This dissertation seeks to identify the most important sources of restraint and rivalry in U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union in Third World conflicts. It posits that an internal re-orientation is necessary, thus entering the ongoing broader theoretical debate in international relations on the relative efficacy of external versus internal frameworks in foreign policy analysis. In terms of levels of analyses, factors at the international, state and societal levels provide alternative approaches. The main argument of the dissertation is that "domestic structures" or "weak state/strong state" analysis provides a more comprehensive and satisfactory explanation for U.S. policy than purely international or purely society based alternatives. Thus it posits a challenge to the conventional wisdom which views American foreign policy behavior in this issue area as reactive to the Soviet "threat." It is argued that the greater or lesser degrees of competition displayed in U.S. policy is best understood as significantly influenced by developments in the domestic sphere, especially changes in the strength of the American state vis a vis society. Specifically it is hypothesized that a stronger state will tend to be more rivalrous and a weaker one more inconsistent and unpredictable. It was found that two major shifts took place in the domestic structures underlying foreign policymaking in the U.S.--first toward a stronger state and then toward a weaker state. Evidence from eight selected Third World conflicts occurring under both these state types tended to confirm expectations of a domestic structures approach. By applying this framework, the dissertation has modified and extended a theoretical approach from international political economy which has been surprisingly underutilized in international security. Moreover, it has done so in an issue area which is ideally suited to the dominant competing explanation.
展开▼
