Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T14:36:40.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Politics in command: foreign trade as national security policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Kal J. Holsti
Kal J. Holsti
Affiliation:
Professor of Political Science at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Get access

Abstract

Many of the current theoretical debates in international relations focus on the connection between economics and security policies. Most traditional North American textbooks have considered the two policy areas as separate domains. Some scholars view the major economic trends and events of the 1970s as intertwined, whereas others argue that “state” interests properly should prevail when the two sets of values conflict. The traditional liberal, mercantilist, and neo-Marxist literatures shed some light on the nexus between politics and economics in foreign policy, but they offer very general statements that reflect only the conditions of the major powers. Two case studies of Japan and Finland in the postwar period suggest that generalizations must be applied cautiously, that some states are compelled to follow mercantilist policies to protect their political independence and autonomy, and that policies of welfare maximization often have to be subordinated to security concerns. The cases also reveal that the connection between economic and security concerns changes over time. A dynamic model of foreign policy will thus have to be sensitive both to the peculiar circumstances of a variety of states and to the sources of foreign-policy change.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , Summer 1986 , pp. 643 - 671
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Some of the flavor of the debate is indicated by the vigorous attack on “neorealism” offered by Ashley, Richard K., “The Poverty of Neorealism,” International Organization 38 (Spring 1984), pp. 225–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. The problem is raised in Walker, R. B. J., “Realism, Change and International Political Theory” (Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal, 1–3 06 1985)Google Scholar.

3. I raise the issue of the complexity of international theory in Holsti, K. J., “Along the Road to International Theory,” International Journal 39 (Spring 1984), pp. 337–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. Holsti, K. J., The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Pluralism in International Theory (London: Allen & Unwin, 1985), esp. chap. 3Google Scholar.

5. Gilpin, Robert, U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation (New York: Basic, 1975), p. 43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), pp. 21–22Google Scholar.

6. Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 19–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. I do not pose the problem in terms of economic costs directly associated with pursuing “power” policies, since any foreign-policy action involves economic costs. Recent studies that substantiate the “primacy of politics” argument fail to distinguish between normal economic costs of such policies and costs conceived as forsaken economic opportunities. See, for example, Dominguez, Jorge I. and Lindau, Juan, “The Primacy of Politics: Comparing the Foreign Policies of Cuba and Mexico,” International Political Science Review 5, 1 (1984), pp. 75–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. Ward, Robert E., “The Legacy of the Occupation,” in American Assembly, The United States and Japan (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966), p. 34Google Scholar.

9. Figures are from Lee, Chai-Jin, Japan Faces China: Political and Economic Relations in the Postwar Era (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976), chap. 4Google Scholar.

10. Figures are from Ward, , “The Legacy of the Occupation,” pp. 42–43Google Scholar; Lee, , Japan Faces China, p. 144Google Scholar.

11. Quoted in Dunn, Frederick S., Peace-Making and the Settlement with Japan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), p. 99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. New York Times, 2 September 1949.

13. Maeno, John R., “Postwar Japanese Policy toward Communist China, 1952–1972: Japan's Changing International Relations and New Political Culture” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1973), pp. 30–32Google Scholar.

14. Quoted in ibid., p. 38.

15. Cf. Yamaguchi, Shogo, “Economic Difficulties Facing Japan,” in Reischauer, Edwin O. et al. , Japan and America Today (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1953), p. 116Google Scholar.

16. Maeno, , “Postwar Japanese Policy,” p. 24Google Scholar.

17. Nakasone, Yasuhiro, “Japan and the China Problem: A Liberal-Democratic View,” Japan Quarterly 8 (1961), p. 267Google Scholar.

18. In English, Lee's study, Japan Faces China, is the most definitive.

19. Ibid., p. 144.

20. Ibid., p. 145.

21. For comparative figures, see the annual publication of the Tsuneta Yano Memorial Society, Nippon 1961: A Survey of Japan (Tokyo: Kokusei-Sha, yearly)Google Scholar.

22. Olson, Laurence, “Political Relations,” in American Assembly, The United States and Japan, p. 83Google Scholar.

23. Cheng, Peter Ping-Chii, “A Study of John Foster Dulles' Diplomatic Strategy in the Far East” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Illinois University, 1964), p. 502Google Scholar.

24. For examples, see Maeno, , “Postwar Japanese Policy,” p. 44Google Scholar.

25. Ibid., p. 56.

26. Quoted in Burnell, Elaine, ed., Asian Dilemma: United States, Japan, and China (Rutland, Vt.: Charles E. Tuttle, 1970), pp. 72–73Google Scholar.

27. Singleton, Fred, “The Myth of ‘Finlandization,’” International Affairs 57 (Spring 1981), p. 275CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28. Maude, George, The Finnish Dilemma (London: Oxford University Press, 1976), p. 104Google Scholar.

29. Hakovirta, Harto, Puolueellomuusja Integraatiopotitiikka, Acta Universitatis Tamperensis, ser. A, vol. 78 (Tampere: Tampere University, 1976), pp. 132–33Google Scholar.

30. Linnainmaa, Hannu T., “Finland's Cooperation with CMEA-Member Countries and the Agreement between Finland and the CMEA,” Co-Existence 12 (1975), p. 5Google Scholar.

31. Hakovirta, Harto and Patokallio, Pasi, “East-West Economic Cooperation: Is There a Finnish Model?” Conflict and Cooperation 10 (1975), pp. 33–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32. Apunen, Osmo, Paasikiven-Kekkosen Linja (Helsinki: Tammi, 1977), p. 309Google Scholar. A general discussion of the political foundations of Soviet-Finnish trade is in Väyrynen, Raimo, “Talousja politiikka suomen ja neuvostoliiton suhteissa vuosina 1945–1970,” in Hakovirta, Harto and Vayrynen, , eds., Suomen Ulkopolitiikka (Jyväskylä: Gaudeamus, 1975), pp. 315–74Google Scholar.

33. Väyrynen, Raimo, Conflicts in Finnish-Soviet Relations: Three Comparative Case Studies, Acta Universitatis Tamperensis, ser. A, vol. 47 (Tampere: Tampere University, 1972), p. 322Google Scholar. Also Väyrynen, , “Talousja politiikka suomen,” pp. 364–70Google Scholar.

34. Hakovirta, , Puolueettomuus ja Integraatiopolitiikka, p. 187Google Scholar.

35. Ibid.

36. The outcomes of the cases are summarized in ibid., p. 304. Much of the discussion about the Finnish cases comes from this valuable study. A few other details are found in Apunen, Paasikiven-Kekkosen Linja.

37. Hakovirta, , Puolueeitomuus ja Integraatiopolitiikka, pp. 146–50Google Scholar; Apunen, , Paasikiven-Kekkosen Linja, pp. 41–42Google Scholar.

38. Väyrynen, Raimo, “Finland's Role in Western Policy since the Second World War,” Cooperation and Conflict 12 (1977), pp. 92–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39. Hakovirta, , Puolueettomuus ja Integraatiopolitiikka, p. 156Google Scholar.

40. Ibid., p. 159.

41. Details are in Mäentakanen, Erkki, “Western and Eastern Europe in Finland's Trade Policy, 1957–1974: Towards a Comprehensive Solution?” Conflict and Cooperation 13 (1978), p. 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42. Hakovirta, , Puolueettomuus ja Integraatiopolitiikka, p. 205Google Scholar.

43. Ibid., p. 212.

44. Mäentakanen, , “Western and Eastern Europe in Finland's Trade Policy,” p. 29Google Scholar.

45. Hakovirta, Harto, Suomettuminen (Jyväskylä: Gumerus, 1975), quoted on p. 145Google Scholar.

46. Details in Linainmaa, , “Finland's Cooperation with CMEA-Member Countries,” pp. 5–12Google Scholar.

47. Interview, officials in Finland's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 17 June 1983; also Kähkölä, Paavo, Suomen ldänkauppa (Helsinki: Otava, 1971), pp. 69–78Google Scholar.

48. Ibid., pp. 75–83.

49. Harle, Vilho, “Convergent vs. Conflicting Interests in Processes of Armament Requisition: A Case Study of Two Finnish Decisions on the Procurement of Military Aircraft,” Conflict and Cooperation 14 (1979), pp. 21–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Considerations other than balance are of course involved in such purchases.

50. A discussion of the Soviet pressure model is in Laitinen, Paavo, “Suomen Kansainväliset Taloudelliset Suhteet Vuosina 1956–1975,” in Korhonen, Keijo, ed., Urho Kekkonen: Rauhanpolitiikka (Helsinki: Otava, 1975), p. 189Google Scholar.

51. Salminen, Ari, “Tapaustutkimus Talouden Politiikan ja Hallinon Keskenäisistä Kytkennöistä: Suomen Idänkauppan Suuryritykset,” ser. A (Mimeo, Helsinki University Political Science Department Studies, 1983), p. 9Google Scholar.

52. Interviews, officials in Finland's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Foreign Trade, 17–18 June 1983.

53. Ibid.

54. Cooper, Richard N., “Trade Policy Is Foreign Policy,” Foreign Policy 9 (Winter 1972–1973), pp. 18–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55. Gilpin, Robert, “The Richness of the Tradition of Poliltical Realism,” International Organization 38 (Spring 1984), p. 291CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56. Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979), p. 107Google Scholar.

57. For a discussion of national roles and orientations in foreign-policy analysis, see Holsti, K. J., International Politics: A Framework for Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1983), chap. 4Google Scholar.