Recognizing the obvious? The United States response to secessionist ambitions since the end of the Cold War.

摘要

This dissertation explores the factors shaping American foreign policy toward secessionist crises since the end of the Cold War. The main research puzzle is the following: Why is it that, facing the resurgence of secessionist movements in the last 15 years, the United States reacted to it by supporting the territorial integrity of central states in some cases (Serbia, Somalia, Moldova), while recognizing the independence of secessionist states in other cases (Croatia, Eritrea, East Timor)? How can this apparent inconsistency be explained? This dissertation argues that regional stability is the main U.S. interest when responding to secessionism. It asserts that, when facing a secessionist crisis, the American government will choose the option (i.e. supporting state integrity or secessionism) that provides the greatest expected gain of regional stability depending on the evolution of the crisis. This explains why the American government's response to secessionism fluctuates from one case to another.; The performed qualitative analysis, which includes cases taken from two regional settings, the Balkans and the Horn of Africa, confirms the effect of the regional stability factor on the formulation of U.S. foreign policy. It shows that the fluctuation of the U.S. response is not caused by political inconsistency but by a coherent set of regional stability interests. The research also proceeds to the measurement of two competing arguments---namely ethnic politics and business interests. Case studies show that these domestic arguments fail to account for the research puzzle under investigation and that the regional stability argument consistently offers better explanations and predictions. Thus, this dissertation challenges liberal claims that domestic politics define foreign policy.