CEU eTD Collection Iraq: AComparative Analysis ofFrance and Britain In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts in International The Democratic PeaceHypothesis and theWarin Department of:International Relations and EuropeanStudies Supervisor: Professor Irina Papkova Professor Supervisor: Relations and European Relations andEuropean Studies Central European University European Central By: Kathryn Sayer Kathryn By: Word Count: 16,506 Word Count: Budapest, Hungary Budapest, S ubmitted to: 2010 CEU eTD Collection democracies today as well. not results but importance of only the democraticthe in question peacehypothesis public opinion public opinion of the British people and chooses to support the US and their war in Iraq. These hypothesis fails to account for the case of Britain when Prime Minister Tony Blair ignores the seems public tohave supported opinion and supporting rejects in war the Iraq; however, this liberalcase of can be applied peacehypothesis France the when Jacques Chirac democratic towards the US and the war in Iraq throughout the pastdecade. The results suggest that, in the literature andthis thesis publicopinion publicopinionappropriate representing re-examines polls opinion to support foreign policy ventures. To determine the empirical validity of these claims, with public opinion, some realistspolitical arguethat elites and politicians influence public public opinion highly influences foreign policy within anddemocracies, less although concerned For almost half a century, liberal scholars of International Relations have maintained that A BSTRACT i CEU eTD Collection thank HanaSemanicfor making the thesis fun process and achievable. for being patient and helpful during the long editing process of my thesis. Finally I would like to my thesis would have been unfeasible andimpossible. Iwould alsolike to thank RobinBellers I wouldlike tostart off by my thanking mentor Professor Irina Papkovawhom without A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii CEU eTD Collection B A C C C C C I A A NTRODUCTION IBLIOGRAPHY PPENDIX CKNOWLEDGEMENTS BSTRACT ONCLUSION HAPTER HAPTER HAPTER HAPTER 4.2 Legitimacy? 4.1 Implications 3.2 Britain 3.1 France 2.1 Graphs 1.3 Wherethegap lies 1.2 Realism 1.1 Liberalism ...... 52 4 3 2 1 ...... i ...... – – - – ...... 48 C ...... 32 R C T ...... 26 ...... 22 ...... 58 OALITION OF THE OF OALITION ...... 1 HEORETICAL ESULTS OMPARATIVE ...... 13 ...... 9 ...... 45 ...... 44 ...... ii ...... / A NALYSIS ...... 17 F A RAMEWORK NALYSIS W ILLING ...... 41 T ABLE OF : F ...... 20 ...... 9 RANCE AND iii C ONTENTS B RITAIN ...... 25 CEU eTD Collection almost unanimous global disapproval USby the of initially holdingonly from support the The generally unilateral unsupported invasion of March Iraq on 20 but domestic the community well as ledmassiveand to global opposition demonstrations. scene, international the only not splitting announced was war preventative and preemptive of publicly that the US did notneed any help from the international community. A new policy moved intoan ‘Either and you are with us or you approach are against us’ mentality when Presidentmultilateral Bush stated previous its from away farther moved US The Iraq. with at US the thissupported time. even critical most that states the of demonstrating (We AreAllAmericans’)” Americains more in attacks. could take to response Nations (UN) condemned the terrorist attacks and authorized all necessary actions the US eight warning planes over Afghanistan in support of the United States. Soon after, the United flew on NATO whole, the isan onenation an attack attack on that 2001, warof Afghanistan Presidentinvoked the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) policy during the source, in order to deal with the terrorists in the most comprehensive way possible. After the the best foreign policy option was a multilateral strike on Afghanistan, the suspected terrorist 2001-2008/ (2001 –2008),” (December2008) http://pewglobal.org/2008/12/18/global-public-opinion-in-the-bush-years- 3 2 Affairs Online, (2007) http://www.ciaonet.org/casestudy/ciao10029/(Accessed February 18 2010): 23. 1 newspaper, French the attacks, international community than it had seen in many decades. As an example, “on the day after Richard Wike. Global Attitudes Project. Pew Research Center. “Global Public Ibid. Opinion in the Bush years International Columbia Strategy,’” Wrong withthe Time Wrong the Warat Wong ‘The “Iraq: Caldwell, Dan However, soon after, the Bush administration moved closer to initiating a second war, decided Bush the attacks, administration 11th September the following Immediately (accessed20, 2010): April 5. 2 Le Monde I 1 NTRODUCTION The US, at this time, saw more support from the , carried the banner headline, ‘Nous Sommes Tous 1 th , 2003 demonstrated 2003 demonstrated , the 3 CEU eTD Collection accurate reading of the international community outside of the US. 5 4 surveyed removal preferred deployedall of troops in 42% of KoreansIraq, South wanted to these countries which had deployed military personnel to Iraq. Fifty-seven percent of British International reportPolicy Attitudes) recorded noteworthy public opposition within each of Australia withwar efforts supported 750 troops.However, the 2005Pipa (Program on 8,000 troops in Iraq; South Korea had 3,300;Italy had 3,000;Polandhad 1,500troops; and war in Iraq. five heads of state led their countries to support the US (the Coalition of the Willing) public opinions, after initialthe invasion of period a little overamonth, an additional forty- negative international growing the had despite largest they everbeen.Yet, werethe actions stronger. In many countries, protests and other public displays of dissatisfaction with US for theUShad aradical the worse. towards taken turn motivesulterior and fueled demonstrations protests against war.International the sentiments filled with criticisms of the US and their rash reasons for going to war, and accusation of about support for the US fell drastically, news papers and forums during this time were also the majority of the international public turned against the US as well. Public opinion polls military personnel for seemingly irrational and confusingreasons wasreleased tothe public, announcement that the UNSC had refused tosupport the US in Iraq withoutany additional international community or the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). When the unilateral decision; nonetheless, United (US) the States invaded support Iraqwithout from the just gained theirindependence. United Kingdom,Australia, and afew EasternEuropean and Soviet post countries whohad When referring to the Coalition of the Willing memberstates this is excluding the US, in order to get a more Caldwell As of 2005, just behind contributions the of US,theUnitedthe Kingdom (UK) had After the invasion, the negative feelings of the international community grew even Before the invasion, international public opinion was largely in opposition to the , op. cit in note 1, p. 23. 4 2 5 and its CEU eTD Collection http://usinfo.org/mirror/usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm 9 8 7 GlobeScan. 6 democratic governments will respect public in opinion formulationthe foreignof policy. that assume peace theory democratic of the from abstain Popular visions one. or to most theory prominentfor toexplainused would why a democratic state go choose war to to only democracy but also of the democratic peace hypothesis. This hypothesis has been the demos meaningparts: meaning people and rule. kratos freesystem.’” agents undera electoral supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected today’s world. Itis listed “democracy that, ‘is governmentby peopleinthe which the the US government’s website is a definition of the word democracy and what itmeans in madeby and by not governments peoplethe who makeListed democratic upthe states. on in military assistance. Most of the decisions made tosupport the US war however, were democratic state in 21 the state democratic definitions make up traditionalthe and popular understanding of meansitwhat tobe a “a‘of democracy as, government people, people,the bythe andfor thepeople.’” war. the against chosen to support war the most the also hadsome of highestthe negative public opinion polls had who states eventhe in and that Iraq show present five the countries top depict figures troops back home as well as 59% of Poles replied in favor of removing troops as well. These the bring to wanted Australians of percent Fifty-three same. the wanted voters Japanese scale back the deployed, 60% of Italians wanted to remove troops completely, and 56% of the Encyclopaedia Britannica Online Academic Edition, s.v. “Democracy.” s.v. Edition, Academic Online Britannica Encyclopaedia Ibid. democracy,” “Defining ed., Cincotta, Howard Program on International Policy Attitudes (Pipa), “Global Views of the US Questionnaire and Methodology,” The five states from above, led the forty-nine state from the Coalition of the Willing More simply put, the word democracy is of Greek origin and is broken down in two (2006): 144. 6 st century. 7 Furthermore, Abraham Lincoln originally described United States Department of State. 3 9 This idea is the foundation of not (2010) 8 These two CEU eTD Collection Operation Iraqi Freedom (Foreign Policy Analysis Safran, William and Chan Steve in 11 World Politics, 10 51% of by negative; significantly BritishOctober, war. the people wereagainst Their opposition polls were lower than most countries at the start of the war but were still to 81%.Britain, the on hand,other torespond neglected tothenegative public opinion. the topic. From January to October 2003 public opposition to the war in Iraq grew from 60% support USinthe theirin war Iraq wasparalleled by drasticthe negative public opinion on support USinthe itsin war Iraq. According Chan to and Safran, France’sendnot decision to democracy,in the case of both France and Britain, these states should not have agreed to of in why has occurred this case withinthis thisthesis. clearly, enough to change foreign policy. As Ripsman, a well known foreign policy scholar states, actions. policy foreign in explaining short falls hypothesis peace wishes while British government did not. This is evidently a case where the democratic statistics in itmind,is clear the that French seems havegovernment to respectedthe public’s policies,” similar lead not to necessarily do countries various domestic opposition. As Risse-Kappen suggests, “similarities in attitudespublic across and Great Britain - where the Tony Blair government chose to stand by the US despite strong opinion coincided with Jacquesthe Chirac government’s choice nottocomply US, with the this by discrepancy exploring in-depth country two cases - France where negative public choices were at odds, within the Coalition of the Willing. This thesis attempts to understand However, it is clearin the case of the Iraq war that often public opinion and foreign policy Meril James, Gallup “The International Iraq Poll2003,” The Gallup International Association. (2003), quoted Democracies,” Liberal in Policy Foreign and Structure, Domestic Opinion, “Public Risse-Kappen, Thomas Continuing from the idea that most states uphold the afore mentioned qualities of a More explicitly stated in this hypothesis, the public, within a democracy, has strength 43, no. 4(1991): 510. Public Opinion asa Constraint Against War: Democracies’ Responses to 2, no. 2, 2006), 141. 4 10 I will explore the possibilities the explore Iwill 11 With these CEU eTD Collection 14 http://www.ciaonet.org/isa/muj01/ American andForeign Lives,” Columbia International Affairs Online, (March2000): 2 13 II,” Columbia International Affairs Online, (1997) http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/rin01/index.html 12 that in the present case of Iraq, some states not in case of that someIraq, only present the directly states went publicbutignored opinion unspecified limits to the foreign policy choices.” against an overwhelming public consensus. In most cases, mass public opinion set broad and of a democracy. aspects neglected it removes all power from the people and removes one of the most important emphasize the potential power public opinion has over foreign policy,if respected, but if herpeople. considerations these All hisor over of influence greater to exercise room following has become. If there is no strong opposition then the politician has much more of the action. Thirdly, they must look at political oppositions and how strong and large their policy objective in a good light. Secondly, the policy maker mustlook at costs and benefits make appropriate foreign policy is decisions persuasion tactics andhow they will a portray democracy. The first action democratic policy makers should take intoaccount in order to for procedure introduces Mueller appropriate foreignthe making a a within policy decision whether is ornotthey choose opinions of the will power ability people. the the to respect always case. isnot the this where public opinion seems to have affected foreign policy, however, Iwill illustrate how The case of Britain is an example of how this is not always true. There are plenty of cases Risse-Kappen, John Mueller, ““Public Opinion As A Constraint On U.S. Foreign Policy: Assessing the PerceivedWar ValueWorld After of Peacemaking Policy: Foreign Democratic and Structures “Domestic Ripsman, M. Norrin Liberal “Policymakers suggest Liberal that, intheorists liberal donotdecide democracies inpower important This to thehead The most isa democracy of entrusted state. of their foreign security policies in similar ways. constitutional, procedural and normative featureswhich affect thenature and content ultimate ofsource authority resides within the people as awhole All democratic states--states that are characterized popularby sovereignty, where the op. cit op. in note10 13 (accesses May 1, 2010). , p 510. 5 14 This paper however, argues the opposite; 12 --share certain :1. CEU eTD Collection that foreign policy within the liberal democracies stated here is in fact determined more so by so more determined in fact is here stated democracies liberal the within policy foreign that relevantliterature and analyzing data from the opinion public information the polls, reveals observed regardless of political goals or in response to electoral cycle. After studying the hereIt is tonote important relationship foreign the opinion between that ispolicy and public more in directly. above, paragraph the stated research question, will toanswerthe help also this states) member Willing ofthe most Coalition as well (as countries two the across patterns supporting USin the its war with Iraq. Maintaining public that attitudes follow similar to have committed that democracies toother bemoreapplied broadly then can and influence are held constant. These control variables allowfor amore focused analysis of public status economic aswell location and of as whenthetype government democracies recognized internationally two from policy foreign in differences specific the light to bring will analysis introduction topicthe to and understandingbroad my of argument. Then comparativethe andwith andBritain. France then membermoredeal states directly Willing and another to respect it? To answer this question I will focus broadly on the Coalition of the one democraticneglect state to popular public opinion joinand Coalitionthe of Willingthe thatledfactors are differentiating the what question, research askthe will therefore theses not seem to be the case for Britain or most states within the Coalition of the Willing. This US led warin Iraq, then a state’s foreign policy measures will respect this; however, this does hypothesis is appropriatenot in this situation. it becomes liberalpeace increasingly democratic thatthe evident support, concerning more and more information comes out regarding the war in Iraq and the international opinion massive warin keep supporting the decade. As after thelastover publicoutcry negative Iraq against it. This is evidenced by the case in Britain and the foreign policy choices made to By first looking at the Coalition of the Willing member states, an for allows this lookingmember states, Coalition Willing atthe By of first the Liberal logic would when suggest, public popular opinion supportingobjects to the 6 CEU eTD Collection international opinion public of Iraqwar andthe how and why opinion ispublic unequally hypothesis itsand imperfections by observing the research already on completed the and Britain how andand why their political reactions have differed. this paper examines differencesin foreign policy concerning the warin Iraq within France regarding the role of opinionpublic in foreign policy makingdecision in democratic states, Project,Attitudes Pipa global scan, andGallupdatasets. Seeking contribute to debateto the instances of war. To define and measure public opinion, Irely upon the Pew Global today,much democracies information herethe isof provided new andincomparable to other books discussingor the influence of public opinion foreignon policy in decisions foreign policy actions taken by France and Britain.As there are not many up to date articles relationship by from compiling data multiple opinion public with polls actual, real world Thomas Risse-Kappen, James N. Rosenau, and William Safran I have examined this foreign policy during this six year span, changes will be clearly observed. towards USandthe its decision changed rapidly; by therefore lookingpublic at opinion and presidency in 2008. After public the release of ideathe toinvade Iraq,public opinion opinion the year before the war, 2002, and continuing until the end of George W. Bush’s Willing, and their public opinion polls as well. In this thesis I will begin looking at public Coalition of large war,the of supported the that democratic group investigating states the a literature by go beyondcountry current the two cases inanalyzing as well depth as broadly influence of public opinion on foreign policy during the war in Iraq; however, this paper will of this. theimplications andexamples discuss political strategy and security guidelines thanpublic opinion. The paperwill provide My providesargument a refined andupdatedunderstanding of democraticthe peace Outside of an extensive review of the literature by Steve Chan, Andrew Moravcsik, There have only been a small number of studies looking at single country cases on the 7 CEU eTD Collection applicable in applicable case. this and one that does not; this will clearly argue that the democratic peace hypothesis is not with two of the best examples of democracies; showing a country that represents its public analysis acomparative with Britain and France in policy foreign of history the through goes order to showcase how these results are not just one exception to the rule. Finally this paper Next, ,a broader look at other democracies in the Coalition of the Willing will be taken in of Willing. the within Coalition democracies the to thatcanberelated conclusion applicable amoreallowing for generally therefore leader; of each personalities different as the international voice within the international community, different domestic structures, as well important around the world. Thus,it takes intoaccount the struggle for power and an 8 CEU eTD Collection enough space to continue the debate with other theories. other with debate the continue to space enough not was there restraint, word the of Because debate. the in involved theories largest the are they however, 16 University Press, 1996), 140. 15 liberalism.” and realism between bout ongoing inthe round another becauseitrepresents important is peace theoretically thedemocratic debate over may public not take opinionconsideration. into Moreover this particular piece of “[t]he may or forcases in thedifferentademocracy which ideaaccount not this sufficiently can whether or on and deliberate hypothesis peace focus on democratic the scholars Specifically, affect public opinion has on foreign policy by focusing on different influencing factors. within democratic states. In this case, liberal and realist theories each seek to explain the debatethe will that be focusedis on public opinion and the affectit has had onforeign policy many many decades. In this thesis, only a sector of the debate will be discussed. This part of theory best explains why states behave the way they do within the international system for debate, broadly defines liberal international relations (IR) theory and says how it: how says and theory (IR) relations international liberal defines broadly debate, 1.1 Liberalism explanations. In this section I will break down the debate and its history. satisfactory neither of completely them give later, as Iwill however; explain explanation, theories. two these I willbeonly discussing constraint, the mosttwo prominenttheories discussing publicopinion today and becauseof space Please note that liberal and realist theory, however, are not the only IR theories that discuss public opinion; public discuss that theories IR only the not are however, theory, realist and liberal that note Please Princeton Massachusetts, (Cambridge, eds. Miller, E. Steven and M. Lynn-Jones, Sean Brown, E. Michael The liberal and realist international relations schools have been in debate over which over indebate been have schools relations international realist and liberal The fundamental a impact on statehave – behaviorin world politics. embedded Social ideas, are interests, they and which in context social transnational and domestic elaborates insight the that state-society relations – the relationshipof states to the Andrew Moravcsik, an IR scholar specifically focused on the liberal side of this C HAPTER 1 – T HEORETICAL 9 16 F These theories each give their own RAMEWORK 15 As liberalism and realism are realism and liberalism As CEU eTD Collection 21 20 19 Publications, 2006), 310. Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons, eds., Handbook of International Relations. 18 Organizations, 17 decision decision making. political international influences concern domestic or opinion public believe scholars liberal ideadomestictraditional that and howstrongly areinternational andillustrate related politics study how interaction.” to their unmistakable between domestic and international politics… the question is not how they are different but differentiate not do institutionalization “anarchy and that scholars agree In liberal IR theory, will notgo to war with one another and that if they happen to, violence will remain at an democraciesis ideasection that fordefined asthe this important thesis, most andthe theory, produced simply to determineinternational activities. puppeteers. although to thesocial Here, social are equally not represented, interests, actor transferred into state policy within a democracy. In this theory, the state is merely the puppet are preferences public idyllically where representatives individuals theirand state between link is the mentions Moravcsik that belt’ ‘transmission is.The theory this idealistic highly individuals andprivate groups,” emphasizes this point by stressing that, “the fundamental actors in international politics are societal groups are treated as analytically prior topolitics.” theory rests on a ‘bottom up’ view of politics in which the demands of individuals and Ibid., 518. Ibid., 517. Moravcsik Peter Gourevitch, “Domestic Politics and International Relations,” (2002) quoted in Walter Carlsnaes, Andrew Moravcsik, “Taking Preferences Seriously: A liberal Theory of International Politics,” International of Theory A liberal Seriously: Preferences “Taking Moravcsik, Andrew In Moravcsik’s article entitled article In Moravcsik’s fundamental social purpose underlying the strategic calculations of governments. institutionsinfluence state behavior byshaping state performances, that is, the The democratic peace hypothesis, a specific part of liberal international aspecificThe democratic partofliberalinternational peacehypothesis, relations , op. cit , op. 51, no. 4 (1997): in note 17, p.514. 513. 19 not the government itself. Fundamentally,“[l]iberal Liberal Theory ofInternational Politics 18 10 These two quotes demonstrate properly the 21 20 This is an example of how (London, England: Sage , he also 17 International CEU eTD Collection Operation Iraqi Freedom,” 24 23 22 behaviors.” this idea in and says,accountability limits “[p]ublic a democracy therange oflikely publicargue isthat consideration opinion in takeninto Gourevitch democracies. stretches in making influence cases.These are some future decision main their liberals the reasons and if they fail supportto either they risk losing electoral votes, monetary support, and even circumstance. theory. This reasoning will theoretically limit ademocratic state from going to war under any their family members to fight in wars, the idea is also known as Kant’s perpetual peace citizens will refuse to pay the taxes needed for war and will also refuse to send themselves or model’andnorms thatdemocracies aremore suggests peaceful because states other than Furthermore, withinpolicy ‘democratic athe within hypothesis, culture democratic state. this foreign affect actions and policies domestic that hypothesis in peace democratic the discussed exceedingly lowlevel compared to other pairs of states fighting. More appropriately,it also claims that public opinion acts as a powerful restraint against war.” changedifficultto policy in afastmanner. andefficient to foreign policy decision makers where it can take longer to make decisions and it is very they are also constrained in their policies as well. Here democracy is seen as a limiting factor the people,the leaders democratic run riskthe votes very oflosing couldimportant that make re- commencing aforeign war of any kind because if awar is and initiated is supported not by from democracies as democraticopinion constraining hypothesis the publicinterpret peace Steve Chan and William Safran, “Public Opinion as a Constraint Against War: Democracies’ Responses to Responses Democracies’ War: Against aConstraint as Opinion “Public Safran, William and Chan Steve Ibid., 310. Gourevitch , Leaders of democracies are pressured to follow opinions of elites as well as the public It is argued by Chan and Safran that “[a] central logic of the democratic peace theory 22 op. Not only is aleaderpressuredto consideration,take public opinioninto but cit in note18,p.316. Foreign Policy Analysis 2, no. 2(2006): 137. 11 23 24 Chan and Safran CEU eTD Collection 97, 4 (Novemberno. 2003): 585-602. 29 Operation Iraqi Freedom,” 28 Bethand A.Simmons (London, England: Sage Publications, 2006),360. 27 International Relations. 26 25 sanctioning democratic leaders is a relatively straightforward matter.” leadersis sanctioning democratic a relatively straightforward make itfairly easy for voters to rate a government's performance. In short, monitoring and of such “several features as freedom democracies, of speech andopenpolitical processes, leaderspublicly, worry have ‘audience to about costs.’” consideration opinion public as Fearonpoints out,“Forced by democratic tooperate rules which are all derived from public opinion. Democratic states are designed to take into relations transnational society civil and organizations, non-governmental ideas, institutions, impossible. election the past wars where the democratic peace theory can be applied. The Iraq war is one of the and the affect it has had on foreign policy involving the Iraq war because it is unlike most of liberal theory falls short. Rosato, along with many other writers do not look at public opinion fails to take into account what happened in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and this is where policy as well. foreign but policy domestic only not of determinate main isthe democracy in any opinion public that idealistically maintains, still it however, theory; liberal of the today argument most and leaders is This plausible may as aconstraintbe the a checkof on their power. most heads of state will not go against their public towage a war. Public opinion is seen here foreign tactics. policy political leaders,” suggesting again, that, public matters opinion to politicians and their popularagainst as opinions well as for potentially losing the war. Sebastian, Rosato, “The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory,” Peace of Democratic Logic Flawed “The Rosato, Sebastian, Steve Chan and William Safran, “Public Opinion as a Constraint Against War: Democracies’ Responses to Responses Democracies’ War: Against aConstraint as Opinion “Public Safran, William and Chan Steve in Peace,” and “War Levy,S. Jack JamesFearon, (1994) quoted in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse Bethand A.Simmons, eds., Handbook of Chan and Safran, Democratic peace theorists “emphasize political survival as the primary goal of primary goal the as survival political “emphasize peacetheorists Democratic 28 Sebastian Rosato discusses liberal theorist’s tendencies to argue that, argue to tendencies theorist’s liberal discusses Rosato Sebastian op. cit 25 (London, England: Sage Publications,2006), 309-328. 27 in note 24,p. 139. Foreign Policy Analysis Foreign policy is influenced by rolethe ofinterest groups, domestic In democracies, preemptive wars are rarely popular and therefore, Handbookof International Relations, 2, no. 2(2006): 138. 12 26 Leaders can lose votes for going The American Political Science review ed. Walter Carsnaes, Thomas Risse, Thomas Carsnaes, Walter ed. 29 However this article CEU eTD Collection 2007) http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=256 31 Association 2005 Annual Conference): 4. Science Political Northeastern the and colloquia Department Government University Cornell (lecture, 30 states addressed in the tables and graphs in the appendix section at the end of end paper. at the section of the in in and appendix tables addressedthe the graphs states opinion has increased or remained the same level since invasion inthe in2003 most of the war by most states in the Coalition of the Willing. In fact, international negative public is once again,not the case for the war in Iraq. As evidenced by the decline in support for the they get past the initial invasion phase and can happen in any state, not only in the US. This ones.” neglectthe war entirely as they turn to other, more immediate concerns, particularly domestic arguefurther soon theorists after that initial simply invasion, the of “voters to come period involvedget in a foreign war. few warswhere areso there many examples ofleaders going against opinions of publicthe to international opportunities.power Most branches offoreign policy ignoring suggestthus 1.2 Realism relations. international in topics most on do they as theory, liberal of opposite the almost arguing arguable, sinceAristotle hasbeen andhasrecently respondedtothisrevived debateby coincide with deviateor completely from public opinion. Realism having been around, pressure. Therearealsomany factors canmakethat influencing agovernment’sactions 3.). Table (in particular, see statistical confirmation paperto of the shown opinions to be decreasing in many states, especially in Europe. Please refer to the end becould arguedherearefewer there public that publicprotests; however, polls opinion have Richard Wike, Global Attitudes Project. Pew Research Center. “Global Unease with World Powers.” (June Europe,” Warin Iraq the and Democracy Opinion: Public and Policymaking, “Protests, L. Erickson, Jennifer 30 If war does happen to break out under extraordinary circumstances,liberal IR Realism on the other hand, is focused on power politics and taking advantage of all There aremany instances where governments donotrespond uniformly publicto This implies the public will have a decrease in feelings of opposition to a war after 13 (accessed 20, April 2010). 31 It CEU eTD Collection 35 34 33 Online, http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/rys02/index.html(accessed May 2010):1, 1-9. 32 as well can influencejust international andshapeforeign policy domesticas factors the international situations towards which it is directed.” “democratic sources of foreign policy are noless crucial itsto content and conduct than are ForeignSources Policy of power to form foreign policies. Rosenau, an IR theorist, suggests in his book, changed into what governments want, therefore giving the political leaders more supportand policy choices within Realistsa state. suggest public that opinion can be manipulatedand bemore smallerandcondensed. on realism in this case, is limited and was created in reaction to liberal theory, the section will in ignores almostturn completely influencethe ofpublic opinion. opinion in the same context. Most realistliterature discusses system-level analyses and this andtheory realist public both discuss that fewvery havebeen There scholars another. unconcerned public with inopinion mostcases. isrealist theory notfocusedon individual the level in most remarkable casesand therefore international level where much of foreign policy analysis is involved. This also means that more power and security. This theory is generally focused on the state level and not on the altogether any influence of public opinion and basing foreign policy onhowdecisions gainto policy, realism or the system-level focus is nearly always avoided. Therefore, aspublic opinion literature focuses individual-level on of foreigndeterminants themostpart for public opinion tofocuson tend researchers theoretical paradigms. James N. Rosenau, ed., Ibid.,, p. 52. Daniel W. Drezner, “The New New World Order,” New World “The W. Drezner, Daniel StenRynning and Stefano Guizzini, "Realism and Foreign Policy Analysis," Columbia International Affairs Realism similarly argues publicthat opinion can behighly influential foreign on The literaturerealist and theory texts on public opinion tend toavoid one discussing Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy , foreignthat policy is notsolely by determined factors; external Foreign Affairs 14 32 (New York, Free Press, 1976), 2. 35 86, 2 no. (2007): 52. As a realist, he argues rather that 33 34 On the other hand, other the On Because information the Domestic CEU eTD Collection 37 36 issues involved, and (3)the volatility publicof opinion.” policy issues as compared with economic policies, (2)the low degreeof knowledge aboutthe political leaders, because of (1) the slow salience, or significance, of foreign and security determining how foreign policy decisions are made either. at completely accurate is not realistapproach the However, “top-down”, matters. specifically publicsimilarly hestates, More democratic the that to peacehypothesis, opinion influence,…) and internal (publicfactors opinion) both play a role in shaping foreign policy. influences can. He argues that external factors (relationship with other states, international opinion,” consensus is a function of the elite consensus and elite cleavages trickle down to mass public policy. foreign about decisions making all when at opinion public the consideration into actions political leaders desire. However, this does not mean that in the end states will take states usethemedia convince andother sources to public the support foreign to the policy of biased and one sidedinformation in toattainorder Itsupport. optimal ismost clear that foreign policy making them easily manipulated. Democratic states show a significant amount of matters than factors moredomestic event concernedwith and are informed of current Toarealist, around. because they the publiccanbe ill manipulated are generally easily way not other the making, decision political manipulate assumes people that liberal theory elite’s interest, then public opinion would always, or at least usually, be in support of every theory because if believe areinfluencing elite publictoof matters the the the and support Risse-Kappen, Risse-Kappen, Within the realist theory of IR, “It is assumed that the public is easily manipulated by The powerelite hypothesis of realistthe “according approach, which to popular 37 does not does accurately explain foreign or anybetter define policy liberalthan actions op. cit op. op. cit op. in note 10,p. 481 in note10,p. 481. 15 36 This idea isin opposition to CEU eTD Collection 39 38 change from state to state. examples will show how degree the influenceof public opinion has onforeign policy can under varying constraints imposedunder varying constraints by preferences the of seeks torealize state “Each andchallenges. objectives different opinion is required to be present in foreign policy actions. Every democracy can also follow decided by the public alone, but if the state is striving to maintain a democracy then public Iraq. Furthermore, this is not tosay that each state will always pursue the policy directly and foreign policy actions suggests that public opinion plays little to no role in the case of opinion public on data the next, in detail bediscussed will it as however, determinates; policy people not the more. any of truly representational itmakes easy for policy makers todecide not to take public intoaccount opinion because itis become a natural and important part of the foreign policy making process. This in the end and This threatened. ideaissimplistictoo andlets themanipulation public opinion of pressuresdependant but on public has opinion that potentialthe be manipulated, bribed,to by internal pressures. Foreign policy decisions are therefore made based on external influenced is then and factors external on dependant first is here is seen it as policy, Foreign including external threats, incentives, manipulation of information, or other tactics.” interactions, political interstate prior tospecific and,therefore, actors other of strategies the section. analysis in the action. Itisthis moreforeign anditthan will further policy be complicated much discussed Moravcsik, Moravcsik, The debate continues, arguing over which theory better represents current foreign current represents better theory which arguing over continues, The debate Moravcsik argues himself that, “[p]references are by definition casually dependent on op. cit op. cit in note 17, p.516. in note 17, p.515. 16 other states. other its distinctive preferences distinctive ” 39 The following 38 CEU eTD Collection people in all cases, it insufficiently represents the occurrence of the foreign foreign policy decision of occurrence the the itinsufficiently represents in people cases, all priority of a democratic state and foreign policy decisions will reflect the opinions of the Coalition of Willingthe against went their in publicopinion support of war,agapthe exists. fully the reasons that not only Britain but the majority of other democratic states in the hypothesis can be applied. However, because liberal and realist theory both fail to explain wishes its of people refusedwar tosupport efforts andis a case wherethedemocratic peace to war against the public’s wishes. Furthermore, France who seems to be respecting the hypothesis directly. Liberal IR theory specifically suggests that no democratic state will go public and opinions USledthe supported warin Iraq, this contradicted democraticthe peace policy actions towards the war in Iraq. When the United Kingdom (UK) ignored hostile opinion pursueto goalsother and objectives. This is specifically casethe in foreign their opinion splitting as well in the Coalition of the Willing states. war in Iraq. This idea is by supported many instances offoreignother policy and public duringthe policy actions foreign explain not effectively does peacetheory democratic the Because the data shows this,it directly challenges the democratic peace hypothesis. Here, to respectits public opinion and itsforeign haspolicy deviated from its people’s attitudes. achieved this foreign and corresponded policy and public opinion; whereas, Britain has failed foundations. It was revealed in the data collected for this thesis that France has seemingly due to their history democraciesas proficientupholding committed to democratic proper the be very andresponsivesensitive totheir people’s concerningopinions theirforeign policy of liberal democratic theory. According to this, France and Britain, twodemocracies, should public opinion highly influences foreign policy in democracies. This claim is foundationthe 1.3 Where the gaplies As liberalthe democratic peace hypothesis publicsuggested, is numberthe one rejecting public Britainmodern is state of example democratic a best the Great Many scholars like Moravcsik,Gourevitch, and Rosenau, Kappen, haveargued that 17 CEU eTD Collection and can make different decisions. The next section will display an analysis of the empirical differently leaders canbehave foreign policy, of extreme casesof are opposition public there other examples, as has been discussed, but we can learn particularly well that even when and most clear examples of the two different policy outcomes we are looking at. There are time. the at Blair Tony Minister Prime by chosen was that theforeign action policy for account correctly and completely can neither theory a casewhere the realist theory,it is clear that the case of Iraq is very unique from most other wars. This is war withgo to theUS. the British and many of the Coalition member state had no observable affect on deciding to to manipulate publicit opinion,cannot be seen oris irrelevantin casethis as opinionsthe of reality, they remain against the war still today. Even if elites and political activists were able were manipulated would mean they would be in support of going to war. However, in opinions of the British people were not taken into consideration at all; so tosay that they many cases,manipulated to fit the decisions of policy makers and elites, but again, the brings tolight gapwithin the realist thinking. Realist argue scholars public that opinionin is, effectively clarified by the liberal IR theory. public opinions. In all of the liberal arguments presented in this section, not one can be the tables in the appendix,most states in the Coalition went against strongly oppositional are some examples havingof Coalition states ahigh for thewar,support butas evidenced by decision should have been to follow the decision of the people in most of these cases. There chose Willing states supportingto oppose in US the war,theappropriatethe foreign policy first place. As the people, like most democracies would, of most of the Coalition of the made by Tony Blair. It is alsolimited in explaining why the democracy went to war in the After investigatingAfter the example of Iraq through both liberalthe democratic theory and On the other side of the debate, as public opinion was rejected completely, this also 18 Britain and France are the best CEU eTD Collection 40 of of Willingthe memberstate, especially in Britain? butwhy, despite this,has foreign policy virtually remained unchanged in all of Coalition the towards the US and its war in Iraq since the first declaration of its intentions in the country; negative consistently been has opinion Public scholars. by other little very explored been during this same span.” time countriesthese situations have apossibility war suggesting goingrarely of encountered to for many onlyinreadily democracies decades, andmost established of available recent the findings from the graphs and tables I have collected. “[D]ata on public opinion have become Chan and Safran, op. cit in note 24, p. 138. p. 24, note in 40 This information / study is based on new information that has 19 CEU eTD Collection because, “it wasbetter to curry favor with American than to provoke them.” world. the around continent and race every from nations and trillion, $22 about troops aidtroops to US.After the occupation states inwas achieved, 33 providedtotal to troops However, during the initial invasion, Australia, only Denmark, Poland, andmembership. the UK supplied for anticipation in democracies fellow assisting for points diplomatic Willing wasdueimpending totheir move towards membership with NATO toget and theVilnius 10 the only reason that discussed consists of 1.23 billon people, 49countries rangefrom groundon the military to justpoliticalparticipation The Coalitionsupport. http://misnomer.dru.ca/2003/02/11/a_coalition_of_the_willing.html Iraq,” On U.S. Supports Europe RadioGroup Liberty Vilnius Europe: “Eastern Donovan, Jeffery Slovenia). and Slovakia, Romania, Macedonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Croatia, Bulgaria, (Albania, membership. NATO receiving 46 weapons ofmass liberate destruction the Iraqi and people. It is a coalition that was created in 2003 to begin military operations to disarm Iraq of its action, without waiting for another UN resolution,” that was formed to fight in the Iraq war. operations” that generally consists of, “a group of countries that backed their words with 42 Research 47 2010). 44 43 May,3 2010): 1. 41 45 The White House, “Coalition of the Willing,” (2003) http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/ Dru Oja Jay, “Coalition of the Willing?” House, White The See Table 1. for list of Coalitionof the Willing memberstates as of 2003. Willing,” of the Coalition the with Iraq “In Sikorski, Radek Sikorski, A group of 10 states that came together in 2000 in order to work together in hopes of a greater chance of chance greater of a in hopes together work to order in 2000 in together came that states of 10 group A The reasons most states decided to join the US in the Coalition of the Willing were The Coalition of the Willing is an, “ (2004): 1. op. cit op. in note 41, p. 3. p. 41, note in op. cit (February 2003) http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1102148.html C in note 42, p. 1. HAPTER 2 Washington Post - C OALITION OF THE 43 ad hoc , acombined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 46 20 states wanted to join the Coalition of the international coalition for military for coalition international (February 2003). American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy (accessed April 17, 2010). 42 Contributions from members W ILLING (accessed April 17, 45 It was also 44 47 (accessed Radio Free Radio 41 CEU eTD Collection 50 49 48 leaders have even committed troops from their own military fightto this foreign battle. It is in Iraq when their heads of state have chosen to politically support the war and in some cases Coalition of the Willing states show very negative public opinion towards the US and the war still to support choose states warmilitarily the considering these and politically. that favorable view of the US between these five states reached below 40%. This is astonishing decreasethroughout Bush’sdecreased andhas continued average presidency. The to reaching to the 80% mark. Then as soon as the war commenced, this favorable opinion and even France, who is not a Coalition member state, had high favorable views with means Before talks of the war started, most Coalition states like Britain, Poland, Japan, Australia, in start. since the war the Iraq towards the Coalition has mostly been dissatisfied and has witnessed a rise in negative public opinion Each yearwith hasjoinedthat no endin state caseasseventh its warreaches the sight. the debts are still piled high. Most states planned for a fast war with few casualties, which is not not been an intensive enough reconstruction effort as was previously promised and Iraqi the situation in Iraq has not increased to the state that is stable and self sufficient. There has greater business benefits and visa opportunities with the US have felt short changed. Also, who have chosen to help the US. However, so far many of the states that were promised members for account USin Coalition into the been the foreignand have a taken these war, like Israel. or competitor” Turkey Iraq and areseemingly ill equipped for this Coalition. help maintain occupation. However, six countries have no military or means of helping in Please see Table 3. at the end of the paper. Sikorski, Indopedia.org. It is exceedingly important to take into consideration how the vastmajority of The Bush administration has made it clear, “it pays to be an ally rather than a op. cit op. in note 41, p. 3. p. 41, note in 49 There are clear benefits and consequences of assisting 21 48 50 CEU eTD Collection 52 Republic,and Uzbekistan –AuthoritarianRepublic. (Found at Indopedia.org). Authoritarian Rule, Singapore- Authoritarian Republic, Tonga- Absolute monarchy, Uganda- Authoritarian Eritrea- Authoritarian Republic, Ethiopia- Authoritarian Republic, Kuwait- Absolute monarchy, Rwanda- 51 early early 2003,” American breaking of inopposition to worldwide record policy, culminating protests the to the U.S. - led invasion of Iraq, international public opinion was both vocal and visible in its stronger since PresidentBush announced ideas invasion of to public.the “In monthsthe prior negative warin statingthe has publicopinion eventowards sources clearly grown Iraq that intoappendix aretaken consideration. They statistical from multipleconvey important proof 2.1 Graphs support anddemocracies foreign that policy them. the decisions that has been ignored for so long by scholars, politicians, and the people that make up these of public opinion foreign on policy within by democracies statisticalrevealing information The shown indata Table 4. andillustrate Table 5. the importanceoflooking atthe influence also important tonotethatmoststates in democratic Coalition the support governments. and this opposition was first ignored. long term satisfaction of the US is presented with a sharp negative turn when the war started Security Council was objectionable. This is evidenced most clearly in Graph 1. where the any assistance to the US once they had gone against the instructions of the United Nations the war, before and after it started. It was undoubtedly expressed all around the world that numerical evidence. presented in the appendix section will back the information given in the previous section with traditions andwereneglecting in public opinion tosupport order warinthe Iraq. Thedata that most of the states in the Coalition of the Willing were neglecting their democratic Ross, Andrew and Kristen Ross. Non-democratic members of the coalition of the willing (9 of 49): Azerbaijan- Authoritarian Republic, At this point, it is exceptionally pivotal that the graphs and tables located in the Throughout most of the Coalition states protests and polls were in clear opposition of 52 as well incredibly as opinionsurprising poll results. Thisinformation revealed Anti-Americanism. New NewYork: York University Press, 2004: 145. 22 51 CEU eTD Collection 55 54 53 just after invasion,the public fellopinion drastically and remained verylow while President the US talks of Iraqi invasion the public opinion towards the US was relatively high. Then both how France and Britain public very have expressed in similar opinions past.Beforethe highest in half a century) to48% (where it has only decreased since). Table 1. also illustrates intense drop of for support USfromthe internationalthe incommunity from 2003, 71% (The warwasrampant. to the opposition countries popular some alliances strengthened (Britain), and some were damaged (France), even though in both involvement at all, as was the public’s popular stance in most countries. During this time governments refused to join and were adamantly against the war, refusing to have any agreed to join the Coalition of the Willing and support the US invasion of Iraq while other voices was mixed. By the day of the invasion on March 20 drastically dropped in 2003 and haveremained ever low since. international public opinion polls to really emphasize the point that opinions of the US from 1999 -2008. Table 2. andTablecompleted 5., in 2007 and 2006show more Table 3. looks more broadly at about fifty states and reveals the favorable views of the US continuesBritish state tosupportthe war to this daywhenpublic opinion tofall.continues negativeopinion public polls of any states. opinion drops so low in 2009 that it even exceeded that of France, holding one of the highest solely on France and Britain. The most important thing to see here is that Britain’s public Ross, Table 6. in the appendix. Please see tables and graphs in the appendix. in the graphs and tables see Please op. cit Table 1. heard clearly and these listen respect to officials of state getting success the Yet, Table 6. shows a short term version of the data presented in Graph 1. and focuses in note 52, p. 148. 55 lays out the most important points of my argument and illustrates the illustrates and my argument of points important most the out lays 53 the is notable because This exceptionally 23 54 th , forty-nine, governments had CEU eTD Collection Britain. for havewill foreign future specific within Francepolicy two decisions and democracies: taking this into consideration, the next section will examine this idea and the implications it While exception. are the opinion have followed public that states itself; democratic the case supports my argument and shows howit is not an exception to the rule, but the rule USistowards the notparticularly high andhas remainedlow since invasion.the George W. Bush was in power. Table 2. is also helpful in showing how public opinion The numerous examples of most states in the Coalition ignoring public opinion in this 24 CEU eTD Collection nations that have come from a similar background (strong international voices and long time long and voices international (strong background a similar from come have that nations France havingrejected and Britain having supportedthe USand warinthe itIraq, shows two the most interesting cases to look at when discussing the war in Iraq. As discussed earlier, the United Nations and both of theirimportant seats in the European Union, they are two of the international community, Britain with its vast empire and France with its veto power in Britain. and France casestudies: particular with two towards USduringthe time this Iwill examine foreign policy andchange influence public listen totheir and people supported US.Tothe explain variation in foreignthe policy actions listened to the cries from their public and acted in opposition to the US and others failed to andspeak and forleaders their called to againstIraqi actout invasion. Somegovernments Europe, millions took to the streets to demonstrate their outstanding opposition for the war from the majority of the international public was loud and clear opposition. In particular, in public was uninterested in what was once considered low interest high politics. The message statistical representation of this information. Almost nowhere could policy makers say the is rarely combined. information andtheoretical this type earlier, empirical of as addressed states, democratic within warin Iraq tothe other foreign relating policy actual however, there is a gap in the analysis of how much,if any, affect public opinion has had on lack a representingpublicUSandthewarin the of towards vast data the opposition Iraq; Thereis and not linkcause effect. between theorized the andexplore causal down processes Because France and haveBritain along history beingmembersof very important of The widespread public opposition to the US headed war in Iraq has led to an ocean of analyzebreak and is ability the to analysis of a comparative One advantages of the C HAPTER 3 – C OMPARATIVE A 25 NALYSIS : F RANCE AND RANCE B RITAIN CEU eTD Collection 58 57 increases,does so Americanizationthe of through France political andcultural influence. their borders; however, politically they still remain aclose ally of the US. American self hegemony andproclaimed haveits continued to resist cultural influence within war in Iraq. from Britain in 1776 and has fought on the same side of every battle ever since, excluding the longest and strongest alliance with the US. France supported the US’s fight for independence the for mistaken is commonly relationship’ ‘special whose Britain; and US the than alliance standing longer a had have they though even allies longest US’s the of one as overlooked 56 Kosovo in 1999, and Afghanistan in for2002 –except Iraq). 3.1 France he wasin with tune European public opinion,” when Unitedthewarin over hespectacularly the States governments Iraq, European opposed most of name in the speaking not clearly was Chirac Jacques President French “Although divergencethe offoreign policy and public opinion can develop. Concerning the warin Iraq, in multiple cases. This comparative analysis will more closely look at the importance of how claim that public opinion has little to no influence on foreign policy towards the war in Iraq overview of the Coalition of the Willing states has laid the more broad foundation to the cannotbe applied to foreign policy decisions made by Britain during the war in Iraq. A brief possible reasons for different foreign policy outcomes and how the democratic peace theory Blair. for byand these actions Chirac implications and it reasons reveal the can allays of the US) and have followed different foreign policy paths. By comparing them here Andrew Ross and Kristen Ross, Risse-Kappen, Dominique Moisi, “Reinventing the West,” Since the beginning of the 1960’s, the French people have been displeased with The French have fought with the US on all recent wars (the Persian Gulf in 1991, In this section, Iwill review the France-US and Britain-US relationship revealing the op. cit op. in note10,p. 483. Anti-Americanism Foreign Affairs (New York: New York University Press, 2004), 147. 26 56 including the Coalition of the Willing. the of Coalition the including 82, 6 (2003):no. 69. 57 France is,frequently 58 As globalization CEU eTD Collection 62 61 60 59 duringoccurred from time the deGaulle Charles president was 1959-1969 over trade and finance. With all alliances there exists some disagreements, most of which Vietnam the French War, the public wasvery assumed tothe imperialistUS fightopposed military out of France because of political differences of because political of France out military remained relatively hightowardstheUS. Then during 1966,the French thekicked US policy theUSpursued. objectives Despite some friction cultural at this time, publicopinion political ties with the US whereas the British vowed to never step outside of any foreign were skeptical of the US and hesitant to partake in relations with the US but still maintained both French and British relationships with the US. After the Suez Crisis, the French people 1956 SuezCrisis USblockedthe imperialist Anglo-French activity in This Egypt. changed US within French citizens comes from 1960’sthe andis notarecent Since occurrence. the decade. in away from have USeasier past the madetheir turn the imperialism widespreadand provoked popularoutrage among French.” the Ross suggests, “U.S. aggression in Iraq may have increased the visibility of American extensive fromrebuilding up,this ground the reopened the woundof skepticism. Justas Whenfor Iraqandcalled since. USentered the intensions has andof thus been theirskeptical asimperialist many USforeign War,policy SinceFrance hasactions Vietnam interpreted the opposition. Germany and Russia. France was one of the most vocal states in Europe with strong forces, oppositional strongest by thenexttwo andwerebacked in actions Iraq American loud The publicunrest. French peopleled thewidespread protest Europeagainst throughout relationship that was once quiet and consisted of two states willing to compromise turned to Ibid., 155. Risse-Kappen, Ibid., 147-148. Ibid., 154. Nonetheless, Kristin Ross argues that the newly publicized deep seated hatred of the 60 integrationThe new may European feelingof French and greater euro-centrism op cit. op in note10,p. 482. 27 61 . And finally, years thirty agoduring 62 59 andhas calmed The CEU eTD Collection 66 65 64 63 wishes again in themid 1960s when France left NATO’smilitary institutions. people’s against the went iswhen government the force example second andthe nuclear public opinion in 1950’sandthe government officials decided build to anindependent against went government French the is when this of example first The policy. foreign with not be black and white. Itis possiblethatpublic opinion couldhave coincidentally coincided policy splitting in past.the This indicates that public opinion influencing foreign policy may havebeen there opinion; fewhowever, a of foreign examples opinion French public and US imperialistview hasnot changed. possible that the French public sees the 2003 War in Iraq to be a blatant example of how the has been slightly rocky, has still fought in every recent war with the US. Nonetheless,it is down since. Itis important still tonotethat France,although by plagued a relationship that France seems haveto followed their public’s opinion in not supporting the US, it was most concerningimportant foreign policy andthisdecisions argumentthe supports although that has increased.been France has a long standing tradition of ignoring public opinion power where presidential intheFifth Republic of especially France, matters foreign policy process.” policy-making Risse-Kappen“French argues, opinionpublic seems simply be disconnectedto from the Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) despite popular objections as well. In particular, since the 80’s Nuclear Intermediate-Range accepted the France, of former president the Mitterrand, is when This was also done in staunch opposition to public sentiments at the time. The final example The US, Germany, and Japan] and has refused so far to take part in nuclear arms control.” [France, countries four the of policy pronuclear most the pursued has “France how is example Ibid., 504. Ibid., 483. Risse-Kappen, Ibid., 146-147. In thisFrance is thesis,used as an example government followingthe public of op. cit op. in note10,p. 481. 66 These are all examples of the typical presidential dominance in dominance presidential typical the of examples all are These 63 28 64 A third 65 CEU eTD Collection 69 Ross and Kristen Ross (New York, NY: New York University Press, 2004), 159. 68 67 and class lines” leading to a division of foreign policy objectives. policy foreign of division a to leading lines” class and fragmented society. French society is known to be fragmented along “ideological, religious, be seen. yet to isfuture in the will howthis their relationship change although, affect is intact alliance still circumstances. Even though it is clear their relationship is tarnished and trust is fading, their community. international in the seat strong a maintain to want they therefore andpower; 4.Francevalues traditionalist holds andthey today, increasingly strong are Brazil, and India setting world power and therefore want the European Union to be a stronger the US political / economic power is waning; 3. the French people hold concern for China, alternative stance to most EU states and the US; 2. France wants a multi-polar world now that consist of: 1. the fear of losing a pivotal role in European foreign policy so they maintain an like.looks meansChirac’s that decision influencedwas not by opinion public even though itthat’s what likely coincidencejust thatpublic opinion agreed with foreignthe policy Thisdecision. policy. However, reactions to the war in Iraq have been uniform than ever before. There has strong society, or a society that is unified and vocal thus more probable to influence foreign cleavages in policy as well as public mattering opinion less itthan would in witha state a relationship. in has ledto acrack US/France the sentiments by anti-American accompanied of fear imperialism. French passion Therenewedfeeling with the combined terms of American views are notconstituted in terms of culturalist or psychological terms but in class Risse-Kappen, Patrick Deer, “The Dogs of War: Myths of British Anti-Americanism,” in Drezner, Daniel W. The New New World Order.” World New W. The Daniel Drezner, France has a strong bureaucratic system, a powerful president, and a weak and feelings USdue Most French the have negative to manypeople whichtowards factors 68 The French continue not to cooperate with the US in its war in Iraq under any op. cit op. in 10, note p.489. Foreign Affairs 29 86, 2 no. (2007): 35. Anti-Americanism, 69 This also leads to 67 These Anti- These ed. Andrew ed. CEU eTD Collection 71 70 constrain the public impact on foreign policy there are a few instances in which public to seem network policy state-dominated the and institutions political centralized French world politics and usually work to be different than European other policies. “While the than asbeingin pursuitindependence public,arecharacterized of the in greater constant concerning foreign inpolicy Iraq. only more hismade easily decision into action.put because the public influencedhim make thatdecision.to The response of publicthe because, like his successor President Sarkozy, he was against the war personally, not decision. In this case President Chirac seems to have followed the public opinion other, it is likely that public opinion still did notaffect the final foreign policy So even though in caseof the Iraq public opinion foreign and policy parallel each allows the presidentignore public to opinion more easily. role in making and checking policy. The electoral system in France is very polarized and this president has, the less he or she will listen to the public. The parliament plays a very small maintain and what he or she can do with that power. For instance, usually the more power a is to president the able how power much Thisdictates power. executive increases which vulnerable elite consensus and not on the policy itself or public opinion. a with stabilizing concerned constantly nonetheless, makersarestill, policy French circles aswell. in or political in and scholarly articles hardly newspaper been debate any Ibid., 493. Ibid., p. 487. The French policy network is completely dominated by the president, especially would be expected to limit the public impact on foreign policy. societal structure makes it difficult to build a publicconsensus on policy issues and making policy- foreign the in role process.marginal a only play to likely is opinion public TheFrench Fifth Republic’s centralized political system and a fragmented power bureaucratic the French The French political system enhances centralized French elites, who have greater influence on foreign policy 30 70 71 CEU eTD Collection 74 2009:30 73 72 andscene.” European global the onto identity national of representation the of projection and identity of construction decision making. their tendencies to hold on to international power and by trying tostand out in European an exception to therule asis evidenced by a long history ignoringof public opinion as well as out of the coalition; the government and the public agreed on this point from the start.” in Iraq; “the government did not have tobe swayed by a threat to its position of power to stay feelingsthe through foreign policy decisions. represented not has but opinion public similar very has that state is one Britain politically. have arebeingmostactions by backed states, Europeanstates taken other other most US the similar public expressedopinions most throughout but of dissimilarEurope foreign policy identity and how it can be preserved and held as a strong power and voice. There are very opinion apparently did play a role.” argued that Chirac wartogain the forargued that standing US political uptothe against decided power initdecade waswaningand aworld been has power last as the credibility French because opinion at this time, unlike most other states who decided togo to war with the US. opinion,it but just sohappened that government’s the withdecision correspond public decision to not support the war may or may not have been as a response to the French public maintains the same negative attitude towards the war as it had from the beginning. The final French have refused to be a part of the war in Iraq to this day and their public opinion still Erickson, Ulla Holm, “Sarkozysm: New European and ForeignPolicy into Old French Bottles?” Ibid., 504. DanishInstitute forInternational Studies, (2009): 5. To the French public, foreign policy in France is analyzed, “as a question of The French governmentas well as the public agreedtonotgettinginvolved in war the In particular one of the main reasons the French chose to counter the US decision was op. cit op. in note 30, p. 12. p. 30, note in 73 French foreign policy is decided based on their own state 72 However these instances are ones that only happen as happen only that ones are instances these However 31 Diis Working Paper 74 The CEU eTD Collection 13-14. 75 they were hardly seen as a strong international international player. seen as astrong they were hardly in military Middle East foreign itthe theirpresence higher than everbeen, has and increased government. Until 2006 when they increased theirdefense1.7% budget to of GDP, whichis with the foreign policy option that Blair (almost alone) found to be the best. surprising fact that Britishthe governmentrejected their opinions public’s along andwent policy decisions splitting. This can be seen in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5; these depict the US in battle during the Iraq war. Britain is a perfect example of public opinion and foreign long time, it was not completely surprising to see that Blair had agreed to fight alongside the foreign policy choices. Because the US and Britain have had a strong relationship for avery relationship with the US, it will be easier to notice any dissimilarities and causes of different of allies US.Supportingthe Britainidea that the from and Francecamebackground a similar state reacted to the US’s idea to invade Iraq. Similarly France,to Britain is one of the closest 3.2 Britain actions. unclear; however, influencethe of opinionpublic follows diverges or from foreign policy and power. The exact reasons for supporting ornot supporting the US in Iraq are still that Britishthe governmentdecided support the to US in gainIraq to international credibility the US in its war and the veto of UN military force. While at the same time, it can be argued remain wayfor that theforeseeable due future to their refusal tosend any in troops support of will and damaged is still arena international in the power their that evident is also It war. have tooppose sincethe choice that implications in their made developed tothe response was development France.recent areto This international opinions and power international "Beyond these shores." The second case study will illustrate another close alliance of USandhow the the another closealliance of illustrate study will The second case Economist 381, 8501,no. Academic Search Complete 32 75 This shows how important , EBSCO host (October2006) CEU eTD Collection 1945 77 76 Bush Administration until its end. US while Tony Blair continued tosupport ‘specialthe relationship’ whole heartedly the with takeover of Iraq, public opinion surveys show increasethe in negative feelings towards the the after relationship political positive to their continued inreaction However, allies. seems to be staying on the constant path it has been on since the 1850’s when they became when almost no one else would. For better or worse, this sturdy and positive relationship their strong relationship. They even supported the US when they entered the War in Iraq terror. They have supplied mostthe troopsin Afghanistan,Iraq and besides US,provingthe and still does today. Since 2000, Britain has been supportive of the US and the war against American cultural influences, both American influences,highbrow andcultural both popular.” supportive ally in the realm foreignof policy, the British have been relatively unresistant to French public sentiment towards the US, “just as the UK has tended to be the US’s most how it has grown, how strong it is, and what it may be like in the future. Contradictory to Minister (PM). The PM then decides and controls the parliamentary agenda. Tony Blair was Democrats. The winning party topower andcomes is and represented headed bya Prime two main parties, the Labor and the Conservative parties with a minor third party, the Liberal through the war in Iraq, it has flourished. even history; in alliances strongest the of is one alliance Anglo-American The strong. how similar the two states are culturally but, whatever the reason is, the alliance still remains be due to the potentially waning power of the British state compared towhat it once was or Alexander Stephan, ed. Wike, (New York: Berghahn Books, 2006), 23. Britain has had arguably the closest relationship with Britain relationship with has had arguablytheclosest USin the lastfew the decades, It is important to review the relationship between the US and Britain in order to see in to USandBritain the order between relationship is toreview the It important Unlike the French system, very simply theBritishisput, government by dominated op. cit in note 3, p. 9. Americanization of Europe: Culture, Diplomacy, and Anti-Americanism after 76 33 77 Their positive relationship may CEU eTD Collection 80 Studies Association, HiltonHawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii. 1st -5 th March 2005): 28. International ofthe Convention Annual 46th at the Presentation for (Prepared Iraq” in Choice British the 79 1st-5th March 2005. p. 24. 46th Annual Convention of the International the at Presentation Studies for Association, Prepared Lawrence. K. Hilton Brianna and DysonHawaiian Benedict Village, Stephen Iraq. in Honolulu, Choice Hawaii.British 78 thesubject. debate on refused aCabinet Majesty's Government might support United States military action against Iraq.’” Blair even Her motion ‘deepunease prospectthat atthe parliamentary the a party)expressing signed To make matters more difficultfor Blair, in late 2002, “122 Labour MP's (over a quarter of 6 No Response No surprising and unexpected because most states with opposing public views are usually looked United despite States, much opposition even within rulingthe Labour Party.” up warin to the “Great2003. Erickson out, points Britainits fulloffered support tothe peoplegovernmentsupport Labor and the to US. the Yes follows: wereas responses and the Iraq?” on military tojustify a attack evidence you issufficient believe there was asked,“Do public,the his ownparty’s support, or support the of Foreignthe Office. cases of both Kosovo and Afghanistan. Iraq was the first time he sent troops to war without policy decisions. He had justified all of his actions and represented the people’s wishes in the conscience of opinionpublic and had previously represented the public wellin his foreign Prime from Minister 1997 to2007and upuntil invasion the was knownof Iraq, for being Erickson, of Determinants Individual and Institutional War: “Blair's Lawrence, K. Brianna and Dyson Benedict Stephen The SundayThe Times, February 24th 2002. InBlair'sWar: Institutional and Individual Determinants of the The war was commenced and was highly unpopular especially so in the days leading In a survey of 100 Labor Members of Parliament (MP) in February 2002, the question op. cit op. in note 30, p. 12. p. 30, note in 86 8 78 79 Unlike the French case, Blair went against his 34 80 This is This CEU eTD Collection 81 remain in power and for Blair to continue his time as PM. alternative government by the elections held in 2005 made it easy for the Labor party to supporting the US. Also, the Conservative Party’s failure to come up with a legitimate However, Blair was able togo against both and commit the British state to war and to warsoon also the led about government’s the tomany concerns resignations. cabinet similarly whatto was happening in France at the time. The failure to address the public’s and alone. Opinion polls alsomatched the position the public portrayed with the protests commenced, on commenced,February on 15 by was suggested peacehypothesis. democratic the that they were unwilling to committhemselves or their state to the US intervention in Iraq, as evidentin the Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5, the British people did not believe this and still maintained his public by justifying his decision with the human rights argument. However, as itis inparty tosupport order USin the Iraq, this wasoutof Blaircharacter. help to tried persuade opinion remains very negative. When Blairaround went opinionsthe ofhis people andhis relations also reached an all time low. In Iraq, US-Britain relations remain high and public diplomatic opinion, with this negative in because US.Iraqisthe correspondence different way Blair couldhave he arguedthat didnot know. public opinion vary,but thereis nodenying the loud presence of opinion,this was there no that group or known to share the ideas of a traditionalist country. The reasons for negative as ‘old withat Britain isviews; not however, Europe’ traditionalist viewedtypically aspartof Erickson, To show more forcefully the opposition that was being ignored, just before the war Vietnam was the last time public opinion in Britain reached as low of a point towards op. cit op. in note 30, p. 12. p. 30, note in th , 2003 almostmillion, 2003 two thewarpeople in protested Britain 35 81 CEU eTD Collection 83 82 European Union for a long time. The decision made by French President Jacques Chirac to to diminish US hegemonic might has been of debate between Britain and the rest of the unable unwilling or tousehis political moderate capital this recklessness.”to ‘Bush’s Poodle’ for following the reckless of politics USinthe many andcases “proving the disapproval and consequences of these actions.Blair is even sometimes portrayed as warstarted. sincethe and polls has led most of Britishthe population to show their opinions muchmoreloudly in protests in Britain emergence of recent by the anti-Americanism Deer, assuggested new occurrence and public opinion polls rapidly. dropped This turn anti-Americantowards sentiments is a opposed war. During this initial phase of the war, the British public turned away from the US strongly supportthe he time increased over continued to and low, itwas fairly however it because ignore theresistance could Blair thewarhadcommenced. was after asitnegative because of the distraction at the start of the war, public opinion towards the US was not as thewar.Thus, amount towards devote appropriate of the resistance to war andwereunable that the majority of the public and parliamentmembers were distracted by the Afghanistan supportingits public togoing againstit? politically as well. Why did the Blair administration change from a long history of Nonetheless, after the US, the UK contributed the most troops to the war and backed the US policy process did not respect the opinions of the British people as it had in the past. during months andinvasion the leading after the foreign to the respectiveof Iraq, democratic oversight. by parliamentary Lawrence D. Freedman, “The Special Relationship, Then and Now,” and Then Relationship, Special “The Freedman, D. Lawrence Chan and Safran, Blair followed Bush into Afghanistan and then into Iraq without any consideration of consideration any without Iraq into then and Afghanistan into Bush followed Blair It has been discussed in many articles contemplating the British decision to go to war British politics can be classified as competitive, traditionally responsible, and checked op. cit in note 24, p. 143. p. 24, note in 82 But contrary to the foreseen actions of the British government British the of actions foreseen the to contrary But 36 Foreign Affairs 85, no. 3 (2006): 61. 83 The attempt CEU eTD Collection ColumbiaInternational Affairs Online, (2003): 5. 87 86 85 84 elites and the various alarmed and bitterly critical sectors of British public opinion.” situation,” and a gap has “opened up between the aggressive war agenda of the trans-Atlantic mask present the instability to volatility of the and inBritain threatens Americanism’ makes public opinion and foreign policy diverge even further. “The new emphasis on ‘anti- public support of the war has fallen consistently since the start of the war. This development argued, keeps Britishthe in government close support of US.Asthe evidenced by 6., Table colonized people. The fear of a reversal of their old colonial relationship, as it has been also ablow to British egos when their post colonial state has lost all authority over its once most other states that grew to oppose the US, when the US announced its plan to attack Iraq, The British people were in high support of the US after the September 11 “favorable views of have U.S. the declinedfrom 75 percent to48percentsince mid-2002.” Coalition of the Willing as well. This was most drastic however in Great Britain where, the of states member in but war the opposed that countries only not in drastically fell US the becoming avery large problem if it tobe continues ignored. public opinion towards the war and the US has fallen lowso that it has the potential of integrity. territorial British to threat increasing possibly a as seen is might international within the British public when it comes to dealing with US politics. The abundance of US the US. compromise with France tonoavail and as was time running out,Britain moved support to against the US’s choice toinitiate war that much more difficult. Blair attempted a gosupport or to decision made Blair’s what matter circumstance, nothe thewar oppose Joel J. Sokolsky, “The Power of Values or the Value of Power? America and Europe Deer, in a Post-9/11 World,” Deer, Ibid., p. 5. op cit op. cit op. Six months after the war in Iraq was initiated, it was evident that favorable opinion of The assertive claim for global hegemony by the US, has created strife and trepidation 84 in note 68, p. 159. p. 68, in note in note 68, p. 158. p. 68, note in 37 th attacks,and like 86 Today, 85 It is 87 CEU eTD Collection 88 most. warthe the supported and should have been the one ally that turned against the US, but it is the one state that has control. There are numerous reasons, as one could argue, that the British governmentcould relationship can be classified as only the British struggling for control and the US taking US seems to be taking advantage of a close partner It has been argued many times that their decolonization. Nonetheless, the two countries seem haveto kept astrong bond, even as the policy, defense spending, nuclear weapons strategy, European integration, and government, the US and British’s relationship has been plaguedby overdisputes foreign ‘special relationship’ remains intact. Furthermore, since Margaret Thatcher ran the either.time soon the British, unlike some of the Coalition states have not released plans of leaving Iraq any as the enemies when they do not agree to the war in the first place. Surprisingly, despite this, agreeing to help the US in the war, terrorist will retaliate against British targets and see them literature has also been released saying how the majority of British people fear that while printed opinions of the British government’s action towards the US in the pastdecade. Some 2003. The negativeshown sentiment in opinionthe polls by arestrongly supported these havefeelings beenthat into and British newspapers journalsreleased since the beginning of comprehend, andhe displays a singularlack ofirony.” we cannot purpose that with a secret by motivated desires, naïve, uneasy “Heis apparently war. foreign the changingpolicy towards on effect any had not has however, This oppositional. strongly more even become has and publicthe changed drastically. turn opinion This to negativehas publicopinion continued, Deer, op. cit op. Even as the polls and news papers loudly discuss the opposition to the US, the Deer, speaks from the heart of the British people when he criticizes Blair by saying, in note 68, p. 159. p. 68, note in 38 88 This is an example of the kind of CEU eTD Collection 90 89 many more examples of states siding with the US and many that decided toact in opposition seemshave to movedin support of his publicandchose togoagainst the war.There are the US war in Iraq; while on the other hand Jacques Chirac, although also controversially, in act Britishand against history values and acted democratic his tosupport public andchose negative public opinion. Tony Blair took on, arguably, the most controversial foreign policy US in the past, but have made very different foreign policy decisions based on the same causes. serve British closer’. scholars Other suggest Blair that is trying tomanipulate and guide USleadership to also possible that Blair follows the old saying, ‘keep your friends close butyour enemies relationship in tosupportorder the link. As tensions in against terrorism fightthe it rise, is in the remain will and US the and Europe between bridge is the Britain that idea the strong. Some suggest scholars alliance the isis fadingor unstable; maintainshowever, Blair that Britain is reliant on US nuclear weapons as well as the US nuclear weapons shield. their nuclear and conventional weapons forces are also very closely intertwined. So much but so interlinked, agencies intelligence their are only not together; closer even them brought Security.” of Homeland Department newly with created the ties intelligence announced the “Britishintact, to keepthespecial government closer even relationship Canada, the US, Australia, Britain, and New Zealand. Agreementof 1947 is amuch hidden linkingdocument the intelligence gathering agenciesof have been kept from the public in order to maintain greater legitimacy. The UKUSA due to the apparently obligatory bond, some of the agreements between the US and the UK Deer, Deer, op. cit op. op. cit op. The two democratic states that were just compared had similar relationships with the with had relationships similar just compared were that democratic states The two There have beenmany developed why as reasons to has relationship remained the Because relationship the has been surprisingly close for solong and under speculation in note 68, p.165. in note 68, p. 159. p. 68, note in 39 89 Publicly, on April 2, 2003, in order 90 This treaty CEU eTD Collection public opinion of theirto actin state of support US, the globalthe hegemon. to the US in this case; however, there are many more examples of governments neglecting the 40 CEU eTD Collection strength strength of political astate can opposition,…), decide tofollow public opinion itcan or that today, depending on many factors (the personality of the head of state, political might, be efficiently It should democraticthe cannot applied peacehypothesis either. be understood standards. Because this is most clear in the case of Britain,it should also be seen here that against British the public’sit iswishes, clear Blair that traditional disregarded democratic in many cases hasthus significance and isimportant tonote. hypothesis peace rejection democratic of the same apparent the The on path. coincidentally opinions towards the war in Iraq and the ones that do are, more likely than not, only their public’s haverepresented that fewvery have been democracies there Statistically, andclearly define. hardtoisolate have butthey are very taken of states these leaders madedecisionsmost contributing concerning Iraq.There aremanyfactors totheactions that examples of the majority of the Coalition of the Willing states that this is just not accurate in However applying after this modern hypothesis to day it politics, can be seen through political elite and governmentand thus public opinion will influencedirectly foreign policy. isit generally public understood that opinion is represented through actionsthe of the as shown collected, above. anddata areview literature of herethe through againstdemocratic andgoes traditions democratic the be will peacehypothesis supported democracy publicideais responsive in that to not opinion case andthe argumentthis this that opposition to the US’s war in Iraq. Why this may be will not be discussed here, rather, the France, Germany, and Russia are among the few states that have stood in open and complete draws attention to the possible different impact of public opinion on foreign policy. But Furthermore given the statistical data proving that in the case of Iraq, Blair went light bringsliberal inThe democratic to peace hypothesis notion the that a democracy, France’s abstention from and Britain’s agreement to join the Coalition of the Willing C HAPTER 4 – R ESULTS 41 / A NALYSIS CEU eTD Collection due to the fact that these kinds of ideas do not heighten or lessen the head of state’s concern lessen theheadstate’s orof heighten not ideas kinds do of these thefact that due to France can contribute to and limit astate from going to war. These arguments are negated relationship’ between the UK and the US and the idea that there are many Muslims living in choose. whowould be insupport of public opinion the foreignor policy heoutcomes that orshe may their public. Clearly in this case, public opinion has little influence on electing apresident same position during warring this and period while also their wereagainst actions of that American examples during the war. Blair was re-elected in 2005 when he ran again for the are not near an election or in any fear of losing their place is negated by the British and opinions. their to addition make the decision to oppose the US war in Iraq because of public opinion but did so in the case of France however, the Chirac government, as was argued earlier, did not necessarily foreign policy objectives to support the partner in hopes that in benefits will be returned. In working against it. When one is allied with a very powerful state it is important for future isthan beneficial hegemon with inthe usually working that states the are aware Coalition the Willing states, it was most likely to maintain international legitimacy and power. Many of policy goals can be incredibly diverse; in the case of Britain and most of the Coalition of the foreign alternative for and public may strive opinion democracies reject different reasons vote loss and even failure to secure a further seat in the government for the future. The USandit’s the war in Iraq. British governmentdecided goagainst to democratic policies andpublic opinion support to decide to ignore it all together. However, there is no theory that can perfectly reason why the As it was mentioned before, scholars have suggested that factors like the ‘special The idea thatpoliticiansmore are willing to goagainst public opinion only when they by heads of Politically, representrefusing topotential theirpublic,this leads state to 42 CEU eTD Collection 92 the very foundation of what a democracy is today. If, as addressed earlier, a democracy is perceived benefits of the liberal democratic system of these states. This paper also questions which is by controlled head the of state. can morph or change public opinion, but they do not affect the end result, foreign policy only publicto opinion but how foreign policy actually plays out. These are all factors that elite opinion, division opinion of andmany factorshaveother been argued tocontribute not policy decisions towards Iraq. Things like societal structure, culture, the role of the media, 91 to show that in most cases it does here important ismore it however, policy; foreign drives single-handedly opinion public that a tradition of Chirac havingmost of powerthe and make ability the decisions onhisto own. wereagainst accounts Each of people’s the important wishes incredibly havethese and ledto latethe 1950’s and when governmentthe left NATO’s military institutions in midthe 1960’s. examples arewhen Frenchthe governmentdecided build to andindependentforce nuclear in previous cases where the French governmentwent against the public’s wishes. These two of foreign policy that President Jacques Chirac had decided. This is evidenced in two plan already laid out the the fitopinions because consideration beinto taken only seemed to the example of France, where it seems that public opinion was taken intoconsideration, it failure tofollow in public mostopinion other democraciesin participating warin the inIraq; policy. foreign on influence any have will opinions the that or account into them take leaders end in the that mean not does public. for the representing Risse-Kappen, Chan and Safran, The information gathered above is meant toquestion the credibility and the once As there are many factors that encourage foreign policy decision,it is difficult say to Additionally,would I also like argue asevidenced to that by history France’s and the op. cit op. op. cit in note 10,p. 481. in note 24, p. 145. p. 24, note in 91 Governments can attempt to manipulate public opinion, but that not affect foreign policy in the case of making foreign 43 92 CEU eTD Collection 2010): 8. ColumbiaInternational Affairs Online, (2003) http://www.ciaonet.org/casestudy/soj01/ (accessed February 20, 94 93 allowed for France to become more present in the international current events scene events and in moreinternational for present current Francetobecome allowedthe influence and sway within the international community, as it once had. It would have tohave USin the more relationship with order abetter Franceneeds in manythat articles it voicehas becauseits lostposition significantandstrong Europe. Ithas within been argued achieve, and has been striving to achieve for the last decade, is to have a strong international againstto go public opinion and USin supportthe Iraq. The mainFrance thing wishes to multilateralism.” real for acall than tribute imperial for ademand like more whether they are bound to follow, does words, notquestion America that is lead.’‘bound to Butsome in questionEurope intact however,it is not a relationship of submission to American will. France “in other voice androlein ofFrance is worldthe weakening. EUenlargementafter in 2004, and rejecting the 2005proposed European constitution the Iraq, vetoing the UN military force in Iraq, a monumental shift of central power to the east 4.1 Implications as predicted orrealist byliberal theory supporters. occurred havenot in mentioned logistics chapter theory the the due because or to external reasons, actions their andchose totake rejected their people’s opinions basedon personal preferences, explain cannot peacehypothesis democratic why most clearly democratic of leadersthe underpin the logistics that The today? peace theory and democratic the democracies ‘so called’ say whatdoes this in about in case, then this made countries some decisions simply ‘rule by the people’, and peoples’ opinions have little effect on the foreign policy Joel J. Sokolsky, “The Power of Values or the Value of Power? America and Europe in a Post-9/11 World,” "Beyond these shores," It is possible that in this case it would have been more beneficial for the French state It is undeniable that after the French decision refusing to support the US in its war in op. cit in note 75,p. 13-14. especially especially the when rallying call from Washington sounds 44 93 As addressed above, the alliance is still 94 CEU eTD Collection 2003), 150. 95 democracies.” Americans to ignore the fears, concerns,interests, and demands itsof fellow liberal if Unitedimpossible it makes for of essence the liberal States difficult not “[t]he democratic these nations will mean for the US and theirfuture foreign policy goals. Gowa suggests that 4.2 Legitimacy? UK in futurethe with fulfilling its foreign policy objectives. to support the US and cater to its every will, as some would argue, will negatively affect the almost ajoke to the British people and some of the international community. The agreement international player with. However, Tony Blair will always be considered a pushover and astrong is still it decision, its from attention international less or more is receiving it whether decreased. As it has already been discussed, the alliance has remained strong and Britain community. makes France seem like a more legitimate democracy in the eyes of the international more power in the future. Because of the paralleled opinions and the decision made, it also to have greater trustin their government. Itwill allowfor the French government tohave towards warinthe correspondedIraq that with opinion,public this will for theFrenchallow Chirac. from separate influenceof the public opinion was made reasons for and thatare personal to made was Itis thehere foreign is decision policy clear that rejected. peace hypothesis and possible future influence with the global hegemon. For this very reason, the democratic would havegiven them morebargaining within power EUbecausethe of positive relations Robert Kagan, It is important here, to discuss what the impact of not having public support from In Britain’s case public opinion towards the war has remained low but resistance has choices policy foreign made government French the because hand, other the On 95 Paradise & Power: American and Europe in the new world order This is because in order for any country to have international power and power international have to country any for in order because is This 45 (London: Atlantic Books, CEU eTD Collection 99 98 97 96 be American will actions viewedinternationally.” eveninstate, mentioned ina speech “its outcomeearly 2003, will theway determine how itis able toconduct foreign policy in future. the needsand support alliances maintain to its political strong course of actions. more efficient and easily with public support, whether international or domestic. The US opinions of USuntil the 2008. power in future. Public the opinion show continued polls fallingto international public internationally and has a potential limitto foreign policy and opportunities for international and graphs in the annex, the way the US has behaved thus far has not been received very well without moral the and support approval of democraticthe world.” policies “forit is questionable whether the United States can operate effectively over time decisions that the international community is favorable to then problems will arise for future make itmore difficult for decision makers to ignore public opinion. If the US fails to make may be seen as obsolete in the future and more public protests and conflicts could arise and continues to be ignored inside and outside of the US, then the democratic style of government getting support the of Europeanpeople,the notonly If their governments. public opinion liberalism seek American harmony greater to Europe,” with unable toflex its hegemonic mightif ithas no supportfrom democraticthe community. this, the US lacks the ability performto as it has since the end of the Cold War. It will be Without international from community. mustthe it andrespect have legitimacy significance, Ibid., 155. Ibid., 154. Kagan, Ibid. The way the US conducts itself in the war will determine America’s reputation and reputation itself in America’s warwill The way the determine USconducts the Kagan adds that in the near future, “American foreign policy will be drawn by op. cit op. in note95,p. 150. 46 99 Consequently, asit is seen in the tables 98 Henry Kissinger, former secretary of 96 specifically this involves 97 Democracies function CEU eTD Collection 1999), 3. getting out of Iraq any time soon. The US continues to send troops, requests troops from other nations, and shows little sign of very little evidence of any change inforeign concerning theUSandaffairs its war in Iraq. else? something or is democracy spreading USreally the 100 their spreading and are for wars interventionist fighting are they says US voice to people in countries where they are silenced, through democracy. If this is what the nations.’” “a enlarge foreignadopted, the‘community to designed strategy democratic policy of opinion make a state less democratic? After the Cold War Bill Clinton’s administration represent public?the It isimportantask to difficultthe question neglectinghere, does public has in many other countries, what kind of democracy is it defending? One that does not relations. international opinion to support what they find to be a more important factor in determining better itis evidenced in many cases in the Coalition, states will continue to ignore their public stand to oppose the decisions of the US, there are many that have chosen to support them. As that countries the of spite in Even involved. are incentives right the when through go still The Coalition of the Willing is an example that regardless of negative opinions, policy will the US, this does not seem to have had much affect on the international stance of the US. Joanne Gowa, Even with a new president,President Obama who promises change, there has been Furthermore, if the US is defending liberalism and democracy within Iraq today, as it towards low exceedingly been has opinion public international though even However, 100 Since then, the US has pursued the same foreign policy action to try to bring a Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive democratic peace 47 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, University Princeton NJ: (Princeton, raison d’être , then CEU eTD Collection 101 before. Most articles written on the topic are either dated literature reviews or are strictly way to compare with foreign policy actions in a war setting that has not been completed balanced amore created sentiments public international of analysis empirical This opinions. does not account for all of the other states that acted similarly,in opposition to public it and argument main the to irrelevant are these however, US the with partnership’ ‘strategic governmentthe still be defined asa democracy? definition of a democracy, rule by the people. If people have no input in foreign policy can domestic notjust influences. events,” trade, for example, decisions about using force tend to be exigent responses to international concerning warin the andIraq?) that proposes simplethe is solution “unlike about decisions public Britain them opinions of puzzle respectthe rejected the while (Why France did liberal theory but the idea of a democracy in general. Gowa argues that it is easy solveto this chose tosupport US.Thisthe notonly democratic the challenges peace hypothesis and andmake state up ademocratic that values have traditional the defied states wisdom, these half of the population was opposed to the undertaking of war. Yet according to conventional more average than on war despite factthat the went to member states majority of war. The the democracies in the Coalition of the Willing’s) actual foreign policy actions in the Iraq datafoundthe in graphsandthe tables collected and British’sthe (as well themajority as of My assumptions. false policy, especially the democratic peace hypothesis and realist theory are weak and rest on Gowa, Ad hoc In sum, existing explanations of relationshipthe between public opinion foreignand op. cit in note100, p.42. arguments can account for reasons to defy public opinion like the British a priori suppositions donot correspondwell with findingsthe from 101 C However, this response negates the traditional ONCLUSION 48 CEU eTD Collection Routledge, 2008), p. xx. 103 102 US. support the in to war tothe order clear ignored opposition andhave of action similar course well. To further this argument, the many Coalition of the Willing states have alsofollowed a they were clearly not and the opinions were not manipulated as realist theory suggests as however, all times; at made decisions policy foreign influence will opinion public Britain, opinion was ignored by Blair. Liberal theory suggests that in a democracy,like that of theory as well as within relist theory. In Britain, public opinion as well as governmental do, notwhathis his people or governmentwanted. This thegap shows clearly liberal within the case of Britain, Blair seemshave to chosen to support the US based on what he wanted to foreign countries.” or interest groups private leaders, of their interests toservetheparticular subverted to havetheir policies states non-democratic foundation of liberalthe suggests. argument in a democracy then this means that it can also no longer limit the outbreak of war, as the hypothesis becomes nonexistent. If public opinion does not have the ability to be represented public account, limit into take opinion then cannot people the war andthedemocratic peace states are seemingly more violent and war prone than others. the frequency of war involvementon the part of democracies” and why some democratic policy, of democratic states. “Moreover, it attempts to account for the sharp differences in theory seeks explain to linkbetween the opinion public and political mainlyforeignaction, ofliterature intoamounts accountwhen and information. reviewing analyzing statistical analyses. This paper has taken both statistical analyses as well as significant Kenneth Christie, ed., Chan and Safran, It has also been argued by many scholars, “that democracies …are less likely than relations international liberal of hypothesis peace democratic the simply, restate To op. cit United States foreign policy and national identity in the 21st century in note 24, p. 155. p. 24, note in 49 103 However, the data supports that in 102 But if a democracy does not (New York: CEU eTD Collection 104 fervor, shapefervor, public opinion, andsuppress dissent despite the obligation allow to free and drum allowing them up nationalistic to freedom of action, leaders considerable democratic governmentandthe elites. public opinion when it comes to war. The decision to go to war lies mostly in the hands of andin has that various increased, otherparts of Europe and world,the governments between consideration makingforeignwhen policy Thisdecisions. paper highlights the disconnection they may well be more crucial than any and all domestic sources.” offoreign aretheprimary decision-making processes policy determinants balance,and, on governmental and variables], technological or [economic realities nonhuman abroad, presidential preferences all of and personalities.most and Rosenau displays this idea clearly pressures, by suggesting that, “events international institutions, domestic by influenced democratic peace hypothesis suggests. Foreign policy,in the case of France and Britain was states. Willing of the Coalition democracies today as evidenced by the foreign policy actions of Britain and most of the other inmost policy foreign drive solely not does opinion public shows, analysis this As arenot necessarily democratic by governments driven madeinor topublic opinion.response of itactions policy foreign is toseethat easier theory, and realist hypothesis peace democratic representpublic in opinion foreign policy whileactions other donot. While letting goof the inopinion democracies during the Iraqwarand asks why some democraciesand respect Rosenau, Rosato suggests rightly that the, “historical record suggests that wars have often given As theresearch take their democracies into inconsistently publicsopinions shows, The ability of public opinion to change foreign policy is notas strong as the Broadly speaking, this thesis has addressed the link between foreign policy and public op. cit in note 35, p. 4. 50 104 CEU eTD Collection 105 influence and transform democratic states of today and tomorrow. detail. It would also be interesting to look at how the changes in the idea of democracy will atthis and ideaandlook change democraticinthe overtimetraditions to structures greater paper was completed under strict time constraints, andword itwould beinterestingfurther to president that therefore allow them eventuallyto disregard the public altogether. As this discussion.” open Rosato, op. cit in note 29,p.596. 105 Traditional democratic tendencies feed power into the arms of the 51 CEU eTD Collection Rwanda Romania Portugal Poland Philippines Panama Palau Nicaragua Netherlands Mongolia Micronesia Marshall Islands Macedonia Lithuania Latvia Kuwait Japan Italy Iceland Hungary Honduras Georgia Ethiopia Estonia Eritrea El Salvador Republic Dominican Denmark Czech Republic Rica Costa Colombia Bulgaria Azerbaijan Australia Angola Albania Afghanistan to theCoalition ofthe Willing: Forty-nine countriesare publiclycommitted Table 1. A PPENDIX 52 Uzbekistan United States United Kingdom Ukraine Uganda Turkey Tonga Spain South Korea Islands Solomon Slovakia Singapore 0327-10.html whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/2003 (2003) http://georgewbush- 106 The White House, “Coalition of the Willing,” 106 . CEU eTD Collection 2007) http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=256 107 Table 2. Wike, Richard. Global Attitudes Project. Pew Research Center. “Global Unease with World Powers.” (June 107 53 CEU eTD Collection 2007) http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=256 108 Table 3. Wike, Richard. Global Attitudes Project. Pew Research Center. “Global Unease with World Powers.” (June 108 54 CEU eTD Collection 109 *Based onMisnomer, “A Coalitionof the Willing?” February 11, 2003 Slovenia) and Slovakia, Romania, Macedonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Albania, 10: (Vilnius * Romania is the only one of the Vilnius 10 that has a majority of the populationSpain in support of the war in Iraq Slovakia Romania Portugal Poland Macedonia Latvia Italy Hungary Germany France Estonia Denmark Republic Czech Bulgaria Britain Australia In support ofUS unilateral Action inIraq: Table 4. Jay, Dru Oja. “A Coalition of the Willing?” 109 20% 40% 45% 35% 37% 10% 26% 28% 18% 10% 24% 30% 21% 33% 21% 34% 12% Washington Post 55 (February 2003). http://misnomer.dru.ca Hungary Poland Portugal Italy France Germany Britain Great Europe Turkey East Middle Philippines Korea South Australia Asia CEU eTD Collection US Generally Negative Attitudes Towards 110 Table 5. Globe Scan, 2006. Pipa. 110 Global views oftheUS. 31% 24% 55% 47% 69% 74% 57% 69% 28% 54% 60% Iraq Disapprove of US handling war in 56 70% 52% 83% 81% 92% 88% 81% 90% 45% 78% 78% Conflict More Causing inEast Middle Presence 58% 56% 77% 69% 80% 73% 72% 76% 41% 75% 72% CEU eTD Collection France 62% France Britain responding Percent Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of the U.S.? PEW: Opinion of the United States: Table 6: 112 Responses to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Safran, William and Chan Steve in Quoted 111 Graph 1: http://pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=1&survey=1&response=Favorable&mode=chart James, Meril. “The Gallup International Iraq Poll 2003,” The Gallup International Association. (2003). *The information*The found in Table 1.Islocated at pewglobal.org *The information*The found Graphin 1.Is located at gallup.com 75% 2002 Favorable 42% 70% 2003 37% 58% 2004 : Foreign Policy Analysis, 2006. Analysis, Policy Foreign Public Opinion as aConstraint Against War: Democracies’ 43% 55% 2005 57 39% 56% 2006 111 39% 51% 2007 112 42% 53% 2008 75% 69% 2009 CEU eTD Collection Donnelly, Thomas and Vance Serchuk. “Unrealistic Realism.” Deer, Patrick. “The Dogs of War: Myths of British Anti-Americanism.” In Cincotta, Howard, ed. “Defining Democracy.” Caldwell, Dan., 2007. “Iraq: ‘The Wong War at the Wrong Time with the Wrong Strategy,’” Brown, Michael E., Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. Miller, eds. Debating the democratic Dyson, Benedict Stephen and Brianna K. Lawrence. “Blair's War: Institutional and Individual Drezner, Daniel W. “The Realist Idea in American Public Opinion.” Drezner, Daniel W. The New New World Order.” Donovan, Jeffery. “Eastern Europe: Vilnius Group Supports U.S. On Iraq.” Kenneth. Christie, Chan, Steve and William Safran, “Public Opinion as a Constraint Against War: "Beyond these shores." BBC World Service Poll. “Global Views of USA Improve,” Pipa Global Scan. [2008] York: Routledge,York: 2008. for PublicPolicyResearch for University Press, 2004. Americanism, http://www.ciaonet.org/casestudy/ciao10029/ Columbia International Affairs Online.(2007) Princeton University Press, 1996. peace. Cambridge, Massachusetts: 2006). (October [accessed April 17, 2010]. Honolulu, MarchHawaii.1 st-5th 2005. Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Determinants of the British Choice in Iraq.” Prepared for Presentation at the 46 the 6, no.1 (March 2008): 51-70. Europe RadioLiberty May 1, 2010) 2 (2006):137-156. Freedom.” Operation Iraqi to Responses Democracies’ http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/apr08/BBCEvals_Apr08_rpt.pdf United States policyandforeign nationalidentity in the 21stcentury. edited by Andrew Ross and Kristen Ross, New York, NY: New York Economist (February 2003) http://www.rferl.org 381,no. 8501, (July http://www.aei.org/outlook/20875 2004). B IBLIOGRAPHY 58 United States DepartmentUnited ofState. (2010). Academic SearchComplete Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Analysis American Enterprise Institute 86,no. 2 (2007): 34-46. Perspectives onPolitics Anti- Radio Radio Free , EBSCO , (accessed host 2, no. New CEU eTD Collection Moravcsik, Andrew. “Taking Preferences Seriously: A liberal Theory of International Moisi, Dominique. “Reinventing the West.” and Relationship Transatlantic onthe 2020:research Network “Transatlantic Neil. Kinnock, Levy, Jack S. “War and Peace.” in “War S. Levy, Peace.” and Jack Kohut, Andrew. “Global inPublic Opinion Bushyearsthe (2001-2008):America’s Image; Kagan, Robert. Gowa, Joanne. Gowa, Gourevitch, Peter. “Domestic Politics and International Relations.” (2002). Quoted in Walter Freedman, Lawrence D.“The Special Relationship, Then and Now.” Fearon, James(1994). Quoted in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons, eds., Erickson, Jennifer L. “Protests, Policymaking, and Public Opinion: Democracy and the Iraq OnlineAcademic Encyclopaedia Britannica Edition.10May 2010. Holm, Ulla. “Sarkozysm: New European and Foreign Policy intoOld French Bottles?” Jay, Dru Oja. “A Coalition of the Willing?” James, Meril. “The Gallup International Iraq Poll 2003,” The Gallup International Politics.” 2006. Carsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, London, England: Sage Publications, http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/mar08/BritCouncil_Mar08_rpt.pdf Opportunities for the Future,” Atlantic2003. Books, D.C.: Pew Research Pew Research Center. D.C.: Muslims and Westerners; Global Economy; Rise of China.” (2008)Washington, Relations. Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons, eds., Handbook of International 61-73.(2006): 309-328. Handbook of International Relations. Political 2005 AnnualConference. Northeastern Association Science Warin CornellEurope.” University GovernmentDepartmentcolloquia and the http://misnomer.dru.ca Working Paper2009:30 University Press, 1999. Foreign Foreign Policy Analysis, 2006. Constraint AgainstWar: Democracies’ Responses toOperationIraqi Freedom. Association. Quoted in (2003). ChanSteve William and Safran, Ballots and Bullets: TheElusivedemocratic andBullets: peace. Ballots Paradise & AmericanPower: andEurope in the new world order. International Organizations, (London, England: SagePublications,309-328. 2006), Danish for International Institute Studies, (2009). Handbook ofInternational Relations, British Council. Washington Post Washington Foreign Affairs (London, England: SagePublications, 2006), 59 51, no.4 (1997): (2008) 82,no. 6 (2003): 67-73. (February 2003). 513-553. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Foreign Affairs Public Opinionas a edited by Walter London: 85, no. 3 Diis CEU eTD Collection Rynning, Sten and Stefano Guizzini.“Realism and Foreign Policy Analysis.” Columbia Ross. Kristen and Andrew Ross, Wike, Richard. Global Attitudes Project. Pew Research Center. “Global Unease with World Wike, Richard. Pew Global Attitudes Project. Pew Research Center. “Global Public Opinion The White House,“Coalition of Willing,”the http://www.whitehouse.gov (2003) ed. Alexander, Stephan, Sikorski, Radek. “In Iraq with the Coalition of the Willing.” Rosenau, James N., ed., PeaceTheory.” “The Logic of Flawed Sebastian.Democratic Rosato, Risse-Kappen, Thomas. “Public Opinion, Domestic Structure, and Foreign Policy in Liberal Ripsman, Norrin M. “Domestic Structures and Democratic Foreign Policy: Peacemaking Program on International Policy Attitudes, “Global Views of the US Questionnaire and Mueller, John. “Public Opinion As A Constraint On U.S. Foreign Policy: Assessing the Sokolsky, Joel J. “The Power of Values or the Value of Power? America and Europe in a International http://www.ciaonet.org Online, Affairs International 2004. Powers.” (JunePowers.” 2007)http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=256 in years Bush the (2001 –2008),” (December 2008)http://pewglobal.org 1945. Americanism after Science review Democracies.” http://www.ciaonet.org After World WarII.” Columbia International Affairs Online, (1997) Methodology,” Online, (March (accesses2000) http://www.ciaonet.org/ May 1, 2010). Affairs International Columbia Lives,” Foreign and American of Value Perceived Public PolicyResearch http://www.ciaonet.org/ Post-9/11 World,” Columbia International Affairs Online,(2003) World Politics, 97, no. 4 97, no. (November 2003):585-602. GlobeScan. Domestic SourcesForeign ofPolicy Americanization ofEurope:Culture,Diplomacy, and Anti- (2004): 1-4. (2004): New York: Berghahn Books, 2006. Anti-Americanism. (2006). 43, no. 4 43, no. (1991): 479-512. 60 New York: New York University Press, NewYork:Free Press, 1976. American Enterprise Institute for The American Political p.1.