Ethnic interest group

Last updated

An ethnic interest group or ethnic lobby, according to Thomas Ambrosio, [1] is an advocacy group (often a foreign policy interest group) established along cultural, ethnic, religious or racial lines by an ethnic group for the purposes of directly or indirectly influencing the foreign policy of their resident country in support of the homeland and/or ethnic kin abroad with which they identify.

Contents

Overview

According to Ambrosio, [1] "like other societal interest groups, ethnic identity groups establish formal organizations devoted to promoting group cohesiveness and addressing group concerns." While many formal organizations established by ethnic identity groups are apolitical, others are created explicitly for political purposes. In general, groups who seek to influence government policy on domestic or foreign issues are referred to as advocacy groups. Those interest groups established by ethnic identity groups are referred as to ethnic interest groups. [1]

Characteristics

Foreign concerns

According to Thomas Ambrosio, most ethnic identity groups have connections inside their host country. [1] These connections can be derived from membership in a diaspora, with ethnic kin in their historical homeland (e.g. Anglo-Americans and Britain, Italian-Americans and Italy, Armenian-Americans and Armenia, Arab-Americans and the Middle East) or scattered among many countries (e.g. Jewish-Americans, Palestinian-Americans), or based on perceived similarities with others even though they may share little or no common ancestry (e.g. White Southerners and Afrikaners in South Africa, African-Americans and black South Africans, Muslims worldwide.) Because of the concern of the ethnic groups for "kin" in foreign states, many ethnic interest groups focus on influencing the foreign policy of their host countries to benefit there foreign "kin" and thus act as foreign policy interest groups.

Variable influence

The influence of ethnic groups on the foreign policy of many states, including that of the United States, is "a reality", [1] although these ethnic groups must "compete for influence with a plethora of other special interest groups and institutional interests." [1] According to a literature review of the topic conducted by Patrick J. Haney and Walt Vanderbush, [2] the primary factors that determine the relative strength of influence of an ethnic interest group are:

  1. "Organizational strength – organizational unity, a professional lobbying apparatus that provides useful information, and financial resources;
  2. Membership unity, placement, and voter participation – based on the group's electoral implications;
  3. Salience and resonance of the message – the ability to influence public opinion;
  4. Push on an open door – ethnic interest groups will be more successful if they promote policies that the government already favors;
  5. Strength of opposition
  6. Permeability of and access to the government – ethnic interest groups [in the context of the United States] are more likely to be successful when the policy in question requires a congressional role since it is usually more porous than the executive;
  7. Mutually supportive relationships – while groups need policy makers to do something for them, policymakers also need the ethnic interest groups. Ethnic interest groups may provide a host of valuable resources to policymakers, including information, votes, and campaign contributions."

Discussing ethnic influence

The diversity that enriches our domestic life remains a recurrent cause of difficulties in our foreign relations. U.S. Senator Charles Mathias (R-Md.) [3]

Discussing the influence and proper role of ethnic groups in the formulation of foreign policy has often been difficult and contentious. This section first describes the typical characteristics of the debates which restrict their focus to the legitimacy of or the harm caused by ethnic lobbies. The second section presents a response to simplistic debates of ethnic lobbies devoid of context, by refocusing on the identification of the interests of the broader community and then permitting or limiting the influence of ethnic lobbies based on their alignment within the interests of the broader context.

Debating legitimacy verse harm

Discussions of foreign policy formulation and the involvement of ethnic interest groups often become debates on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of ethnic interest groups devoid of wider context. The two opposing positions often expressed in these debates: One interpretations welcomes a multicultural foreign policy and thus views the influence of ethnic groups as legitimate. The opposing interpretation comes to a conclusion that the influence of ethnic interest groups can result in a parochial capture of a nation's foreign policy that harms the "true" national interest and common good.

Legitimate multiculturalism

Those arguing for a multicultural foreign policy "see little wrong with ethnic groups having a voice in the foreign policy process." They tend to "believe that a more diverse foreign policy" results in the enrichment of the nation "both at home and abroad." [1]

There are six common arguments in favor of the enriching multiculturalism interpretation: [1]

  1. "A multicultural foreign policy is a reflection of [a state's] liberal democratic ethos.
  2. It respects the diversity of the [nation].
  3. It serves as a correction for historically '[dominant ethnic group-centric]' foreign policies.
  4. It helps to resist the trend towards isolationism.
  5. It spreads democratic principles throughout the world.
  6. Ethnic identity groups can reinforce [national] interests."

Harmful parochial capture

Those who argue against the idea of a multicultural foreign policy influenced by domestic ethnic interest groups often begin from a "realist" perspective and "start with the premise that there exists 'objective' [national] interests that may (or may not) differ from the interests of substate political actors (ethnic, business or otherwise). Thus, a tension potentially exists between 'national' and 'special' interests. According to this argument, ethnic identity groups may harm the [nation] if these groups distract the [nation] from the pursuit of its national interests or induce it to pursue a foreign policy contrary to its national interests. In the worst-case scenario, ethnic groups can effectively hijack the foreign policy process and use the strength of [the nation] for their parochial interests." [1]

There are seven common arguments in favor of the parochial capture interpretation: [1]

  1. "Ethnic interest groups often put their own interests ahead of '[national]' interests.
  2. They undercut the foundations of [nation's] democracy.
  3. They may be agents of foreign (and possibly hostile) governments.
  4. They promote an incoherent foreign policy.
  5. They resist/prevent necessary changes in [the nation's] foreign policy.
  6. Certain ethnic interest groups are simply too powerful.
  7. They may get the [nation] involved in conflicts where no [national] interest is threatened."

Criticisms of legitimacy verse harm debates

Both stances, according to Ambrosio, [1] are unrealistic.

The uncritical embrace of ethnic interests in the formulation of foreign policy, as favored by the enriching multiculturalism interpretation, is problematic because:

  1. "It is fundamentally undemocratic because it allows a small minority to determine policy for the vast majority (just as it is fundamentally undemocratic to allow any small interest group to determine [national] foreign policy."
  2. The traditional foreign policy debating "process itself tends to moderate policies; that is; extremism will be more likely if the process is circumvented" by ethnic lobbies.
  3. "It is a recipe for conflict: if a policy needs to be determined towards a specific region where ethnic groups are in conflict, how do we determine which diaspora should effective make [national] foreign policy?"

Equally unworkable is the complete exclusion of ethnic participation in foreign policy formulation advocated by the parochial capture interpretation:

  1. It "is fundamentally undemocratic to arbitrarily exclude certain groups from legitimate expressions of political preference."
  2. Trying to enforce a ban on ethnic involvement "would be nearly impossible: ethnic identity groups have ingeniously found ways around bans on ethnic mobilization."
  3. Many "interest groups that support a specific ethnic agenda may argue that they are not ethnic-specific."

Debating broader interests and goals first

A productive alternative, according to Ambrosio, [1] to debating the abstract legitimacy or harm of ethnic influence in the general case, is reorienting the debate towards identifying, clarifying and methods of pursuing the nation's broad interests. Only after the broader community' interests and thus goals are identified, can one properly evaluate the value, in the rich context of the nation's broadly established common good, offered by the involvement or influence of individual special or ethnic interest groups. The result is that ethnic interest groups with goals that align with the broader community will be bestowed with more legitimacy than those goals exhibit less or no alignment.

Ambrosio writes:

"It should not be surprising that neither extreme amounts to what can reasonably called sound foreign policy. [...] Instead, a more sympathetic perspective of both arguments would result in differences over the range of legitimate influence by special interest groups, not over the influence itself (although, for some, the range could be quite limited or quite broad.)
Indeed, the debate over the legitimate range of influence by special interest groups can be a healthy part of the political process. However, such a debate must always be focused on the end goal of defining, protecting, and advancing the interests of the broader community. [...] Thus, it should not be the groups influencing the debate themselves that are the target for criticism or praise, but whether they are advancing the [nation's] interests. Ignoring the broader community's interests is just as dangerous as ostracizing certain groups from the foreign policy process merely because they are based on ethnic identities." [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Irredentism</span> Territorial dispute

Irredentism is one state's desire to annex the territory of another state. This desire can be motivated by ethnic reasons because the population of the territory is ethnically similar to the population of the parent state. Historical reasons may also be responsible, i.e., that the territory previously formed part of the parent state. However, difficulties in applying the concept to concrete cases have given rise to academic debates about its precise definition. Disagreements concern whether either or both ethnic and historical reasons have to be present and whether non-state actors can also engage in irredentism. A further dispute is whether attempts to absorb a full neighboring state are also included. There are various types of irredentism. For typical forms of irredentism, the parent state already exists before the territorial conflict with a neighboring state arises. However, there are also forms of irredentism in which the parent state is newly created by uniting an ethnic group spread across several countries. Another distinction concerns whether the country to which the disputed territory currently belongs is a regular state, a former colony, or a collapsed state.

In politics, lobbying or advocacy, is the act of lawfully attempting to influence the actions, policies, or decisions of government officials, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies, but also judges of the judiciary. Lobbying, which usually involves direct, face-to-face contact in cooperation with support staff that may not meet directly face-to-face, is done by many types of people, associations and organized groups, including individuals on a personal level in their capacity as voters, constituents, or private citizens; it is also practiced by corporations in the private sector serving their own business interests; by non-profits and non-governmental organizations in the voluntary sector through advocacy groups to fulfil their mission such as requesting humanitarian aid or grantmaking; and by fellow legislators or government officials influencing each other through legislative affairs in the public sector. Lobbying or certain practices that share commonalities with lobbying are sometimes referred to as government relations, or government affairs and sometimes legislative relations, or legislative affairs. It is also an industry known by many of the aforementioned names, and has a near complete overlap with the public affairs industry. Lobbyists may be among a legislator's constituencies, for example amateur lobbyists such as a voter or a bloc of voters within their electoral district acting as private citizens; others like professional lobbyists may engage in lobbying as a business or profession; while others are government relations support staff who work on behalf of professional lobbyists but do not actively participate in influencing or meeting face-to-face with targeted personnel enough to be considered registered lobbyists while working in the same professional circles as professional lobbyists who are legally designated as registered lobbyists.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Multiculturalism</span> Existence of multiple cultural traditions within a single country

The term multiculturalism has a range of meanings within the contexts of sociology, political philosophy, and colloquial use. In sociology and in everyday usage, it is a synonym for "ethnic pluralism", with the two terms often used interchangeably, and for cultural pluralism in which various ethnic and cultural groups exist in a single society. It can describe a mixed ethnic community area where multiple cultural traditions exist or a single country within which they do. Groups associated with an indigenous, aboriginal or autochthonous ethnic group and settler-descended ethnic groups are often the focus.

An ethnicity or ethnic group is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include a common nation of origin, or common sets of ancestry, traditions, language, history, society, religion, or social treatment. The term ethnicity is often used interchangeably with the term nation, particularly in cases of ethnic nationalism.

Cultural conservatism is described as the protection of the cultural heritage of a nation state, or of a culture not defined by state boundaries. It is sometimes associated with criticism of multiculturalism, anti-immigration sentiment, and opposition to illegal immigration. Because their cultural preservationist objectives are in conflict with those of anti-racists, cultural conservatives are often accused of racism. Despite this, however, cultural conservatism can be more nuanced in its approach to minority languages and cultures; it is sometimes focused upon heritage language learning or threatened language revitalization, such as of the distinctive local dialect of French in Quebec, Acadian French, Canadian Gaelic, and the Mi'kmaq language in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, or the Irish language in Newfoundland. Other times cultural conservatism is more focused upon the preservation of an ethnic minority's endangered ancestral culture, such as those of Native Americans.

Sovereigntism, sovereignism or souverainism is the notion of having control over one's conditions of existence, whether at the level of the self, social group, region, nation or globe. Typically used for describing the acquiring or preserving political independence of a nation or a region, a sovereigntist aims to "take back control" from perceived powerful forces, either against internal subversive minority groups, or from external global governance institutions, federalism and supranational unions. It generally leans instead toward isolationism, and can be associated with certain independence movements, but has also been used to justify violating the independence of other nations.

<i>The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy</i> 2007 book by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is a book by John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, Professor of International Relations at Harvard Kennedy School at Harvard University, published in late August 2007. It was a New York Times Best Seller.

Civic nationalism, otherwise known as democratic nationalism and liberal nationalism, is a form of nationalism that adheres to traditional liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights, and is not based on ethnocentrism. Civic nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need it as a partial shared aspect of their identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives and that democratic polities need a national identity to function properly.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutional patriotism</span> Concept of citizenship

Constitutional patriotism is the idea that people should form a political attachment to the norms and values of a pluralistic liberal democratic constitution rather than to a national culture or cosmopolitan society. It is associated with post-nationalist identity because, while it is seen as a similar concept to nationalism, the attachment is based on the constitution rather than on a national culture. In essence, it is an attempt to re-conceptualize group identity with a focus on the interpretation of citizenship as a loyalty that goes beyond individuals' ethnocultural identification. Theorists believe this to be more defensible than other forms of shared commitment in a diverse modern state with multiple languages and group identities. It is particularly relevant in post-national democratic states in which multiple cultural and ethnic groups coexist. It was influential in the development of the European Union and a key to Europeanism as a basis for multiple countries belonging to a supranational union.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Israel lobby in the United States</span> Pro-Israel American individuals and groups

The Israel lobby are individuals and groups seeking to influence the United States government to better serve Israel's interests. The largest pro-Israel lobbying group is Christians United for Israel with over seven million members. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a leading organization within the lobby, speaking on behalf of a coalition of pro-Israel American Jewish groups.

The Jewish lobby are individuals and groups predominantly in the Jewish diaspora that advocate for the interests of Jews and Jewish values. The lobby references the involvement and influence of Jews in politics and the political process, and includes organized groups such as the American Jewish Committee, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, B'nai B'rith, and the Anti-Defamation League. While there is overlap in membership between the Jewish lobby and the Israel lobby, the two terms are not interchangeable, as the Jewish lobby is defined by its ethnic makeup, while the Israel lobby is defined by its political agenda.

A foreign policy interest group, according to Thomas Ambrosio, is a domestic advocacy group which seeks to directly or indirectly influence their government's foreign policy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas Ambrosio</span> 21st-century American political scientist

Thomas Ambrosio is a professor of political science in the Criminal Justice and Political Science Department at North Dakota State University. He teaches courses in international relations and international law.

Ethnic interest groups in the United States are ethnic interest groups within the United States which seek to influence the foreign policy and, to a lesser extent, the domestic policy of the United States for the benefit of the foreign "ethnic kin" or homeland with whom the respective ethnic groups identify.

Diaspora politics in the United States is the political behavior of transnational diasporas of ethnic groups, their relationship with their ethnic homelands and their host states, as well as their role in inter-ethnic relations. This article describes case studies and theories of political scientists studying diaspora politics within the specific context of the United States. The general study of diaspora politics is part of the broader field of diaspora studies.

Classical pluralism is the view that politics and decision-making are located mostly in the framework of government but that many non-governmental groups use their resources to exert influence. The central question for classical pluralism is how power and influence are distributed in a political process. Groups of individuals try to maximize their interests. Lines of conflict are multiple and shifting as power is a continuous bargaining process between competing groups. There may be inequalities but they tend to be distributed and evened out by the various forms and distributions of resources throughout a population. Any change under this view will be slow and incremental, as groups have different interests and may act as "veto groups" to destroy legislation. The existence of diverse and competing interests is the basis for a democratic equilibrium, and is crucial for the obtaining of goals by individuals.

Criticism of multiculturalism questions the ideal of the maintenance of distinct ethnic cultures within a country. Multiculturalism is a particular subject of debate in certain European nations that are associated with the idea of a nation state. Critics of multiculturalism may argue against cultural integration of different ethnic and cultural groups to the existing laws and values of the country. Alternatively critics may argue for assimilation of different ethnic and cultural groups to a single national identity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Multiculturalism in Canada</span> Canadian social situation

Multiculturalism in Canada was officially adopted by the government during the 1970s and 1980s. The Canadian federal government has been described as the instigator of multiculturalism as an ideology because of its public emphasis on the social importance of immigration. The 1960s Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism is often referred to as the origin of modern political awareness of multiculturalism, resulting in Canada being one of the most multicultural nations in the world. The official state policy of multiculturalism is often cited as one of Canada's significant accomplishments, and a key distinguishing element of Canadian identity and Canadian values.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chinese Dream</span> Chinese policy associated with Xi Jinping

The Chinese Dream, also called the China Dream, is a term closely associated with Xi Jinping, the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and China's paramount leader. Xi began promoting the phrase as a slogan during a high-profile tour of an exhibit at the National Museum of China in November 2012, shortly after he became leader of the CCP. The exhibit at that time was called the "Road to National Rejuvenation". Xi said that the Chinese Dream is the "great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation".

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Ambrosio, Thomas (2002). Ethnic identity groups and U.S. foreign policy. Praeger Publishers. ISBN   0-275-97533-9.
  2. Haney, Patrick J. & Vanderbush, Walt (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): 344–345. doi: 10.1111/0020-8833.00123 .
  3. Mathis, Charles McCurdy Jr. (Summer 1981). "Ethnic Groups and Foreign Policy". Foreign Affairs . 59 (5): 28–66, 89–117. doi:10.2307/20040899. JSTOR   20040899.

Further reading