رفتارشناسی اقلیت‌های قومی در سیاست خارجی نوین

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

دکترای سیاست تطبیقی و پژوهشگر دوره پسادکتری- مونیخ آلمان

چکیده

گذار سیاست از موضوعات بنیادین به غیربنیادین، رشد اهمّیت نیروهای اجتماعی و فرهنگی در سیاست‌گذاری از یک سو و درک اقلّیت‌ها به عنوان هویت فراملّی از سوی دیگر، ضرورت توجه به آنها در سیاست خارجی را دوچندان می‌کند. اما شدّت غفلت از اقلیت‌ها تا حدی پیش رفت که به عنوان یک مسئله فرهنگ-گریز پنداشته شد. با وجود اهمیت جهانی‌شدن فرهنگی و جلوس مسئله قومیت به سطح سوم سیاست، علمای روابط بین‌الملل آن را محصول فرعی روابط متقابل بین فرآیندهای دولت‌سازی و ساختار آنارشیک می‌پندارند. حال آن که قومیت ذاتا یک مسئله سیاسی است. اما تغییر سیستم سیاست‌گذاری خارجی در عصر پساجنگ سرد، ضمن تمهید بستری مهیا برای تکثّر قومی و محیط متأثر از گروه‌های لابی، انگیزه‌ای برای سهم‌خواهی این نیروی نوظهور در سیاست‌گذاری ایجاد کرد. به بیان دیگر، بین‌المللی شدن سیاست داخلی به مثابه تحفه سیاست قومی و تحول فناوری‌های شناختی منجر به کیفی‌سازی فعالیت سیاسی اقلیت‌های قومی گردید. با این وجود، عدم نمایندگی اقوام در سیاست خارجی به یک مسئله سیاسی مبدل شد. طبق این امر، تلاش برای تبیین الگوی تعامل بین اقلیت‌های قومی و سیاست خارجی به اهتمام اصلی نگاشته جاری بدل گردید. طبق فرضیه پژوهش، نمایندگی سیاسی و دموکراتیک در تصمیم‌گیری به عنوان راهبردی برای تعدیل شکاف بین اقوام و سیاست خارجی ارائه می‌شود. این پژوهش با کاربرد نظریه جامعه‌شناسی کثرت‌گرا و روش‌شناسی تحلیلی – تطبیقی، فرضیه اصلی را به آزمون می‌گذارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Behaviorology of Ethnic Minorities in the New Foreign Policy.

نویسنده [English]

  • Vahid zolfaghari
PhD in comparative politics and postdoctoral researcher - Munich, Germany
چکیده [English]

The transition from high politics to low politics, rising the importance of socio-cultural forces in policy-making on one hand, and considering minorities as transnational identity, on the other hand, leads to analyzing the influence of ethnic minorities in foreign policy. However, the depth of ignoring minorities went so much that has been considered a culture-averse issue. Despite the cultural globalization and seating on the third level of politics, the readers of international relations consider this social force as a by-product of mutual relations between the processes of state-building and anarchic structure. However, ethnicity is essentially a political issue. But the changing system of foreign policymaking in the post-cold war era has not only provided ethnic pluralism affected by lobbying groups but also encouraged the ethnic minorities to influence policymaking. In other words, the internationalization of domestic politics as the products of ethnic activities and the evolution of communicative technologies led to the qualitative activities of ethnic minorities. However, the under-representation of ethnic groups led to political issues. Thus, this paper tries to explain the relations between ethnic minorities and foreign policy. According to the main hypothesis, political and democratic representation in decision-making will compensate for this gap. Finally, by applying the theory of sociology of pluralism, this paper will employ the analytic method to test the mentioned hypothesis.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • ethnic minorities
  • foreign policy
  • cultural plurality
  • political representation
  • policy making
ذوالفقاری، وحید (۱۳۹۹)، رفتارشناسی نیروهای اجتماعی در سیاست خارجی، تهران: نشر نگاه معاصر.
نقیب‌زاده، احمد (۱۳۸۴)، «تأثیر نیروهای اجتماعی بر سیاست خارجی»، فصلنامه سیاست خارجی، سال نوزدهم، شماره ۲، صص ۲۶۷-۲۹۰.
Ahrari, Mohammed E. (1987), Ethnic Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy, London: Greenwood Press.
Ambrosio, Thomas (2002), Ethnic Identity Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy, London: Greenwood Press.
Bird, K. (2005), “The Political Representation of Visible Minorities in Electoral Democracies: A Comparison of France, Denmark, and Canada”, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 11: 425–465.
Bobo, Lawrence, and Franklin D. Gilliam, Jr. (1990), “Race, Sociopolitical Participation and Black Empowerment”, American Political Science Review, 84 (2): 377–394.
Bonjor, S. (2011), “The Power and Morals of Policy Makers: Reassessing the Control Gap Debate”, International Migration Review, 45 (1): 89–122.
Bunge, M. (1996), Finding Philosophy in Social Science, New York: Yale University Press.
Citrin, Jack, Ernst B. Haas, Christopher Muste and Beth Reingold (1994), “Is American Nationalism Changing? Impliactions for Foreign Policy”, International Studies Quarterly, 39: 1–31.
Clough, M. (1994), “Grass-Roots Policymaking: Sat Good-Bye to the Wise Men”, Foreign Affairs, 73 (1): 2-7.
Cobb, Roger W. and charles D. Elder (1974), Participation in America: The Dynamics of Agenda-Building, New York: John Hopkins University Press.
Cohen, R. (1997), Putting Diplomatic Studies on the Map, London: Centre for the Study of Diplomacy.
DeConde, A. (1992), Ethnicity, Race and American Foreign Policy: A History, London: Northeastern University Press.
Grant, A. R. (2004), The American Political Process, London: Routledge.
Haney, Patrick, and Walt Vanderbush (1999), “The Role of Ethnic Interests Groups in U.S. Foreign Policy: The Case of the Cuban American National Foundation”, International Studies Quarterly, 43: 341–361.
Haney, Patrick, and Walt Vanderbush (2005), The Cuban Embargo: The Domestic Politics of an American Foreign Policy, New York: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hudson, V. M. (2005), “Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations”, Foreign Policy Analysis, 1 (1): 1–30.
Huntington, S. P. (1997), “The Erosion of American National Interests?”, Foreign Affairs, 76: 28–49.
James, Carolyn, and Ozgur Ozdamar (2009), “Modeling Foreign Policy and ethnic Conflict: Turkey's Policies Towards Syria”, Foreign Policy Analysis, 5: 17–36.
Katzenstein, Peter. (1996), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, New York: Columbia University Press.
Keohane, R. O. (1984), After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
King, David and Pomper, Miles (2004), “The U.S. congress and the contingent Influence of Diaspora Lobbies: Lessons from U.S. Policy toward Armenia and Azerbaijan”, Journal of Armenian Studies, VIII (1): 72–99.
Krasner, S. D. (1978), Defending the National Interests: Raw Materials Investments and U.S. Foreign Policy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lindsay, J. M. (1994), Congress and the Politics of U.S. Foreign Policy, New York: John Hopkins University Press.
Madison, J. (1987), “Number X: The Same Subject Continue”, In; James Madison, Alexander hamilton and John Jay (eds.), The Federalist Papers, New York: Pengiun Books.
Manning, B. (1977), “The Congress, the Executive and Intermestic Affairs: Three Proposals”, Foreign Affairs, 55 (2): 306–324.
Mearsheimer, J. J. and Walt, S. M. (2007), The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux Ltd.
Nye, Joseph. S., and Keohane, R. O. (1971), “Transnational Relations and World Politics: An introduction”, International Organization, 25 (3): 329–349.
Nye, Joseph S., JR. (2002), The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower can't Go It Alone, London: Oxford University Press.
Persaud, R. (2002), “Situating Race in International Relations”, In; Geeta Chowshry and Sheila Nai (eds.), Reading Race, Gender and Class, London: Routledge.
Ranney, A. (2003), “Politics in the United States”, In; Gabriel A. Almond, Bingham Powell, Russell J. Dalton, and Kaare Strom (eds.), Comparative Politics Today, London: Pearson Longman.
Rogers, E. S. (1993), “The Conflicting Roles of American Ethnic and Business Interests in the U.S. Economic Sanctions Policy: The Case of South Africa”, In; David Skidmore and Valerie M. Hudson (eds.), The Limits of State Autonomy: Societal Groups and Foreign Policy Formulation, London: Westview Press.
Rubenzer, T. (2008), “Ethnic Minority Interest Group Attributes and U.S. Foreign Policy Influence: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis”, Foreign Policy Analysis, 4: 169-185.
Rytz, H. M. (2013), Ethnic Interest Groups in US Foreign Policy making: A Cuban-American Story of Success and Failure, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Saideman, Stephen M., David J. Lanoue, Michael Campenni, and Samuel Stanton (2002), “Democratization, Political Institutions, and Ethnic Conflict: A pooled Time-Series Analysis, 1985-1998”, Comparative Political Studies, 35 (1): 103–129.
Shain, Y. (1994/95), “Ethnic Diasporas and US Foreign Policy”, Political Science Quarterly, 109 (5): 811–841.
Shugart, Matthew Soberg, and John M. Carey (1992), Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics, Cambridge University Press.
Singh, R. (2003), American Government & Politics, London: Sage.
Smith, H. (1988), The Power Game: How Washington Works, New York: Random House.
Smith, T. (2000), Foreign Attachments: The Power of Ethnic Groups in the Making of American Foreign Policy, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Snidal, D. (2002), “Rational Choice and International Relations”, In; Thomas Risse, Wlater Carlsnaes, and Beth A. Simmons (eds.), Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage.
Uslander, E. M. (1998), “All in the Family? Interest Groups and Foreign Policy”, In; Allan J. Gigler and Burdett A. Loomis (eds.), Interest Group Politics. New York: CQ Press.
Vanderbush, Walt and Haney, Patrick J. (1999), “The Role of Ethnic Interest Groups in U.S. Foreign Policy: The Case of the Cuban American National Foundation”, International Studies Quarterly, 43(2): 341-361.
Watanabe, P. Y. (1984), Ethnic Groups, Congress, and American Foreign Policy: The Politics of Turkish Arms Embargo, London: Greenwood Press.
Wittkopf, Eugene R., Kegley Jr., Charles W., and Scott, James M. (2003), American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process, London: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.