Ethnic Minority Groups and US Foreign Policy: Examining Congressional Decision Making and Economic Sanctions

Abstract

Previous research on the role of ethnic minority interest groups in US foreign policy has resulted in the development of an extensive list of criteria thought to condition ethnic minority influence. Existing case studies, in spite of their significant contribution, leave open the question of which factors, if any, actually drive influence. The result is a foreign policy decision-making puzzle. We know that ethnic minority groups attempt to influence foreign policy. We also know that foreign policy decision makers sometimes choose the option favored by certain ethnic minority groups. What practitioners and scholars alike do not know is whether decision makers make choices because of the efforts of ethnic minority groups. The experimental designs presented in this study offer the opportunity to solve the puzzle by isolating the impact of diasporic interests on foreign policy decision making at the congressional level. Using a hypothetical foreign policy scenario, the study examines the independent and interactive effects of diasporic numerical significance, diasporic mobilization, and cultural similarity on foreign policy decision making. Results indicate that decision makers are highly responsive to diasporic mobilization, but were unresponsive to diasporic numerical significance and cultural similarity. The overall implication is that small, but highly mobilized, ethnic minority interest groups may be able to significantly influence the development of US foreign policy at the congressional level.In 1959, Lawrence H. Fuchs noted, ''Despite general awareness of the mutual impact of foreign affairs and the claims of minority groups, there has been surprisingly little systematic examination of the results of this process'' (161). Several scholars have since responded to Fuch's call for the advancement of knowledge concerning the impact of ethnic minority interest groups on US foreign policy outcomes. However, there remains a great deal of debate concerning the scope and nature of diasporic influence on US foreign policy. Proponents of ethnic minority influence argue that diasporic communities in the United States are Authors' notes: We would like to thank Pat James, the editors of ISQ, and the three anonymous reviewers for their many helpful comments and suggestions.

Sanctioning the Homeland: Diasporas’ Influence on American Economic Sanctions Policy

“…While the general public is rationally ignorant about American sanctions policy, they are keenly aware when the president puts troops in harm’s way and will punish him politically if they believe their use was unwarranted or reckless (Fearon 1994). So while the president may be able to impose sanctions to cater to a diaspora’s wishes, he or she will not be able to use military force to do so (Shain 1995; Rubenzer and Redd 2010).…”

‘Let my people go’: diaspora mobilization for the human rights of political prisoners

“…Diaspora mobilization has been researched extensively in recent years and scholars have identified several motivations for why diasporas choose to engage in collective activism. Diaspora organizations are often concerned in the first instance with their conditions in the host country and are limited in sophistication due to their recent arrival (Rubenzer & Redd, 2010); diasporas can continue to play an economic role in the homeland through the remittance of resources, often to family members 8 ; and, diasporas have a long history of engagement as actors in conflicts taking place in their homeland in what has been termed 'long-distance nationalism', principally through fundraising, lobbying their host country government and sending diaspora members to engage in combat in the homeland. 9 While there has been much debate over the last two decades on the desirability of diaspora involvement in homeland conflicts, what has been less discussed is the involvement of diasporas in human rights advocacy.…”

Los raizales y la política exterior: una aproximación desde los enfoques étnicos

“…La perspectiva de cabildeo constituye lo étnico a través de una percepción de filiación nacional desplazada de su origen, ya que su preocupación pasa por las diásporas que presionan sobre la política exterior estadounidense que se identifican a través de su vínculo nacional ( , 1999;Mathias, 1981;Rubenzer, 2008;Rubenzer y Reed, 2010;Shain, 1995;Vanderbush, 2009Watanabe, 1984. En el enfoque de cabildeo se produce un debate sobre lo étnico y el "interés nacional" del país receptor, en términos del prejuicio de atender a los intereses étnicos de grupos como los judíos norteamericanos, los cubanos exiliados y los árabes-americanos por encima del interés nacional y su distorsión (Mathias, 1981) o la visión más positiva de la intervención étnica como refuerzo a los ideales de la política exterior estadounidense, tensión que se puede definir en perspectivas aislacionistas e integracionistas (Shain, 1995).…”