No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 August 2021
The Clinton administration and its predecessors have had a difficult time assessing the impact of ethnicity and nationalism on international conflict. They are inclined to focus on state power and individual rights considerations, downplaying the importance of the ties of communal identity and the emotive appeals of ethnic self-determination. Then, when ethnic groups do gain political significance, U.S. officials often give the communal concerns a prominence out of proportion with reality. The primary challenge for the Clinton administration is that U.S. liberalism classically has involved commitments that preclude flexibility on communally based demands for self-determination and group rights. Such perspectives can at times complicate the formulation of effective foreign policies for a region only partially integrated into the global capitalist economy, and therefore autonomous for some purposes from U.S. manipulation. What is needed is an involved but pragmatic liberalism that links U.S. conflict management objectives with what Thomas Friedman describes as a “coherent post–Cold War strategic framework.” Without that framework, he writes, “the Americans look like naive do-gooders trying to break up a street brawl.”
1. Stack, John F. Jr., “The Ethnic Challenge to International Relations Theory,” in Carment, David and James, Patrick, eds., Wars in the Midst of Peace (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1997), 13 Google Scholar.
2. Thomas L. Friedman, “A Delicate Balance,” New York Times, June 30, 1998, A23.
3. Rothchild, Donald and Sisk, Timothy, “U.S.-Africa Policy: Promoting Conflict Management in Uncertain Times,” in Eagle Adrift: American Foreign Policy at the End of the Century, ed. Lieber, Robert J. (New York: Longman, 1997), 277 Google Scholar.
4. Annan, Kofi, The Causes of Conflict and the Promotion of Durable Peace and Sustainable Development in Africa (New York: United Nations, April 21, 1998), 3 (http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/sgreport/report.htm)Google Scholar.
5. Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations, 3rd ed. (New York: Knopf, 1960), 39–40 Google Scholar.
6. Hunt, Michael H., Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987)Google Scholar.
7. On the U.S. public’s support for moderate politics at home, see Zaller, John R., “Monica Lewinsky’s Contribution to Political Science,” PS 31, no. 2 (June 1998): 185–186 Google Scholar.
8. Zakaria, Fareed, “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy,” Foreign Affairs 76, no. 6 (November/December 1997): 22–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9. Annan, The Causes of Conflict, p. 5.
10. Jones, Bruce D., “Keeping the Peace, Losing the War: Military Intervention in Rwanda’s ‘Two Wars’,” in Civil War, Insecurity, and Intervention, eds. Snyder, Jack and Walter, Barbara F. (New York: Columbia University Press, forthcoming)Google Scholar.
11. Sonya Laurence Green, “Kenya President,” Voice of America, February 11, 1998.
12. In the United States, it was the U.S. Congress, with strong support from key elements in the public, that reversed the Reagan administration’s opposition to putting economic sanctions in effect against South Africa. See Schraeder, Peter J., United States Foreign Policy Toward Africa: Incrementalism, Crisis, and Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 227–232 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13. Stedman, Stephen John, Peacemaking in Civil War: International Mediation in Zimbabwe, 1974–1980 (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1991), 5–7 Google Scholar; and Lick-lider, Roy, “The Consequences of Negotiated Settlements in Civil Wars, 1945–1993,” American Political Science Review 89, no. 3 (September 1995): 684 Google Scholar.
14. Sisk, Timothy D., Power Sharing and International Mediation in Ethnic Conflicts (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Institute of Peace Press, 1996), 93 Google Scholar.
15. Rothchild, Donald, Managing Ethnic Conflict in Africa: Pressures and Incentives for Cooperation (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1997), 127 Google Scholar.
16. Selassie, Bereket Habte, Conflict and Intervention in the Horn of Africa (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1980)Google Scholar.
17. Rothchild, Donald and Lake, David A., “Containing Fear: The Management of Transnational Ethnic Conflict,” in The International Spread of Ethnic Conflict: Fear, Diffusion, and Escalation, eds. Lake, David A. and Rothchild, Donald (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 215 Google Scholar.
18. Rothchild, Managing Ethnic Conflict, p. 102.