Pouliot Vincent 200811 Phd T

SECURITY COMMUNITY IN AND THROUGH PRACTICE: THE POWER POLITICS OF RUSSIA-NATO DIPLOMACY by Vincent Pouliot A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science University of Toronto © Copyright by Vincent Pouliot (2008) ii Abstract SECURITY COMMUNITY IN AND THROUGH PRACTICE: THE POWER POLITICS OF RUSSIA-NATO DIPLOMACY By Vincent Pouliot PhD Department of Political Science University of Toronto 2008 How do security communities develop in and through practice? For more than forty years, security relations between Russia and NATO member states were structured by the spectre of mutual assured destruction as symbolized by thousands of nuclear missiles targeted at each other. Less than a generation after the end of the Cold War, the possibility of military confrontation between these former enemies has considerably receded. Taking inspiration from Pierre Bourdieu, this dissertation develops a theory of practice of security communities that argues that on the ground of international politics, the social fact of peace emerges when security practitioners come to debate with diplomacy—the non-violent settlement of disputes— instead of about diplomacy. It is doxa, a relationship of immediate adherence to the order of things, that makes such a peaceful practical sense possible. In the empirical analysis, the dissertation reveals an intriguing paradox in the post-Cold War Russian-Atlantic relationship. On the one hand, over the last fifteen years Russia and NATO member states have solved each and every one of their disputes, including fierce ones over the double enlargement, by non- violent means. Such a track record of peaceful change is testimony to security-community- building processes. But on the other hand, diplomatic success was often bought at the price of a growing mistrust on the Russian side. As the Russian Great Power habitus resurfaced, hysteresis—a disconnect between players’ dispositions and their positions in the game—steadily increased to the point of inconclusive symbolic power struggles over the rules of the international security game and the roles that each player should play. A decade and a half after the end of the Cold War, Russian-Atlantic relations have left the terrain of military confrontation but have yet to settle on that of mature peace. Building on several dozen interviews with Russian and NATO security practitioners, the dissertation discovers that diplomacy has become a normal though not a self-evident practice in Russian-Atlantic dealings. iii Acknowledgements Several people have helped in various ways and capacities along the PhD journey. My supervisor, Emanuel Adler, proved an invaluable mentor, both intellectually and at a personal level. Much of my thinking has been deeply influenced by him and I gained a lot from his constant stimulation and intellectual exchange. On top of being a great mind, Emanuel is also a very caring and supportive human being who gave me a lot of confidence. He will inspire my own research and teaching for long years to come. The other committee members were David Welch and Stefano Guzzini. David unfailingly provided me with very useful comments on my works as well as with much-needed pragmatic advice on the IR world. Stefano was a formidable source of knowledge on the complex matters of social theory and Bourdieu’s sociology. I want to thank both of them for their support. Beyond my committee, a number of professors were kind enough to read my works and comment on them at different points in time. I am especially indebted to Alex Went, who generously shared with me his thoughts and encouragement on my theoretical works, as well as to Michael Williams, who was a tremendous source of inspiration on using Bourdieu in the study of international security. Other members of the academic community who generously helped along the way include Steven Bernstein, Janice Bially Mattern, Christian Büger, Bud Duvall, Henry Farrell, Karin Fierke, Ted Hopf, Jef Huysmans, Patrick Jackson, Niels Lachmann, Anna Leander, Frédéric Mérand, Jennifer Mitzen, Iver Neumann, Dan Nexon, Ed Schatz, Ole Jacob Sending, as well as my early mentor and friend Jean-Philippe Thérien. At the University of Toronto, I was blessed with many great friends whose contact was crucial in the everyday life of the PhD. I cannot acknowledge all of them, but I should mention Chris Alcantara, Amar Athwal, Sebastian Baglioni, Corneliu Bjola, Ian Cooper, Bill Flanik, Vic Gomez, Patricia Greve, Markus Kornprobst, Erick Lachapelle, Mike Painter-Main, Andy Paras, Reuven Schlozberg, Nisha Shah, Luc Turgeon, Jenn Wallner, Steve White, and Ruben Zaiotti. A number of institutions provided invaluable practical support: the Trudeau Foundation (including my “mentor” Lloyd Axworthy), the SSHRC, the FQRSC, the School of Graduate Studies, the Centre for International Studies, and the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto. I also want to thank Jocelyne Mathieu and Tanya Mogilevskaya who helped organize my stay in Moscow through the Université Laval’s Centre Moscou-Québec. I finally acknowledge my many interviewees who spared some of their precious time with me. My deepest gratitude goes to my love and life partner Magdaline Boutros, who staunchly stayed on my side throughout the PhD’s highs and lows. I discussed many of the ideas below with her first, and she turned out to be at once my toughest critic and my strongest supporter. My most sincere thanks for all the happiness. I dedicate this work to my parents, Lorraine and Claude, whose delicate care and stimulating upbringing lie behind much of what follows. iv Contents SECURITY COMMUNITY IN AND THROUGH PRACTICE: THE POWER POLITICS OF RUSSIA-NATO DIPLOMACY Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………....ii Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………….……iii Contents…………………………………………………………………………………….….iv List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………….….vi List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………...….....vii Abbreviations..………………………………………………………………………………..viii 1. Introduction. Pacification without Collective Identification: Russia and the Transatlantic Security Community in the Post-Cold War Era.…….………………...…….1 The Constructivist Research Program on Security Communities…..…………………..3 The Emergence of a Nascent Russian-Atlantic Security Community?............................6 A Security Community without Collective Identity…………………...……………....12 Plan of the Dissertation………………………………………………...………………17 PART I—RESTORING THE PRACTICAL LOGIC OF PEACE……….………………20 2. The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities…..………...21 The Representational Bias…………………………………………………………..…23 Practice Turns…………………………………………………………….……………30 The Logic of Practicality…………………………………………………………..…..34 Outline of a Theory of Practice of Security Communities………………………….....43 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….….....52 3. “Sobjectivism”: Toward a Constructivist Methodology………………………………...54 The Constructivist Style of Reasoning……………………………………..…….……56 Methodological Implications…………………………………………………….…….61 An Inductive Methodology…………………………………………………….61 An Interpretive Methodology……………………………………………….…62 A Historical Methodology……………………………………………………..64 Summary: Beyond the Subjectivist-Objectivist Dichotomy………………...…66 The Methodical Practice of Sobjectivism…………………………………...................67 Recovering Subjective Meanings…………………………………………..….67 Putting Meanings in Context…………………………………………………..70 Setting Meanings in Motion…………………………………………………...72 Summary and Illustration……………………………………………………...76 On Validity: Engaging the Mainstream………………………………………..….…..80 The Case Study: Methodological Underpinnings…………………………………..…84 PART II—THE POWER POLITICS OF RUSSIA-NATO DIPLOMACY……………...91 4. The Logic of Practicality at the NATO-Russia Council………………………….……..92 v Indicator 1: The Dissapearance of the Possibility of Using Force…………………….95 “Gone Are the Days of Nuclear Threats and Blackmail”……………………..96 Latent Mistrust………………………………………………………………..101 Indicator 2: The Normalization of Disputes……………………………………….…109 Of Cycles and Sinewaves…………………………………………………….110 An Elusive Momentum……………………………………………………….118 Indicator 3: Daily Cooperation on the Ground……………………………………….122 Doing Stuff Together…………………………………………………………122 Contrasting Organizational Cultures.………………………………………...132 In Lieu of a Conclusion: Two Masters in Search of an Apprentice………………….142 5. The Early Steps: Russia, NATO and the Double Enlargement, 1992-1997….……….153 The New Rules of the International Security Game………………………………….155 NATO Order/s: Security from the Inside Out………………………………...155 The Junior Partner: Russia’s Early Embrace of the New Rules of the Gam….160 Critical Juncture: The Russian Pupil Goes Awry …………………………………….166 The Double Enlargement Takes Off ……………………………………….…166 A Nascent Security Community with Declining Trust………………………..174 Hysteresis: NATO and the Russian “Great Power”…………………………………..183 Russia’s Great Power Habitus………………………………………………...186 Mind the Gap? Institutionalizing Russia-NATO Ties……………………...…192 Conclusion: A Stillborn Security Community?……………………………………….203 6. The Fallout: Russia and NATO from Kosovo to Afghanistan, 1998-2009…………….206 Hitting Rock Bottom: The Kosovo Crisis…………………………………………….207 Worlds Apart: NATO-Russia Diplomatic Brinkmanship over Kosovo………208 Growing Hysteresis, Withering Trust…………………………………………216 Welcome to the 21st Century: NATO-Russia Diplomacy after 9/11………………….226 Russian-Atlantic Honeymoon, Take Two…………………………………….226 NATO Goes Global……………………………………………………….…..235

Load more