ABSTRACT A Fruitless Crown: The Logic and Limits of Foreign Policy in Revolutionist Dictatorships Eric A. Fleury, Ph.D. Mentor: W. David Clinton, Ph.D. This dissertation examines the process of foreign policymaking in dictatorial regimes, using historical examples to illustrate contemporary implications for American foreign policy. I introduce a sub-category of regimes called “revolutionist dictatorships” that highlights the relationship between the regime and its continual need for public affirmation of its legitimacy. Lacking the institutional structures that routinize the role of public opinion within the state, the regime is forced to directly mobilize public support for its ambitions through an ideological program over which the regime must maintain exclusive rights of interpretation and implementation. Maintaining the image of ideological purity, on which its legitimacy ultimately relies, confines the revolutionist dictatorship to a series of short-term calculations that gradually constrict the pursuit of long-term strategic ends, and deprives the leadership of a clear separation between the objective conditions of security and the preferences of ideology. The need to preserve the illusion of ideological purity renders the unalloyed pursuit of interests impossible. I will first review and critique the literature on this subject, which tends to separate ideology and interest into discrete categories in which one or the other predominates based on the preferences of the leadership. I will then examine dictatorial power in light of its relationship to public opinion and develop the connection with three cases studies: Joseph Stalin, Sukarno, and Saddam Hussein. The similar incentives and pressures that arise between these ostensibly unlike cases will demonstrate the ramifications of using ideology to effect a direct connection between leader and people. Understanding this dilemma will provide a more sophisticated template for interpretation dictatorial behavior than dismissing them as inveterate “rogue states” or admiring them as sophisticated practitioners of realpolitik. The implications of this study may also be used to clarify the interplay of ideology and interest in both democratic and non- democratic states, and examine patterns of relations between and among them. A Fruitless Crown: The Logic and Limits of Foreign Policy in Revolutionist Dictatorships by Eric Fleury, B.A., M.A. A Dissertation Approved by the Department of Political Science W. David Clinton, Ph.D., Chairperson Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Baylor University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Approved by the Dissertation Committee W. David Clinton, Ph.D., Chairperson David K. Nichols, Ph.D. Sergiy Kudelia, Ph.D. David Bridge, Ph.D. David A. Smith, Ph.D. Accepted by the Graduate School May 2015 J. Larry Lyon, Ph.D., Dean Page bearing signatures is kept on file in the Graduate School. Copyright © 2015 by Eric A. Fleury All rights reserved TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………………………………viii DEDICATION………….………………………………….…………….……………..x Chapter 1. NATIONAL INTEREST, IDEOLOGY, AND DICTATORSHIP………………1 Central Question, Thesis, and Project Outline………………………..…1 Traditions of Thought on Ideology and Interest…..………….…………5 Realism……………………………………………………5 Rationalism………………………………………………13 Revolutionism……………………………………………20 Images of Analysis………..….………………………………………24 Unit Level Analysis………………………………………26 Structural Analysis…………………………………….…30 The Rational Essence of Foreign Policy…………………31 Significance…………………..………………………………………34 2. REVOLUTIONIST DICTATORSHIP………………………………….……38 Ideas of Despotism………………………………..……………….…40 Ideology……………………………………………….…43 Institutions…………………………………………….…46 Rational Choice……………………………………….…50 Revolutionist Dictatorship and Political Power…………53 The Revolutionist State and International Politics.……………..……56 Socialization, Norms, and Interests……………….……..56 The Individual, the State, and International Society..……63 Modern Dictatorship and Foreign Policy……………..…69 iv Introduction to the Cases……..……………….…………………….75 3. STALINISM, FOREIGN POLICY, AND THE NAZI-SOVIET PACT…..…78 Fig Leaf or Lodestar?..………………………………….………….80 The Supreme Realist…………………………………..…80 The Proletarian Patriot……………………………………85 Coryphaeus of Science………………………….………..89 The Man of Steel……………..………………………………….…92 Stalinist “Vigilance” and the Cult of Lenin………………93 “The Worse, the Better”…….…………………………….97 Forged in Blood……..….…………………………………………100 The Popular Front………………………………………103 Collective Security……………………………………..108 The Nazi-Soviet Pact.……………………………..……114 Summary…….……….……………………………………….….121 4. STALINIST FOREIGN POLICY AND THE COLD WAR……..……….…123 Stalin, Socialism, and Empire: The New Cold War Consensus…127 Revolutionary Realism…….…………………………….127 Critique of Revolutionary Realism………………………133 The New Democratic Order………………….………………….136 The Grandiose Game of Solitaire…..……………………136 An Incomprehensible Spirit of Resistance………………144 The German Road to Socialism…………………………148 The Correlation of Forces.………………………………156 The Cold War as Stalin’s Legacy……..…………………163 Summary……………………………….………………………..167 5. SUKARNO AND THE IDEOLOGICAL ROOTS OF INDONESIAN FOREIGN POLICY, 1959-1965……………………………..…169 v Indonesia’s Quest for “Active Independence”…..………………177 Revolution and Collaboration….……………………..…177 Independence Without Unity……………………………181 The Moral Violence of Nations………..………………………..185 Guided Democracy……………..……………………….185 Revolutionism at Bandung………………………………194 West Irian……..……………………….…………………199 The Year of Living Dangerously……….…….…………..……..206 Konfrontasi………………………………………………206 The Fall of Sukarno……..……………………………….211 Summary……….………..……….……………………………..215 6. SADDAM HUSSEIN AND PAN-ARAB FOREIGN POLICY……………217 Saddam in American Eyes.……………………………………..219 The Munich Analogy………………….………….…..…219 Saddam as Rational Actor………….……………………222 The Origins and Consequences of Ba’athism………………….226 Iraq and the “Invisible” Arab Republic…………………228 Intimidation and Attraction……………………………..233 “Victory is a State Within Me”…………………………………239 Babylon Arises Anew……………………………….…..239 The Second Qadisiyyah…………………………….…..244 The Poisoned Dagger…………………………….……..252 Summary……………………………………………………….259 7. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS………………………………….261 The Revolutionist Dictatorship on the World Stage……………261 vi Summary of the Cases……………………………….…261 Theoretical Overview………………………………..…264 Implications for American Foreign Policy………………..……269 The Terms of Connection…………………………….…269 Kennan, Power, and Idealism………….……………..…273 Conclusion………………………….……..……………279 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………282 vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Writing a dissertation is often described as a lonely process, but I have had the good fortune to be surrounded by people willing to ease the burden of solitude, either by sharing ideas or by doing me the no less important favor of talking about something other than my ideas. Dr. David Clinton has been nothing short of the ideal advisor, having spent years attending to the growth of this project with patient regard and keen advice. I owe a significant portion of this project to his influence and guidance, and he has set a standard of professionalism, scholarship, and courtesy that I will always seek to attain, if never quite match. At Baylor, each dissertation is the product of the department as a whole, and I am grateful for the professors and colleagues who offered their advice, or even a friendly ear, even if they had no interest in dictatorship or were puzzled by my failure to include the word ‘Aristotle’ in the title. Dr. David Nichols again proved himself a polymath and first- rate editor, offering helpful comments and suggestions at each stage of the process. Dr. Mary Nichols was particularly helpful in the formation of a prospectus, helping to turn a long-brewing idea into an actual project. Dr. Sergiy Kudelia applied tremendous energy and care, and was always at the ready with challenging questions and detailed suggestions. Dr. David Bridge has been a valuable sounding board since my first days at Baylor, and if this project continues beyond its current state, he will be an indispensable asset in turning it into an actual work of political science. Dr. David Smith of the History viii Department kindly lent an ear and a valuable outsider’s perspective, showing a remarkable dedication to this project by temporarily misplacing his children during the oral defense. Also, my thanks to Jenice Langston, who may hold the title of secretary of the political science department, but is in fact the power behind the throne. With respect to my fellow graduate students, we take pride in being friends as well as colleagues, and your friendship was no less valuable than your input. If I devote a smaller space here to my family, that is only because my gratitude extends so far beyond what this page can incorporate. My parents have provided encouragement for projects of this kind since I was far too young to be reading about world wars and dictators. They are probably as glad as I am that the morbid interests of a twelve-year-old actually paid off. My brother Brian has always been a model for me, first as a baseball player and resident ‘cool kid’ (an imitation at which I failed) and then as a hard worker, responsible family man, and good friend, where my emulation will hopefully be more successful. Finally, my wife Christina is probably the main reason for the successful completion of this project. She had the patience to give me space and time to write, and also knew enough