifada

Israeli Side: Arafat’s support for intifada and Camp David talks give advantage to oppositions in Israel against Barak’s government (Ariel Sharon),

One Israeli colaition collapesed and Barak (foreign policy goal to achive peace with Palastenians) forced to call for early elections

Barak use of military force against Palestenians, mobilization startegy: demonstarte his willlingness to defend Israel against all threats

Barak also aimed to neutralize Sharon colaition (insulate) but failed and lost eraly elections

Democratization and WarHamas-Fatah political struggleHamas ran and won parlimantery election-

democratizing Paleastine but lack of peaceful solutions with Israel, difficulties to trasfer democratic instituions (possibility of war)

Open civil war between Fatah and Hamas

Democratic peace theory: Democratic Hamas and Palaestenian aouthority and Hamas!!

Difficulty of democratic transition more likely to go war with other state

Democratization (transition phases): as a process in which societies move toward open, competitive,well-regulated political competition, constitutional constraints on the exercise of power by the chief executive

But achieving democratization process more likely to go war and increase possibility of war

Transition phases: country might stuck in one phase and cause return to autocracy: institutional weakness and powerful elites

When poeple/citizens participate in politics they begin to make demands and governemnt aimed to maintain policy coalition and interets

Elites use mobilization startegy to maintain their power by claiming to defend national interets-by engaging military disputes

Elites use accomodation strategy the nationalist rethoric of opponents

Democratization: establishment of institutions to maintain rule of law, human rights, free media and representative government.But transition threatens elites position and they aim to control state by using nationalism to get support of mass public

Elites uses nationalism by proposing to deal forcefully with threats and claiming that domestic political opponents will not defend national interest (Hagan’s mobilization strategy, exploit nationalism without bargaining with oppositions which lead international military disputes)

Elites aim to stay in power by claiming a special ability to defend national interests.

Elites uses insulation strategy to gain support and stay in power so elites coalition looks for an external situation that diverts attention from them, insulating them from critical domestic opponents and popular demands.

Military disputes is used as a method by elites to deal with democratization

Elites uses force at home and abroad to deal with threats and chaos of democratization

Collapse of USSR and declaration of independence of Chechnya in 1991, no response from Russia until 1994 but invasion in 1994

Why did Russia respond late to declaration of independence? Is it because of the all other changes in Russia!!

Yeltsin attempted to change Duma (parliament) attitude who against his ideologies and through use of force against Duma he successfully made constitutional changes he wanted (implementing insulation strategy by neutralizing Duma) Riskiest strategy, B. Yeltsin press regime in a democratizing country by gaining prestige at home by seeking victories abroad

Yeltsin decided to use force in Chechnya (claimed as internal security problem) to demonstrate his ability o coerce Russian society to stand against any threats to Russian authority.