Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• Diasporas are endemic to the international
system, having a capacity for independent and
assertive political action.
• The diaspora becomes a key constituency of
concern for homeland leaders, for the
governments of their host states, and, through
their international diplomatic activities, for
other states as well.
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• Diasporas act as more than just domestic
constituencies within their host states.
• They also function as an important “domestic”
constituency for homeland political leaders
and, moreover,
• as transstate players, acting on behalf of their
entire people in interactions with third-party
states and international organizations
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• Diasporas may actively influence the foreign
policies of their homelands
• When they achieve transnational economic or
political clout (or both), diasporas can, and do,
directly affect identities and homeland policies
• They may also influence the foreign policy of
their host states depending on the host state
political institutions and diaspora’s organizational
power.
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• Robert Putnam : international negotiations are a
“two-level game,” rather than merely a
government-to-government interaction, RATHER
state leaders balance two competing spheres at
once in an international negotiation; they must
satisfy both domestic political constituencies and
also meet the negotiating counterpart’s minimum
demands
• In some cases, with the involvement of diaspora
this can become a three-level game.
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• These elements are usually neglected in traditional
international relations scholarship, which bases its
understanding of state behavior on limited
assumptions about a state’s identity and interests.
• As an increasing proportion of violence within and
between states has centered around issues of
communal identity rather than power and wealth,
international relations scholars have struggled with the
nature of national identity and how it shapes states’
understanding of their interests.
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• Constructivist theoretical developments are most hospitable
to this type of analysis, but they tend to focus on identities as
derivatives of system-wide norms, or of domestic political
cultures.
• Instead, there is a need to add a transnational form of identity
that takes into account the continual and ever changing
character of the “people” inside and outside the state.
• The identities and interests of states are both flexible and
mutually constitutive and several propositions about the
identities and interests can be made that engage diasporas in
homeland communal conflicts are noteworthy.
•
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• Factors Affecting the Diasporic Influence
• When homeland state is weak/new: Diaspora
communities identify themselves, and are identified by
others, as part of the homeland national community.
• In the case of new and weak states, the national
identity was often “held in trust” by the diaspora
during the initial years/decades.
• Robert Wieber argues that when homelands are well
established states, kin communities abroad are less
inclined to channel their ethnic identity into diasporic
activity.
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• The degree to which one influences the other depends on
their relative strength, which is determined by, among
other factors, monetary flows, cultural productions,
community leadership, and transnational political parties
• Diasporas may influence the foreign policies of their host
countries. This is especially true of diasporas integrated
into democratic societies, where they often organize as
interest groups that influence the foreign policy of their
host government.
• Host states, particularly Western democracies, take into
account the interests and political power of diaspora
communities in formulating policies toward homeland
conflicts
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• Democratic polities respond to preferences of its
constituents. So it is not surprising that diasporas’
voices are heard. However, cohesion and access are
crucial to understanding the conditions under which
their influence will be critical at the national level of
policymaking
• Diasporas always have the potential to influence their
host country’s foreign policy. But that potential will
remain unrealized unless the immigrant community is
sufficiently large, has access to the corridors of political
power, and speaks with a single voice.
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• The Reasons for Diasporic Involvement in Homeland
Affairs
• The diasporic connection with events at home may
belargely social and psychological, through their
identification with their homeland’s aspirations and
struggles.
• Homeland conflicts can also affect diasporas more
directly: economically, socially in terms of their selfimage and how their host society views them, and
even through physical threats directed against them by
those groups engaged in the conflict against their
homeland kin.
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• The ethnic identity of a diaspora group is made
up of elements that are shared with their kin in
the homeland (historical, social, and cultural
ideals) as well as other elements that are unique
to the diaspora and derive from its separate
experiences.
• The diaspora’s identity is also affected by the
degree to which its leaders (and members) are
actively engaged in domestic affairs in the
homeland.
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• The “wholeness” or inviolability of the homeland’s territory
is also a key marker of the nation’s well-being for the
diaspora. Thus, an interstate conflict or internal separatist
movement generally becomes a major ingredient in
diasporic identity.
• A threat to the homeland’s survival from conflict serves as
an important mobilizing force for diasporic communities,
enabling them to build institutions, raise funds, and
promote activism among community members .
• Since the threat to the homeland is a powerful tool to
mobilize diaspora community members to fund diaspora
organizations and engage in political activity in the host
state, peace itself can threaten diasporic identity.
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• Diaspora-Homeland
• While kinship identity can be negotiated between
homeland and diaspora, the structure of modern
international relations gives the prerogative of constituting,
elaborating, and implementing the national interest to the
state not to the diaspora
• BUT states may consider their diasporic kin as part of their
national security equation under the premise of mutual
responsibility. Israel, for example, declares itself, by law,
responsible for the well-being of all Jews around the world.
It also regards the Jewish diaspora, and especially JewishAmericans, as “one of Israel’s strategic assets.”
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• Yet in practice, struggles often erupt between
homeland and diaspora groups over the
definition of the nation, and therefore over the
proper balance between the interests of the
homeland and those of “the people.”
• The diaspora attempts to promote its own view
of the ethnic community’s identity and interests,
a view which is not always congruent with the
view of the homeland authorities.
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• The national interests articulated by the homeland
government with respect to the resolution of a violent
conflict with a neighboring state or an internal ethnic
minority can have a significant impact on the identity
of the transnational community.
• Disputes erupt between diasporic elements and
homeland authorities not only over the definition of
nationhood, but also over the conceptualization of the
homeland’s territorial boundaries, often a critical
component both in conflict perpetuation and conflict
resolution.
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• When the conflict is hot and the homeland is
under severe threat, diaspora concerns about
the homeland’s existential survival are
paramount, and divergent opinions may be
subsumed under a broader show of support.
But when the possibility of peace arises,
homeland-diaspora debates and power
struggles reemerge.
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• In many cases, the policies of homeland authorities
with respect to their ongoing violent conflicts may also
impinge on diaspora communities’ political or social
status in their host society.
• When kin states violate norms that are valued by the
host state (such as, for the United States, democracy or
human rights), diasporas are often implicated or held
accountable morally and politically.
• The U.S. government and perhaps even the U.S. public
may expect diaspora leaders to persuade or pressure
their homeland government to alter its policies in a
more congenial direction.
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• Diaspora-Host State:Diaspora’s access to political power,
determined largely by the political institutions of each host
society.
• Countries that extend citizenship and grant participatory
rights to immigrant groups will reflect immigrant influence
over their foreign policy to a greater extent.
• It is commonplace to attribute certain aspects of U.S. foreign
policy to the pressures brought by immigrant groups. The
question is whether this phenomenon is universal.
• In host countries that facilitate the acquisition of citizenship
and grant other participatory rights, diasporas will have
participate the political processes more and therefore will
have greater influence over their host country’s foreign policy.
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• Diaspora politics has been bolstered by the
collapse of the Soviet Union, which resulted in
a decline in the influence of traditional
political elites, who dominated U.S. foreign
affairs throughout the Cold War.
• Accordingly, America's loss of its Cold War
enemies has undermined political leaders'
ability to rally the nation around a unifying
cause.
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• The American melting-pot concept, which stresses
assimilation into a Protestant Anglo-Saxon culture, has given
way to a pluralist creed that recognizes ethnicity as integral to
American life.
• Thus, immigrants are no longer required to give up their
ethnic identity, language, or attachment to country of origin
to become Americans. Hyphenation is well respected.
• Since they are less and less subjected to charges of disloyalty,
ethnic officials and their constituencies are more inclined to
reconstitute and strengthen their ties with their ancestral
countries.
• Efforts on behalf of ancestral countries are widely recognized
as legitimate political practices, licensed and encouraged by
the nature of the American party system and the power of
each congressional representative.
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• How does Diasporic influence bears on America's
national interest abroad, on ethnic relations inside the
United States, and on American civic culture in
general?
• What is the relationship between an ethnic group
gaining an effective voice in U.S. foreign policy and its
adoption of American political ideals?
• What function do ethnic lobbies serve in America's
global role as the champion of democratic ideals?
• And does ethnic commitment to ancestral countries
impede U.S. domestic cohesion and encourage
subnational loyalties?
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• The growing influence of diaspora politics on
foreign policy has led many to question
whether:
• America's national interest is undermined by
such partisan forces and whether the
commitment of ethnic Americans to their
ancestral countries impedes U.S. domestic
cohesion by encouraging subnational loyalties.
• Old American anxiety that the devotion to
ancestral homelands undermines national
cohesiveness by exacerbating ethnic strains.
Diaspora and Foreign Policy
• They point to many instances of ethnic rivalries inside the
United States that areprompted or fueled by diaspora
relations with ancestral lands, such as the feuds between
American Turks and Greeks, between blacks and Jews over
such issues as Israel's relations with South Africa during
apartheid and black support for the Palestinians, and
between American Serbs and Croats.
• Such concerns are compounded by the uncertainty
regarding America's future international role. As U.S.
strategic interests become less clear than they once were,
and as U.S. decision makers appear unable to articulate or
execute a coherent global strategy, foreign policy becomes
more susceptible to pressures by diasporic lobbies.