Debating Transatlantic Security in the United States Congress Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 2352

TEEMU MÄKINEN Debating Transatlantic Security in the United States Congress Transatlantic TEEMU MÄKINEN Debating Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 2352 TEEMU MÄKINEN Debating Transatlantic Security in the United States Congress A study of senate armed services and foreign relations committees in the 111th and 112th congress (2009-2012) AUT 2352 AUT TEEMU MÄKINEN Debating Transatlantic Security in the United States Congress A study of senate armed services and foreign relations committees in the 111th and 112th congress (2009-2012) ACADEMIC DISSERTATION To be presented, with the permission of the Faculty Council of the Faculty of Management of the University of Tampere, for public discussion in the auditorium Pinni B 1097, Kanslerinrinne 1, Tampere, on 24 February 2018, at 12 o’clock. UNIVERSITY OF TAMPERE TEEMU MÄKINEN Debating Transatlantic Security in the United States Congress A study of senate armed services and foreign relations committees in the 111th and 112th congress (2009-2012) Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 2352 Tampere University Press Tampere 2018 ACADEMIC DISSERTATION University of Tampere Faculty of Management Finland The originality of this thesis has been checked using the Turnitin OriginalityCheck service in accordance with the quality management system of the University of Tampere. Copyright ©2018 Tampere University Press and the author Cover design by Mikko Reinikka Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 2352 Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 1858 ISBN 978-952-03-0659-5 (print) ISBN 978-952-03-0660-1 (pdf) ISSN-L 1455-1616 ISSN 1456-954X ISSN 1455-1616 http://tampub.uta.fi Suomen Yliopistopaino Oy – Juvenes Print 441 729 Tampere 2018 Painotuote ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work is a result of a life-long interest in the United States politics and the long, complex relationship between Europe and the New World. How do Americans experience the transatlantic alliance? A satisfying answer demands a comprehensive understanding of American thinking. That thinking manifests itself in the United States Congress, an institution reflecting domestic struggles over ideas that define United States’ place in the world. As I began my journey in 2014, the security context in Europe shifted dramatically due to events in Ukraine. The somewhat neglected transatlantic alliance had to form a response, and questions like NATO’s Article 5 commitments and American troop deployments in Europe were once again topical. The 2016 presidential election campaign in the United States alone – not to mention the actual results - alarmed European observers. The need to view the United States beyond the foreign policy elites and public diplomacy reached new heights. In short, this dissertation is my attempt to understand American politics. Being a PhD student is an educational process. It is mentally demanding to keep the focus on important things. It is mentally demanding to fight for funding against your fellow PhD students all equally deserving of receiving a grant. Intellectually, it is a transformative process. Perhaps the most important lesson I have learned is recognizing the limits of my own knowledge, and using that recognition as a motivation to push those limits as far as possible. It is a humbling process. I have come to view the larger academic community with renewed respect, yet taking pride in my own contributions. I would like to thank my thesis instructor Tapio Raunio. This work would not have been written without Tapio’s encouragement, advice and patience. The honest, fair and illuminating feedback and advice from the rest of the political science faculty – and my fellow PhD students - from the University of Tampere, opened my eyes to the high requirements a PhD candidate ought to fulfill. Anna Kronlund has helped me along the way both with substance of my thesis and integration to the wider academic community. She has been a true mentor, and of that I am grateful. I would also like to thank the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. The events organized by FIIA offered a valuable insight into American politics, and I have had the honor to present some of my own ideas to the distinguished professionals at FIIA’s Center on U.S Politics and Power. Special thanks to Mika Aaltola, Juha Käpylä and Ville Sinkkonen. John Morton Center for North American Studies at University of Turku has offered both seminars and lectures invaluable to Finnish students of American politics. I would like to thank Benita Heiskanen for an opportunity to present my own views and work at the JMC, and for the valuable work JMC continues to do. I would also like to thank pre-examiners Julia Azari and Benjamin Fordham for their valuable feedback. I would like to thank the Finnish Cultural Foundation for funding my work and allowing me to focus all my energy in this dissertation. Finally, I would like to thank my beautiful Laura. With her, the lonely work of being a PhD student was never lonely, and disappointment never turned into despair. Turku, January 7th, 2018 Teemu Mäkinen ABSTRACT Crisis in Ukraine has highlighted the continued importance of transatlantic security framework, while the election of Donald Trump as the President of the United States raised concern over American commitment to European security. Given the political instability in Europe and U.S., and changes in European security situation, a comprehensive understanding of American policy towards Europe is required. The purpose of this dissertation is to first fill a gap in understanding of congressional attitudes towards transatlantic relations, more specifically transatlantic security. This study will examine congressional behavior across different types of policy areas; i.e. defense procurement, international agreements, war-powers, bilateral relations and deployment of both troops and defense systems. This dissertation is a study of congressional foreign policy hearings in two relevant foreign policy committees in the Senate; Foreign Relations and Armed Services during the 111th (2009-2010) and 112th (2011-2012) Congress. The timeline included six significant transatlantic security issues: American missile defense system in Europe, Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, Libyan intervention, American troop presence in Europe, NATO and European security, and U.S.-Russia relations. The focus lies in the debates over the direction of American foreign policy in transatlantic security matters. Given the dynamics affecting congressional influence - and activity - in foreign affairs, how are transatlantic security issues defined and framed in Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees? And further, what does it say about the role of congressional committees in foreign policy debates, about the effects of domestic politics on foreign policy deliberation, and perhaps most importantly, what does it say about the influence of both partisan and long-term American foreign policy ideology on congressional attitudes towards transatlantic security? Methodologically, this study uses qualitative analysis to examine congressional hearings. More specifically, inductive framing analysis is used to examine how individual senators discussed transatlantic security issues. In short, 1) political, historical, ideological and institutional context in examine, 2) dominant and competing framings are recognized, 3) key players and competing factions are recognized, and 4) the debate is deconstructed in context. The analysis will have a specific focus on argumentation and the substance, rather than on rhetorical or linguistic characteristics. This way the interpretation and conceptualization of issues and policy options by individual members of Congress are highlighted to produce a comprehensive idea of how transatlantic security issues are debated in the United States Senate, how are the issues defined and which interpretations of reality are made more salient than others. The empirical part of the dissertation emphasizes ideological aspects of American foreign policy debate. Given the rise in partisan polarization and the extreme polarization of the party elites (see Souva & Rohde, 2007), the relevance of foreign policy in electoral context has gained importance. Thus, there is a reason to believe that members of Congress are concerned over the influence of their respective foreign policy attitudes on their electoral success. Using Milner and Tingley’s (2015) distinction into distributional and ideological factors affecting congressional foreign policy behavior, I will evaluate the case studies both in the partisan context of “Democratic doves” and “Republican hawks” (see Gries, 2014) and in the context of long-term American foreign policy ideology (see Mead, 2002), dividing American long-term foreign policy ideology into four schools; Wilsonians, Jeffersonians, Hamiltonians, Jacksonians. Based on the results of the frame analysis, I would conclude that the more parochial and partisan views of congressional foreign policy decision-making can be challenged. Reflexive partisanship did not define the debate. Of all the issues examined, only missile defense produced a dominantly partisan response (see figure 41.), although it should be note that missile defense was debated only in the Armed Services. I would argue that the overall results in this study do challenge some of the more cynical views of partisan conflict and parochial nature of congressional behavior. Issues defined in distributional terms – NATO and American troop presence in Europe - produced a cohesive congressional response, whereas Libya, START

Load more