Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Is there such a thing as Common European Foreign Policy? In evaluating European Foreign Policy (EFP), it is important to take into account that EFP is made by the institutions of the EU as well as the institutions of the member states. Recent conceptualizations of foreign policy analysis have focused on actor-specific theories, are best suited for explaining EFP. This paper analyzes the case of the European democracy promotion policies toward the Democratic Republic of Congo. Since the beginning of the 1990s the African Great Lakes region has been the target of continued involvement on the part of the European Union as a whole as well as some of its member states. Drawing on James Rosenau's framework, this paper seeks to demonstrate how and when different actors influence the initiation and implementation phases of foreign policy making. Within the analysis of each stage, this paper mainly focuses on comparing the respective role and influence of the institutions of the member states as well as the institutions of the EU. The analysis of the case presented in this paper illustrates the extent to which each of these actors is relevant to the making of foreign policy and whether or not it is justified to talk about a Common European Foreign Policy and what we mean by this.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Much discussion in the post-9/11 era concerns
US-international relations and a realized animosity toward the US and
its perceived image abroad. The assumption of a hegemonic image of a
Western democracy oriented US government and the opposition to its
presence overseas is predominant in such discussions. An issue, perhaps
just as relevant in understanding international reactions to US
involvement but, however, has seen minimal academic discussion, is the
image of the US government’s support abroad for undemocratic regimes
that lack legitimacy among their people. More specifically, the role of
Congressional appropriations made to less democratic foreign states in
shaping international reactions serves as a fitting departure point.
The US frames its foreign policy goals in a manner that gives priority
to ends furthering democratization and favorable relations overseas.
Indeed, the US State Department and the US Agency for International
Development (USAID) see a major part of their job as the need “to
strengthen democracy and good governance worldwide” 1. A lot of
research and literature questions whether or not the aid appropriation
decisions of the Congress are in fact guided by such principles, but
rarely has an attempt been made to examine the active efforts of those
who seek to get more out of USAID. We will examine the efforts made by
governments of sub-Saharan African countries to get increased amounts
of USAID using foreign interest groups and other lobbyists. The Foreign
Agents Registration Act of 1938 requiring persons within the U.S acting
on behalf of a foreign principal to register with the Department of
Justice provides data for us to test the effectiveness of these
efforts. We contrast these efforts with each sub-Saharan African
countries rating on the Freedom House country index on democracy and
good governance in addition to their perceived need as determined from
their ranking on the United Nations Human Development index. We hope to
provide answers to the following questions: 1. In the absence of direct
constituent interest and pressure; immediate and visible benefits for
the U.S. etc., what is the most influential factor for U.S. Congressmen
and women when it comes to the total amounts of USAID allocation
towards sub-Saharan African countries? 2. Does the interaction of
lobbying efforts by foreign interest groups (FIGs) and US foreign
policy makers affect outcomes for states in sub-Saharan Africa?
3. Could this interaction produce a foreign policy that furthers or
hinders some of the principal stated objectives of US foreign policy as
an intention to promote good governance and democracy while making
friends for the U.S. around the world?
Potentially, an effort like this will help to provide explanations for
the often unexplainable support we see the U.S offering to
regimes in sub-Saharan Africa that are not well-received by their
people. It might also hold a key to understanding increased animosity
for U.S. hegemony in the world that became evident, and reached new
levels, after September 11th 2001.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Little research has been done on the topic of recent immigrants from the Balkans. For instance, a review of articles published between 1990 and 2003 in a premier migration journal, International Migration Review, reveals no studies on the topic. Although the era of massive European immigration belongs to the past, and current immigrants are overwhelmingly non-European (Massey, 1995), the specific dynamics of Balkan immigration is worthy of scholars' attention. Balkan immigrants are a growing population in the United States, and unstable political and unfavorable economic conditions will continue to produce more immigration from this part of the world.
In this article, we explore the impact of new immigrants' sense of racial and ethnic identity on the complex reality of North American multiculturalism. As such, this article is about whiteness too. Informing and guiding this study is a curiosity of how recent immigrants from the Balkans construct their racial and ethnic identity in the United States. This article is about how and what Balkan immigrants have learned about races upon immigration and how they construct their racial identity in the new country. Immigration could be viewed as a continuation of racial identity construction that started long before, even though Balkan immigrants were not or little aware of their whiteness as racialized identity.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Scholars have long debated the role of ideas in international relations especially regarding state actions and foreign policy. Some scholars have categorically rejected the role of ideas as important in foreign policy and argued instead that ideas should best be ignored. Many others have rejected this view and considered the role of ideas important. However, even in this camp there are variations as to how ideas play a role in foreign policymaking. According to some ideas are only one variable within a larger set of explanatory variables while for others have seen ideas as intervening rather than an independent variable. Still others have argued that ideas on influence state action only in an indirect and/or unspecific way. Briefly put, this research project suggests that possession and representation of ideas by political institutions provide a venue for political ideas to have policy implications in foreign policymaking. In particular, the study argues that a causal linkage between political ideas and foreign policy could best be established a) when/if we start with the ideas themselves and examine the content of each political idea being analyzed and b) showing how these ideas are represented by particular political institutions, and c) investigating how the discord among these ideas as represented by different political institutions shape actual foreign policy choices/decisions. The study first examines the contents of five major political ideas in Turkey (namely, Kemalism, Nationalism, Islamism, Westernism and Internationalism); second, investigates the institutionalization process of these ideas in political parties and the Military; and finally, explores the discord among these institutionalized ideas at the decision-making level by examining twelve foreign policy cases under four coalition governments. The findings of this study speak to a variety of literatures. First, it contributes to the general literature on the role of ideas by specifying some of the best conditions for ideational influence on foreign policy. Second, with its focus on the domestic political ideas, this study is one of the few studies that tried to domesticize constructivism. In other words, this research is a partial answer to those who asked constructivism 'to go micro'. Third, by looking at the 'battle of ideas' within the coalition government settings, the study bridges the International Relations - Comparative Politics divide.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper argues that the literature analyzing states' abilities to attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) needs refining in two ways. First, economically-disadvantaged (wilderness, or those not classified by the IFC as Developed, Emerging, or Frontier market) states should be analyzed separately due to the systematic differences from which they suffer because of their inherently-higher risks. Second, the effects of war and internationally-endorsed foreign military intervention have previously been omitted from this analysis, despite their frequency and visible effects on these states. Given the belated emphasis on eliminating poverty and increasing security worldwide, there is a real need to try to understand how war affects states' abilities to grow over time, and more importantly if anything is possible to deliberately help reverse this effect. Scholars have argued for many reasons that multi-national corporations (MNCs) invest in wilderness states, including resources, political stability, location, capital controls, growth rates, and the current debate on whether democracy harms or hurts a state's ability to attract FDI. Yet scant attention has been placed on the fact that since 1980, as worldwide stocks and FDI have each increased over 1000 percent, nearly one-half of all low income countries have experienced major conflict. During this time, the United Nations has also deployed peace keeping forces to twenty-five (almost one-fifth of all) wilderness nations. Even during extended peace, MNCs typically avoid wilderness countries due to their potential political and economic instability. Once war erupts, however, states publicly brand themselves as political gambles. I argue that foreign military intervention can help convince these profit-hungry MNCs that necessary levels of political and economic stability exist for a long-term commitment. In this paper, I conduct both qualitative and quantitative analyses: First, I analyze nine wilderness states that experienced war and UN military intervention between 1988 and 2002, using case studies, in order to evaluate the effects of war, intervention, political regime, economic reforms, and exogenous or endogenous shocks on their capabilities to attract FDI. Second, I analyze 102 wilderness states (33 of which were at war), using time-series data from 1980-2002, in four series of tests, to determine whether these results are generalizable to the larger sample of wilderness states. I find statistical support that war and a UN military presence both negatively affect a wilderness state's ability to attract FDI, although after the UN departs, states also experience significant growth. In addition, I find support that wilderness states that are more democratic are in general better capable of attracting FDI than their authoritarian counterparts.