FOREIGN POLICY AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS

A STRANGE DIVIDE MICHAEL CLARKE

Why i s i t t h a t f o r e i g n p o l i c y and comparat ive p o l i t i c s have n o t merged i n t o a s i n g l e s u b - d i s c i p l i n e o f p o l i t i c s ? There a r e severa l reasons wh ich suggest t h a t they should a t l e a s t have come c l o s e r . Students o f bo th s u b j e c t s seem t o be wel l -aware o f t h e c l o s e i n t e r a c t i o n o f domest ic and i n t e r n a t i o n a l f o r c e s . They both, f o r instance, acknowledge the f a c t o r s a t work i n a c o n d i t i o n o f i n t e r - dependence:

the domest ic power o f t h e s t a t e can be sus ta ined o n l y through i n t e r n a t i o n a l economic co-opera t ion and p o l i t i c a l accommodation. I n o r d e r t o meet i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r mass s o c i a l and economic w e l f a r e , the modern s t a t e i s compelled t o i n t e r a c t w i t h o t h e r s t a t e s i n ways wh acceptance o f the l o g i c P 1276)

On the face o f i t , t h i s should lead s i n g l e framework. T h i s i s espec ia l

ch . . . demand co-opera t ion (and) o f interdependence. (Hanr ieder, 1978,

them t o t h i n k about t h e i r problems w i t h i n a y so s i n c e s tudents o f b o t h comparat ive

p o l i t i c s and f o r e i g n p o l i c y have made e x t e n s i v e use o f a systems approach to the a n a l y s i s o f t h e i r s u b j e c t s . And one o f the v i r t u e s o f a systems approach i s t h a t i t i s n o t c o n s t r a i n e d by i n s t i t u t i o n a l o r i n t e l l e c t u a l boundar ies. I t i s based p r e c i s e l y on a concept ion o f interdependence, bo th between t h e s p e c i f i e d u n i t s and i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e environment o f t h e system. Thus i n two e d i t i o n s of Almond and P o w e l l ' s Comparative P o l i t i c s (1966, 1978) and i n Peter M e r k l ' s Modern Comparative P o l i t i c s (1970) we f i n d e x p l i c i t r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e f a c t t h a t t o d e f i n e a governmental 'system' i s a l s o to d e f i n e i t s f o r e i g n p o l i c y and i t s i n t e r n a t i o n a l environment. And i n t h e same i n t e l l e c t u a l e r a we f i n d t h e beginnings o f a methodica l s tudy i n comparat ive f o r e i g n p o l i c y which draws from s i m i l a r concept ions o f t h e p o l i t i c a l system and which t r i e s t o examine c h a r a c t e r i s t i c modes o f f o r e i g n p o l i c y performance t o correspond w i t h d i f f e r e n t types o f system (Wal lace and Paterson, 1978; Clapham, 1978; Adomeit and Boardman, 1373).

To t h i s methodo log ica l co inc idence we should a l s o add a convergence of s u b j e c t m a t t e r . For i n t h e l a t e 1970s t h i s ' p o l i t i c a l system' on which we agreed, was under severe s t r a i n , so much so t h a t a degree o f systemic r u p t u r e was p o s s i b l e . Thus Gourev i tch (1979) f rom the f i e l d o f comparat ive p o l i t i c s and Hanr ieder (1978) from f o r e i g n p o l i c y bo th saw t h e problems o f the developed s t a t e i n t h e same way. For Gourev i tch t h e s t a t e faced many problems o f ' g o v e r n a b i l i t y ' , i n c l u d i n g t h e growth o f t r a n s n a t i o n a l economic pressures and a d e c l i n i n g consensus on how t o deal w i t h them. Hanr ieder saw the f o r e i g n p o l i c y o f the s t a t e as i n c r e a s i n g l y concerned w i t h d i s t r i b u t i v e p o l i t i c s , a iming t o s t rengthen t h e th rea tened r o l e o f the s t a t e by c a l l i n g to i t s a i d some very s p e c i f i c m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l p o l i t i c a l processes. Both were concerned w i t h t h e problem o f system-maintenance, o r more d i r e c t l y , w i t h t h e maintenance o f n o t i o n a l u n i t s w i t h i n a c o n t e x t o f r a p i d l y changing p o l i t i c s a t the domestic and i n t e r n a t i o n a l l e v e l s . K a r l Deutsch 's 'The C r i s i s of the S t a t e '

4. MichaeZ CZarke

(1981) probably def ined b e t t e r than anyth ing e l s e the nature o f the issue i n a perspect ive t h a t was both comparative - and fore ign .

I t seemed, then, t h a t there was a p a r a l l e l development, i f no t a convergence, between comparative p o l i t i c s and f o r e i g n p o l i c y dur ing the 1970s. They were, a f t e r a l l , f ac ing the same essen t ia l problem. I t seemed na tu ra l t ha t they should become a t l eas t very c lose cousins. Hayward and B e r k i ' s State and Society i n Contemporary Europe (1979) appeared t o be a s tep i n tha t d i r e c t i o n , s ince i t t r i e d t o i n teg ra te the i n t e r n a t i o n a l and domestic contexts o f West European P o l i t i c s .

Yet i n the 1980s no academic convergence has taken p lace. I f anyth ing, we have re t rea ted back i n t o our own i n s t i t u t i o n a l categor ies. As Hague and Harrop (1982, p 3) sa id o f the study o f comparative government, 'Our concern i s t o exp la in pa t te rns o f decision-making a t na t i ona l l e v e l ' . And on the f o r e i g n p o t i c y s ide, A l l e n po in ted out (Clarke and White, 1981) t h a t f o r e i g n p o l i c y even i n Western Europe i s d i s t i ngu ished from domestic p o l i c y p r e c i s e l y because o f the specia l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the i n t e r n a t i o n a l environment.

How are we t o exp la in t h i s r e t r e a t ? Surely i t i s more than academic myopia? Indeed i t i s , bu t i t seems t o a r i s e from a combination o f f ac to rs associated both w i t h the nature o f the common problem we have j u s t o u t l i n e d , and w i t h the broader assumptions we make i n t h i n k i n g about i t . Let us deal f i r s t w i t h the na ture o f the problem.

The 1970s may be character ised as the decade o f interdependence. I t was notable f o r the problems which interdependence seemed t o have created - p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r the developed world. important t r u t h about interdependence: t h a t w h i l e i t poses i n t e r n a t i o n a l problems f o r governments, i t does not necessar i l y promote at tempts a t i n t e r - na t iona l so lu t i ons . Indeed, i f anyth ing, the growth o f interdependence has encouraged p o l i t i c i a n s t o dash f o r shor t - term na t iona l so lu t i ons t o t h e i r problems. I t has exacerbated many d i f f e rences between s ta tes and has exposed s t a r k l y d ivergent na t i ona l s t y l e s o f pol icy-making. C e r t a i n l y , i n the shor t - term, a recogn i t i on o f interdependence has resu l ted i n the retrenchment o f the a u t h o r i t y o f governments and o f the r o l e o f the na t i on -s ta te as gatekeeper t o i t s p o l i t i c a l system. Those w r i t e r s who saw i n interdependence a new in te rna t i ona l i sm - a contemporary f u n c t i o n a l i s t pressure t o rep lace convent ional power p o l i t i c s - have r e j o i c e d prematurely. Despi te considerable changes i n the nature o f domestic and i n t e r n a t i o n a l p o l i t i c s over the l a s t f i f t e e n years the s t a t e has nevertheless reasser ted i t s e l f .

The 1980s, however, have revealed a very

I n the face o f these confus ing and c o n t r a d i c t o r y t rends, perhaps i t i s no t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t students o f comparative p o l i t i c s and f o r e i g n p o l i c y have not been thrown i n v o l u n t a r i l y together . But t h i s s t i l l does no t e x p l a i n the na ture and ex ten t o f the d i v i d e between them. A f t e r a l l , t he n a t i o n a l boundary may be no less obvious today than i t used to be, bu t s tudents of bo th sub jec ts are i n te res ted i n the nature o f t h a t boundary and the fo rces a c t i n g upon i t .

We have to face the uncomfortable f a c t t h a t we s imply make d i f f e r e n t assumptions about each o t h e r ' s sub jec t mat ter . the fence i t i s no t d i f f i c u l t t o p i n p o i n t some c r u c i a l , and quest ionable, conceptions w i t h which students o f comparative p o l i t i c s approach important elements o f our sub jec t .

From the f o r e i g n p o l i c y s ide of

For one th ing , comparative p o l i t i c s t e x t s tend to p l a y down the relevance o f the i n t e r n a t i o n a l system and t o o e a s i l y ignore the e f f e c t s o f i t on the

Foreign PoZicy and Comparative Politics: A Strange Divide 5.

h i s t o r i c a l development o f t h e domest ic , n a t i o n - s t a t e system. N a t i o n - s t a t e s a r e assumed t o have evo lved e s s e n t i a l l y f rom i n t e r n a l dynamics: f rom an a l l i a n c e between t h e monarch and t h e bu reauc ra t t h a t developed over t h r e e c e n t u r i e s i n t o a ' c i v i c c u l t u r e ' . The essays e d i t e d by T i l l y (1975) o f f e r ample evidence o f t h i s . The i n t e r n a t i o n a l system, however, pre-dated such developments by some way (Merk l , 1970, p 469; Gourev i t ch , 1978, pp 907-11) and c e r t a i n l y had a c o n s i d e r a b l e e f f e c t on t h e process o f n a t i o n - b u i l d i n g , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e case o f t h e s t a t e s o f C e n t r a l and Eas te rn Europe (Anderson, 1974). I n t h e case o f l ess developed c o u n t r i e s who have had s ta tehood t h r u s t upon them i n t h e l a s t q u a r t e r c e n t u r y , i t i s usual t o acknowledge t h e f a c t t h a t , o f course, t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l environment p l a y s a c r u c i a l r o l e i n moulding t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i r domest ic systems. But t h i s i s asse r ted more o f t e n than i t i s i n v e s t i g a t e d . The n a t i o n a l system i s s t i l l regarded as c o n c e p t u a l l y autonomous, even though w r i t e r s such as S a r t o r i (1970) had fo reseen some t i m e ago t h a t t h i s would produce a 'conceptual s t r e t c h i n g ' o f comparat ive p o l i t i c s t o t h e p o i n t where i t would be c a t e g o r i s i n g f o r i t s own sake. Fo r t h e s tuden t o f f o r e i g n p o l i c y , however, l e s s developed s t a t e s o f f e r examples o f enormous dynamism; b u t n o t because of t h e n a t u r e o r t y p e o f t h e i r n a t i o n a l systems o r t h e i r c o m p l e x i t i e s o f government. They a r e dynamic f o r q u i t e t h e o p p o s i t e reason. For t h e i r v e r y weaknesses p r o v i d e a v e h i c l e for i n t e r n a t i o n a l phenomena which a f f e c t b o t h them and us: t he enactment o f t h e Cold War th roughou t t h e wor ld , t h e g rowth o f a cha l l enge t o t h e OECD/world economic system; t h e r i s e o f a m i l i t a n t Is lam. These s o r t s o f f o r c e s , i ncoheren t as they a re , would s imp ly n o t have t h e power t h a t they do i f they were b u i l t upon v i a b l e n a t i o n a l systems. I t i s t h e ease w i t h which these s o c i e t i e s a r e p e n e t r a t e d which makes them power fu l v e h i c l e s . For so many t h i r d w o r l d areas, t h e f o r c e s o f t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l system a r e r e a l ; t h e forms o f n a t i o n a l government a r e a faCade. O f course, i n a t y p o l o g y o f government, comparat ive p o l i t i c s can take t h i s i n t o account. Why, then,does i t n o t ? A t t h e ve ry l e a s t , t h e c o n c e p t u a l l y autonomous n a t i o n a l system rep resen ts a d i s t o r t i o n o f emphasis i n t h e e x p l a n a t i o n o f p o l i t i c a l processes i n l e s s developed s t a t e s .

A second problem wh ich h e l p s e x p l a i n t h e l a c k o f re levance accorded t o t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l system i s t h e f a c t t h a t i t seems t o be w i d e l y m i s i n t e r p r e t e d i n the comparat ive p o l i t i c s 1 i t e r a t u r e . La Palombara (1974a) m a i n t a i n s t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e c r u c i a l t o b o t h t h e d e s c r i p t i o n and t h e e x p l a n a t i o n comparat ive p o l i t i c s . he concen t ra tes on n a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and makes no p r e t e n c e t o cover t h e way i n which them. For a w r i t e r who i s so thorough, t h i s i s odd. I t cannot be an omiss ion; i t must be an assumption. Even more c u r i o u s l y , Almond and Powel l (1978) make a more generous assumption than La Palombara i n say ing t h a t p a t t e r n s o f p o l i t i c a l behaviour a r e more impor tan t than i n s t i t u t i o n s i n a n a l y s i n g comparat ive p o l i t i c s . What then, do they say about i n t e r n a t i o n a l p a t t e r n s o f behav iou r? The i n t e r n a t i o n a l system, they argue, i s d i f f e r e n t p r e c i s e l y because ' t h e r e i s no i n t e r n a t i o n a l government and bureaucracy ' t o e n f o r c e d e c i s i o n s (Almond and Powel l , 1978, p 315). They see governments (which they d e f i n e as a system) making p o l i c y towards t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l system r a t h e r than as p a r t o f i t s f u n c t i o n i n g . O r aga in , M i t c h e l l and M i t c h e l l (1969, p 266) a s s e r t t h a t f o r e i g n p o l i c y i s more d i f f i c u l t t o pursue c o n s i s t e n t l y t han domest ic p o l i c y because i n t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l arena, ' t h e r e a r e o n l y p a r t i a l o r temporary o r g a n i s a t i o n s ' so t h a t ' n a t i o n s and t h e i r l eaders f i n d themselves i n v o l v e d i n c o n f l i c t s under c o n d i t i o n s o f g r e a t u n c e r t a i n t y ' .

o f And i n h i s most impress i ve P o l i t i c s W i t h i n Na t ions (1974b)

t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l system - and - i t s i n s t i t u t i o n s - combine w i t h

For t h e s tuden t o f f o r e i g n p o l i c y , a l l these s tatements revea l a number o f q u e s t i o n a b l e assumptions. The l a c k o f a u t h o r i t a t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n s i s o b v i o u s l y thought t o be impor tan t . cannot engage i n the forms of r o l e s p e c i a l i s a t i o n i n t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l w o r l d

Governments must u l t i m a t e l y r e l y on s e l f - h e l p and

6 . MichaeZ Clarke

which make domestic s o c i e t y so i n t e g r a t i v e . And then, i n t h e l a s t r e s o r t , t h e r e i s always the problem o f c o n f l i c t and war. T h i s , s u r e l y , d i s t i n g u i s h e s i n t e r n a t i o n a l s o c i e t y from domest ic s o c i e t y ?

A l l o f these c la ims a r e h i g h l y contes tab le . F i r s t , many o f the major i n s t i t u t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d o r adapted as p a r t o f t h e post-war wor ld o r d e r a r e o l d e r , more power fu l , and i n r e a l i t y more a u t h o r i t a t i v e than many o f the governments who now comprise t h e i r membership. t o be t r u e o f the U n i t e d Nat ions, b u t i s c e r t a i n l y t r u e o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Monetary Fund, the i n t e r n a t i o n a l banking system, Comecon, the General Agreement on T a r i f f s and Trade, the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s e d aspects o f t h e East-West r e l a t i o n s h i p , and even i n v a r y i n g degrees, o f NATO, the OECD and t h e European Community. I n o t h e r words, w h i l e t h e r e i s indeed something t r a n s i t o r y and ephemeral about c e r t a i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , t h e r e i s n o t h i n g n e c e s s a r i l y so about t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s a t i o n o f the i n t e r n a t i o n a l system. L i k e a l l systems, n a t i o n a l , sub-nat iona l , o r o therwise, t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l system operates on p a t t e r n s o f behaviour and a m i x t u r e o f more or l e s s power fu l and more o r l e s s a u t h o r i t a t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n s .

T h i s cou ld no t g e n e r a l l y be s a i d

Second, governments do engage i n q u i t e c o n s i d e r a b l e degrees o f r o l e s p e c i a l i s a t i o n i n the i n t e r n a t i o n a l system. T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y so i n t h e case o f economic r e l a t i o n s . Indeed, t h e economic recess ion of t h e l a s t f i f t e e n years has heightened t h e economic d i v i s i o n o f labour i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l s o c i e t y . As less c o m p e t i t i v e i n d u s t r i e s have s u f f e r e d f rom keener c o m p e t i t i o n so, a l b e i t i n v o l u n t a r i l y , s t a t e s have f a l l e n back on t h e i r s t r e n g t h s - t h e i r manufactur ing, t h e i r e x t r a c t i v e i n d u s t r i e s , t h e i r tour ism. T h i s has n o t promoted a more equal i n t e r n a t i o n a l (or domest ic) s o c i e t y , b u t t h e mechanisms f o r s u s t a i n i n g any f u n c t i o n i n g s o c i e t y a r e n o t o f t e n ones which c r e a t e a more even d i s t r i b u t i o n o f weal th . Even i n t h e sphere o f n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l system d i s p l a y s a h i g h degree o f r o l e s p e c i a l i s a t i o n . Arguably , o n l y t h e two superpowers a r e genu ine ly s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t i n defence: and even t h a t i s c o n t e s t a b l e i f one widens t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f 'de fence ' t o 'defence o f g l o b a l i n t e r e s t s ' . But i t does appear t h a t t h e r e a r e producers and consumers o f s e c u r i t y . A n a t i o n ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f i t s defence needs i s c o n d i t i o n e d by the s e c u r i t y c o n t e x t t h a t i s produced f o r i t by those who, f o r wider reasons, want t o produce i t . The I s r a e l i s , f o r example, do n o t have more than an inshore navy d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e i r l e a s t d e f e n s i b l e border i s t h e i r c o a s t l i n e . They r e l y on t h e Western powers t o m a i n t a i n a form o f c o l l e c t i v e s e c u r i t y i n t h e Mediterranean, presumably on t h e assumption t h a t t h i s i s a common good. Japanese defence p o l i c y p rov ides a spec tacu la r and except iona l example o f t h i s l o g i c ; t h e European members o f NATO, and i n t h e i r own sphere the members o f t h e Warsaw Pact, a s e r i e s o f more mixed and s u b t l e cases. Other examples i l l u s t r a t e t h a t t h i s can operate i n more r e g i o n a l c o n t e x t s a l s o . Saudi Arab ia r e l i e s on the p o s s i b i l i t y o f US ground t roops coming t o i t s defence i f necessary, w h i l e i t c o n t r i b u t e s i t s a i r power t o the common good o f s e c u r i t y i n t h e Gu l f . The Gulf s t a t e s r e l y on Saudi a i r power and c o n t r i b u t e t h e i r p o t e n t i a l f o r naval and a i r bases t o t h e same cause. Egypt c o n t r i b u t e s i t s p o l i t i c a l weight t o wider s e c u r i t y e f f o r t s and has g i v e n up the idea o f f i n a n c i n g i t s defence expend i tu re independent o f Saudi fund ing . I f ' n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y ' r e q u i r e d a s t a t e t o be a b l e t o defend i t s e l f a lone, by a p p l y i n g b r u t e f o r c e t o i t s s e c u r i t y problems, then most s t a t e s i n t h e w o r l d would now be spending f a r more than t h e average 5-10 per cent o f t h e i r GNPs on defence.

States do n o t consc ious ly have t o pursue i n t e r n a t i o n a l i s t goa ls i n o rder t o produce i n t e r n a t i o n a l i s t r e s u l t s . Governments may n o t i n t e n d t o e s t a b l i s h a system o f (say) c o l l e c t i v e defence, or managed, s e l e c t i v e p r o t e c t i o n i s m , b u t may never the less end up o p e r a t i n g one. P o l i c y i s made - i n t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l

Foreign Policy and Comparative P o l i t i c s : A Strange

environment n o t a t i t . T h i s env i ronment i s n o t un a s p e c i a l form o T i n t e r n a t i o n a 1 anarchy.

T h i s b r i n g s us t o t h e t h i r d assumption t o be r e s o r t . . governments must s tand a lone . . . w i

Divide 7.

q u e l y c o m p e t i t i v e and i s n o t

cha l l enged : ' i n t h e l a s t 1 use v i o l e n c e . . . may engage

i n w a r ' . i s undoubtedly t r u e . But t h e s t u d e n t o f f o r e i g n p o l i c y i s no more preoccupied w i t h l a s t r e s o r t s than anyone e l s e . Behind t h e r h e t o r i c o f s ta tehood and s o v e r e i g n t y governments have v e r y power fu l i n t e r e s t s i n n o t a s s e r t i n g f i n a l a u t h o r i t y ove r t h e i r env i ronment , and i n encouraging h i g h degrees o f p r e d i c t a b i 1 i t y i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l behaviour . T h e i r b e s t i n t e r e s t s a re n o r m a l l y served by t r y i n g t o e s t a b l i s h p r e d i c t a b l e r e l a t i o n s w i t h most o t h e r governments and w i t h t h e morass o f i n s t i t u t i o n s and i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s e d behaviour t h a t make up t h e i r f o r e i g n p o l i c y environment. As Wal tz (1979) p o i n t s o u t , a s s e r t i o n s o f sove re ign a u t h o r i t y a r e much more a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f weak governments than s t r o n g ones.

Indeed i n t h e l a s t r e s o r t governments may engage i n n u c l e a r war. T h i s

-

Never the less , i n t h e l a s t r e s o r t , governments may engage i n widespread v i o l e n c e . T h i s can be b o t h i n t e r n a t i o n a l and domest ic. I n t h e l a s t r e s o r t governments have made war on s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n s o f t h e i r own p o p u l a t i o n s ; they have sometimes won and a t o t h e r t imes dest royed t h e i r own l e g i t i m a c y i n f a i l i n g t o win. C e r t a i n l y , i n t e r n a t i o n a l wars do occu r , and n u c l e a r war would be t h e u l t i m a t e ' l a s t r e s o r t ' a f t e r which i t would be d i f f i c u l t t o ca re whether t h e r e was a n y t h i n g w o r t h s t u d y i n g o r comparing.

Since 1945, however, i n t e r n a t i o n a l wars have n o t been the most p r e v a l e n t form o f p o l i t i c a l v i o l e n c e . I n t e r v e n t i o n , p o l i c i n g subvers ion, r e v o l u t i o n and c o u n t e r - r e v o l u t i o n have been much more p r e v a l e n t forms o f v i o l e n c e . I f , when we ge t t o l a s t r e s o r t s , i t i s t h e amount o f v i o l e n c e which separates ' ana rchy ' and ' s o c i e t y ' , t hen domest ic s o c i e t y i s more anarch ic . Since 1900 something l i k e 130 m i l l i o n people have been k i l l e d i n d e l i b e r a t e , p o l i t i c a l v i o l e n c e ( E l i o t , 1972). a r e s u l t o f domest ic upheaval , r e v o l u t i o n o r c i v i l war, i e . o f v i o l e n c e which i s l oca ted a t l e a s t as deeply i n t h e n a t i o n a l as i n the i n t e r n a t i o n a l system. Since 1945 t h i s has been even more t h e case and t h e r e i s eve ry reason t o expect t h a t t r e n d t o c o n t i n u e . A t t h e v e r y l e a s t , s tuden ts o f comparat ive p o l i t i c s should n o t make g l i b assumptions about t h e n a t u r e o f war as a f e a t u r e o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l anarchy. A t b e s t , we shou ld t h i n k c a r e f u l l y how we d e f i n e and c a t e g o r i s e p o l i t i c a l v i o l e n c e , w i t h a v iew t o a more modern concep t ion o f the d e f i n i t i o n of ' p e a c e ' , ' w a r ' and ' s e c u r i t y ' . I n t h e case o f f o r e i g n p o l i c y one c o u l d p o i n t t o a number o f works which address t h i s cha l l enqe , one o f t h e

Even a l l o w i n g f o r t h e two w o r l d wars, most o f these deaths have been as

I -

bes t o f wh'ich i s Buzan's People, S ta tes and Fear (1983). p o l i t i c s t h e o n l y d i r e c t a t t a c k on t h i s , c u r i o u s l y , has been f rom a M a r x i s t

But i n comparat ive

p e r s p e c t i v e . p 305) p o i n t o u t f rom b o t h ends o f t h e c o r n p a r a t i v e / i n t e r n a t i o n a l spectrum, even t h i s has been as much about methodology as substance.

As.Looker (1978, pp 329-33) and Kuba'lkova' and Cruickshank (1977,

T h i s leaves us, f i n a l l y and b r i e f l y , w i t h t h e n u c l e a r bomb. The s tuden t o f f o r e i g n p o l i c y may w e l l have t c admi t ownership o f t h a t . Indeed, some o f us a r e s o b e g u i l e d by i t t h a t we would n o t want t o g i v e i t away and so d i s s i p a t e o u r e x p e r t i s e . There i s , however, a good case t h a t we should. For t h e mo t i ves o f possess ing n u c l e a r weapons a r e a t l e a s t as i n t e r n a l t o a p o l i t i c a l system as they a r e e x t e r n a l l y r e l a t e d t o a t h r e a t . And i f we cons ide r t h e areas o f t h e w o r l d i n t o which n u c l e a r weapons a r e about t o be i n t roduced - the M idd le East, t h e I n d i a n sub -con t inen t , Souther'n A f r i c a - then we may w e l l conclude t h a t t h e most l i k e l y f i r s t use o f n u c l e a r weapons w i l l a r i s e f rom p a t t e r n s of c o n f l i c t which w i l l n o t be ' i n t e r n a t i o n a l war ' i n t h e accepted sense o f t h e term. I f n u c l e a r weapons a r e most l i k e l y t o be used as an outcome t o more conven t iona l

8. blichae 2 CZarke

v io lence then i t would be p o s i t i v e l y dangerous t o t r e a t them as merely the u l t ima te reso r t o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l p o l i t i c s . I f we are speaking about ' l a s t r e s o r t s ' then even nuc lear weapons do no t necessar i l y se t the i n te rna t i ona l system apar t from domestic soc ie ty .

I t takes two sides t o qua r re l , and t o make up. This essay has merely t r i e d t o o u t l i n e a cur ious d i v i s i o n between comparative p o l i t i c s and fo re ign p o l i c y , and then c r i t i c i s e students o f comparative p o l i t i c s on the bas is o f some important misconceptions about the nature o f the i n t e r n a t i o n a l arena. I n t h i s Way the author i s no t being t a c t l e s s so much as bloody rude t o a number o f valued colleagues. He has h i s own views o f what the misconceptions o f the fo re ign p o l i c y student might be i n r e l a t i o n t o comparative p o l i t i c s . These, however, would be f a r b e t t e r po in ted out by someone on the o ther s ide o f the fence. What has been s i n g u l a r l y l ack ing i n t h i s , as i n so many o ther areas o f p o l i t i c s t h a t have common concerns, i s a d ia logue ou ts ide the somewhat r i t u a l i s t i c framework o f academic conferences.

References

Adomeit, M and Boardman, R (eds) (1979), Foreign P o l icy-Making i n Communist

Almond, G A and Powel l , G B (1966), Comparative P o l i t i c s : A Developmental

Almond, G A and Powell, G B (1978), Comparative P o l i t i c s : A Developmental

A n d e r < k f 9 7 4 ) , Lineages o f the A b s o l u t i s t S ta te (London, New L e f t Books). Buzan, B (1983), People, States and Fear (Br ighton, Wheatsheaf Books). Clapham, C (ed)(1978), Fore ign Policy-Making i n Developing States (London,

Clarke, M and White, B (eds)(1981), An In t roduc t i on t o Foreign Po l i cy

Count r i es (London, Saxon House) . Approach (Boston, L i t t l e Brown and Co).

A roach (2nd ed, Boston, L i t t l e Brown and Co).

Saxon House).

(Ormskirk, G W and A Hesketh). 'The C r i s i s o f the S t a t e ' , Government and Opposi t ion 16(3),

pp 331-43.

Books). E l l i o t , G (1972), The Twent ieth Century Book o f the Dead (Middlesex, Penguin

Gourevitch, P (1978), 'The Second lmaqe Reversed: The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Sources o f Domestic P o l i t i c s ' , I n te rna t i ona l Organisat ion 32(4), pp 234-58.

Gourevitch, P (19791, 'The State o f West European S tud ies ' , Washington P o l i t i c a l Q u a r t e r l y 2(4), pp 119-34.

Hague, R and Harrop, M (1982), Comparative Government: An In t roduc t i on (London, Macm i 1 1 an) .

Hanrieder, W F (1978), 'D i sso l v ing i n t e r n a t i o n a l P o l i t i c s : Ref lec t ions on the Nat ion-State ' , American P o l i t i c a l Science Review 72(4), pp 1276-87.

Hayward, J and Berk i , R (eds)(1979), S ta te and Society i n Contemporary Euro e (London, Mar t i n Robertson).

K u b s l k d V and Cruickshank, A A (1977), ' A Double Omission', B r i t i s h Journal o f I n te rna t i ona l Studies 3(3) , pp 286-307.

La Palombara, J (1974a), 'Macrotheories and Mic roapp l ica t ions i n Comparative P o l i t i c s ' , i n Cantor i , L J (ed)(1974), Comparative P o l i t i c a l Systems, (Boston, Holbrook Press), pp 26-57.

H a l l ) .

e t a1 (eds) (1978), The Prac t i ce o f Comparative P o l i t i c s (2nd e d i t i o n ) 'man, Longman), pp 305-38.

Wins ton) .

La Palombara, J (1974b), P o l i t i c s Wi th in Nat ions (Englewood C l i f f s , NJ, Pren t ice

Looker, R (1978), 'Comparative P o l i t i c s : Methods and Theor ies? ' i n Lewis, Paul G

Merkl , P H (1970), Modern Comparative P o l i t i c s ( I l l i n o i s , H o l t , R inehar t and

Foreign Policy and Comparative Pol i t ics : A Strange Divide 9.

M i t c h e l l , J M and M i t c h e l l , W C (19691, P o l i t i c a l Ana lys is and P u b l i c P o l i c y

S a r t o r i , G (1970), 'Concept M i s i n f o r m a t i o n i n Comparative P o l i t i c s ' , American (Chicago, Rand McNal l y ) .

. - . . The Format ion o f N a t i o n a l S ta tes i n Western Eurooe

Wallace, W and P a t t e r s o n , W (eds) (1978) , Fore ign Pol icy-Making i n Western (London, Saxon House).

1979), Theory o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l P o l i t i c s (London, Addison Wesley).

SANCTIONS AND SOUTH AFRICA

THOMAS YOUNG

The c o n t i n u i n g demand fo r sanc t ions a g a i n s t South A f r i c a f rom a wide v a r i e t y o f spokesmen and t h e damaging e f f e c t s o f t h e a c t i o n s t h a t have a l ready been taken, have ensured t h a t t h e sanc t ions q u e s t i o n remains a h i g h l y s a l i e n t one. Yet as a q u e s t i o n t h a t spans a wide range o f moral , p o l i t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l issues, i t demands p e r i o d i c a l re-examinat ion t o ensure c l a r i t y of thought even i f t h e r e s u l t i s o n l y t o c l a r i f y areas o f disagreement. T h i s paper i s a smal l c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h a t end.

Sanct ions may be d e f i n e d as n o n - v i o l e n t i n t e n t i o n a l l y c o e r c i v e pressures designed, a t l e a s t i n t h e South A f r i c a n case, t o induce s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l changes w i t h i n a s t a t e . Three aspects w i l l be considered here. The f i r s t concerns the i n i t i a t o r s o r agents o f sanc t ions , the second the n a t u r e o f t h e sanc t ions themselves and t h e l a s t t h e t a r g e t s o f sanc t ions . Agents o f s a n c t i o n s must make a number o f c a l c u l a t i o n s about t h e i r use, eg. there must be an assumption t h a t the t a r g e t o f sanc t ions can i n p r i n c i p l e be changed i n t h e d e s i r e d d i r e c t i o n . I n t h i s c o n t e x t two c e n t r a l ques t ions must be faced which r e l a t e t o t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y and t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f sanc t ions . i t i s an e s s e n t i a l p r e c o n d i t i o n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r p r a c t i c e s a r e unacceptable, and i t f o l l o w s t h a t t h e r e must be standards o f a genera l k i n d as t o what i s acceptable.

Wi th r e f e r e n c e t o t h e f i r s t ,

How does t h i s app ly t o South A f r i c a ? An examinat ion o f what makes c u r r e n t South A f r i c a n p r a c t i c e s unacceptable r e v e a l s a general r e v u l s i o n towards a p a r t h e i d , e s p e c i a l l y i f the l a t t e r i s p r i m a r i l y d e f i n e d by re fe rence to the i n s t a l l a t i o n i n law o f sys temat ic r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . T h i s nar rowly focussed moral argument i s a s t r o n g one because South A f r i c a i s p robab ly the o n l y count ry t h a t l e g a l l y s u s t a i n s r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n (Santa Cruz, 1976).