Nationalism in International Relations: Norms, Foreign Policy, and Enmity

NATIONALISM IN INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS

Advances in Foreign Policy Analysis

Series Editor: Alex Mintz

Foreign policy analysis offers rich theoretical perspectives and diverse methodological approaches.

Scholars specializing in foreign policy analysis produce a vast output of research. Yet, there were only

very few specialized outlets for publishing work in the field. Addressing this need is the purpose of

Advances in Foreign Policy Analysis. The series bridges the gap between academic and policy

approaches to foreign policy analysis, integrates across levels of analysis, spans theoretical approaches

to the field, and advances research utilizing decision theory, utility theory, and game theory.

Members of the Board of Advisors:

Allison Astorino-Courtois Zeev Maoz

Steve Chan Bruce M. Russett

Margaret Hermann Donal Sylvan

Valerie Hudson Steve Walker

Patrick James Dina A. Zinnes

Jack Levy Betty Hanson

Published by Palgrave Macmillan:

Integrating Cognitive and Rational Theories of Foreign Policy Decision Making

Edited by Alex Mintz

Studies in International Mediation

Edited by Jacob Bercovitch

Media, Bureaucracies, and Foreign Aid: A Comparative Analysis of United States, the United Kingdom,

Canada, France, and Japan

By Douglas A. Van Belle, Jean-Sébastien Rioux, and David M. Potter

Civil-Military Dynamics, Democracy, and International Conflict: A New Quest for International Peace

By Seung-Whan Choi and Patrick James

Economic Sanctions and Presidential Decisions: Models of Political Rationality

By A. Cooper Drury

Purpose and Policy in the Global Community

By Bruce Russett

Modeling Bilateral International Relations: The Case of US-China Interactions

By Xinsheng Liu

Beliefs and Leadership in World Politics: Methods and Applications of Operational Code Analysis

Edited by Mark Schafer and Stephen G. Walker

Approaches, Levels and Methods of Analysis in International Politics

Edited by Harvey Starr

The Bush Administrations and Saddam Hussein: Deciding on Conflict

Alex Roberto Hybel and Justin Matthew Kaufman

Nationalism in International Relations: Norms, Foreign Policy, and Enmity

By Douglas Woodwell

NATIONALISM IN INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS

NORMS, FOREIGN POLICY,

AND ENMITY

Douglas Woodwell

NATIONALISM IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Copyright © Douglas Woodwell, 2007.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any

manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief

quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.

First published in 2007 by

PALGRAVE MACMILLAN™

175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010 and

Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, England RG21 6XS

Companies and representatives throughout the world.

PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave

Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.

Macmillan® is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom

and other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in the European

Union and other countries.

ISBN-13: 978–1–4039–8449–4

ISBN-10: 1–4039–8449–2

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available from the

Library of Congress.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Design by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., Chennai, India.

First edition: September 2007

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Printed in the United States of America.

CONTENTS

List of Figures vii

List of Tables ix

Acknowledgments xi

1 Introduction 1

PART I

2 Nationality, Nation, and Ethnicity 13

3 Sovereignty and Self-Determination: Conflicting

Norms as the Basis for International Conflict 25

4 The Determinants of Aggressive Behavior

in Irredentist-Type Situations 41

5 Empirical Assessment 55

PART II Introduction to Case Studies

6 Somalia, Ethiopia, and Kenya 99

7 India, Pakistan, and China 129

8 Greece and Turkey 157

9 Conclusions and Implications 187

Notes 201

Bibliography 211

Index 219

This page intentionally left blank

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Transborder Dyads in the International System 3

1.2 Theoretical Framework and Interrelation of Models 5

3.1 Causal Chain Linking Transborder Demographics

to Bilateral Instability 27

3.2 Irredentist-type and Contending Government

Systemic Interactions 35

4.1 Foreign Policy Formulation in Homeland States 42

6.1 Percentage of MID and Fatal MIDs per Dyad-years

in Global Regions 100

6.2 GDP per capita (in Real 1996 U.S. Dollars)—Kenya and Somalia 121

6.3 Somalia GDP per capita (in Real 1996 U.S. Dollars) and

MIDs Initiated 122

6.4 Somalia–Kenya–Ethiopia Capabilities 123

7.1 Pakistani GDP per capita (in Real 1996 U.S. Dollars) 146

7.2 Ratio of Indian to Pakistani Capabilities 147

7.3 Predicted Bilateral Dispute Probabilities and

Actual Pakistani Dispute Initiation 148

8.1 Greco-Turkish Bilateral Relations during Different Eras 158

8.2 Capability Index Scores (pre-World War II) 182

8.3 Capability Index Scores, 1945–1991 182

This page intentionally left blank

LIST OF TABLES

1.1 Demographics and Associated Nationalism 2

1.2 Major Wars and Transborder Nationality (1946–1990) 8

3.1 International and Societal Norms, Predictive Relationships 28

3.2 Predicted Effect of Norms on State Behavior 29

5.1 Normative-Demographic Model Results 62

5.2 The Effect of Significant Systemic Variables on

Bilateral MID and FATAL Probability 64

5.3 The Effect of Significant Systemic Variables on

TERRMID, POLMID, and GOVMID Probability 65

5.4 Factors Affecting Bilateral MIDS during the Period

1992–2001 in Comparison with the Period 1951–1991 66

5.5 Domestic Foreign Policy Formulation Model Results

(For Putatively Irredentist Homeland States) 68

5.6 Core Models—(Domestic Foreign Policy Model) 69

5.7 Domestic Foreign Policy Core Model—Baseline

Probability Changes 70

5.8 Classification Tree Interactive Regression Results 72

5.9 Hypothesis Outcomes and Associated Variables 74

5.10 Factors Associated with Increased Dispute Initiation

Solely within Irredentist-type Dyads and within Both

Irredentist-type and “General” (Non-Transborder) Dyads 77

6.1 Predicted versus Actual MIDs and Fatal MIDs in Dyads 101

6.2 Somali Nationalism and Relations with Kenya 104

6.3 Somali Nationalism and Relations with Ethiopia 113

6.4 Somali Decision-making Factors and Fatal MID Initiation 119

7.1 Predicted versus Actual Bilateral MIDs and Fatal MIDs in Dyads 130

8.1 Military Interventions and subsequent Greek and Turkish Foreign

Policies 179

This page intentionally left blank

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The involvement of many friends and colleagues made this work possible. First,

I must thank Nicholas Sambanis and Bruce Russett for the many, many hours

that they have spent reviewing my work and seeing me through this effort from

start to finish.

I would also like to thank Sharon Goetz and Chinyelu Lee for their editorial

assistance and suggestions as well as their support and friendship.

I am grateful to James Vreeland, John Lapinski, and Keith Darden, who took

time off from their busy schedules to offer their input at different phases of the

research and writing process.

I also extend my appreciation to the faculty of the Department of History and

Political Science at the University of Indianapolis for offering me my current position

(without which I may not have completed this project).

Last, but not least, I would like to thank my parents for their support and

patience over the many years I spent as a “professional student.”

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Geopolitical struggles surrounding the competing ideologies of communism,

capitalism, fascism, and democracy heavily influenced the course of events in

twentieth century international relations. However, focusing on great powers, great

wars, and great ideologies lends itself to the neglect of what has been the one con￾sistent source of conflict throughout the century—the influence and destabilizing

implications associated with the pursuit of nationalist objectives by revisionist states.

From the Balkan Wars to the Gulf War and beyond, nationalist goals have led not

simply to the fracturing of states and empires, but to conflict among preexisting

states as well.

Transborder Nationalism and

Transborder Nationalities

The term nationalism, as used in this work, and further explicated in the next chap￾ter, refers to preferences stressing the rejection of excessive or illegitimate foreign

influence and/or control over national populations or territory. This volume inves￾tigates the effect of nationalism on international relations by examining situations in

which state boundaries divide national groups. I hypothesize that given the presence

of demographic situations involving these transborder nationalities, interstate relations

will systematically suffer in comparison to cases in which a transborder presence is

absent. Nationalism arising from transborder situations spurs aggressive state policies

that sow the seeds of regional suspicion, enmity, and instability.

Three broad demographic situations affect relationships between states by intro￾ducing the potential for nationalist preferences into the calculations of foreign

policy decision makers. The three demographic situations are referred to as

1. minority-majority situations—the majority of one state is constituted by one

national group whereas another state has a sizeable, or politically notable,

minority population of the same group;

2. majority-majority situations—the majority of the population of two states is

constituted by the same national group; and

3. minority-minority situations—two states each have a sizeable, or politically

notable minority of the same national group.

Each of these demographic constellations is associated with a different type of

potential transborder nationalism: irredentist-type, contending government, and

minority-minority nationalism (see table 1.1). The three types of nationalism may

breed instability and mutual suspicion between states, although to different degrees

and in different ways. The existence of regionally unstable interstate relations does

not require concrete manifestations of nationalist aggression by governments. The

very threat of potential aggression by revisionist states seeking the recovery of, or

interfering with, diaspora1

-inhabited territory is sometimes sufficient to breed mis￾trust and violence.

The first type of nationalism, associated with minority-majority demographic

clusters, is irredentist-type nationalism, which represents the preferences of nationalists

within a homeland state for higher levels of self-determination for conationals within

a kin state.

2 At its strongest, irredentist nationalism seeks to eliminate control of a

foreign government (kin state) over a diaspora group and the incorporation of that

group and the territory it inhabits within the homeland state. I tend to employ the

term irredentist-“type” nationalism, however, to connote the fact that policies may

be designed to promote higher levels of conational self-determination3 rather than

seeking overt annexation of a territory.

A precondition for the existence of irredentism, as it is commonly used, is that

a segment of a national group exists in significant numbers in two or more states.

For the sake of clarity, the usage of the terms irredentism and irredentist-type nationalism

in this work will only be associated with demographic situations in which the shared nation

constitutes the majority of the population in at least one state and a minority of the population

of another (i.e., “minority-majority” transborder demographics). On the other hand

I label examples such as the Kurdish situation, whereby the nationality in question

never forms the majority of a single state’s population, as a distinct category of

“minority-minority” nationalism.

I refer to the second type of transborder nationalism, associated with majority￾majority demographic populations, as contending government nationalism. Contending

government nationalism exists when two or more governments claim legitimate

ethnonational representation of the peoples and territories of the same nation.

Concerned primarily with the division of state control within a larger national com￾munity, contending government nationalism can be broken down into stronger and

weaker forms. Hechter (2000) refers to the strongest form as “unification national￾ism.” Unification nationalism, brought to fruition, implies the transfer of power from

two or more state authorities to a single state authority—either peacefully or through

2 NATIONALISM IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Table 1.1 Demographics and Associated Nationalism

Demographic Situation Associated Nationalism

Minority-Majority Irredentist-type

(MINMAJ)

Majority-Majority Contending Government

(MAJMAJ)

Minority-Minority Minority-Minority

(MINMIN)