Categories
Jasmine Politics

Conflicts, Interests & Elections

Would you believe that the international position of a number of countries is determined solely by the need to win points in national elections? No? Ok. So here goes a bit of speculation:

  • Denmark – enthusiastic participation in coalition wins incumbent many points for imminent election “With general elections set to take place before November, the move is allowing Denmark’s government to score points with the electorate – strongly in favor of the mission – and Washington, said Bjoern Moeller, a specialist of African conflicts at the Danish Institute for International Affairs.”
  • France – Sarkozy, frontman of “immediate action” supposedly refused to handover operations to NATO because NATO is coordinated from Brussels and it would deny him of the valuable chance of grandstanding before his home electors (who have suddenly found some new confidence in Mr. Bobblehead). Some speculate that Sarkozy’s re-election campaign started in Tripoli.
  • Russia – we thought they’d just abstain right? Nope. The Medvedev vs Putin battle has opened up. Putin’s ridiculing of the interventionist approach found a critic closer to home as Medvedev – Putin’s future opponent for the next presidential election opened fire on Russia’s president.
  • Germany – another abstention. The answer lies in Baden-Wurtemburg – an important regional election for Merkel’s christian-democrats: “The main motivation, it was felt, was rather the state election next Sunday (March 27) in the extremely important state of Baden-Wuertemberg, where the Christian Democrats have ruled the roost since 1953 and fear its very possible loss this time. Although it is relatively prosperous (with the main Daimler-Benz works), Merkel’s party lost face after the Stuttgart railway station violence and is also aware that most people, regardless of their views on Gaddafi, do not want any more German soldiers fighting and dying in other continents. Merkel probably hoped that a cool response on Libya might win anti-war voters, even though the USA command is firmly welcomed on German soil.” BW is not the last regional election this year – there’s five others after that.
  • Spain – the commitment of the Iberian nation can also be explained in terms of electoral losses. By getting a quasi-unanimous vote in parliament in favour of participation in the UN resolution implementation, Zapatero ensured that no political party would get political mileage out of the decision: “Of the 340 lawmakers present, 336 voted in favour of Spain’s participation, three voted against – two from the far-left Izquierda Unida party and one from the tiny left-wing nationalist BNG party – and one lawmaker abstained.”

It is impossible to escape the reality that intervention on an international level is never purely altruistic. Whether it is electoral calculations or business interests, you cannot avoid factoring in these “egoistic” considerations.

Facebook Comments Box

7 replies on “Conflicts, Interests & Elections”

You can also interpret it as ‘keeping their finger on their country’s pulse to represent their people’. But somehow I still think they are choosing the wrong finger to do it. Also, Gonzi did the same thing – he tried to be cautious because he felt maybe that that’s what the Maltese people are wishing for. But he ended in the middle between the Gaddafi’s side (who hate his guts for not returning their airplanes and for saying that the regime should end) and the rebels (who hate him too because he is not collaborating to end the regime). The least Malta could have done in my opinion is choosing a side and stick to it. My usual worthless two cents insomma.

A bit of a too overtly enthusiastic case of a non-falsifiable hypothesis. So France and Denmark support because there’s an election, Germany does not support because there’s an election, Spain (and presumably the UK) support because there’s no election and Russia is in two minds … because there’s an election coming up.

Only Mona’s contribution had me scratching my head more. She claims France and the UK are spreaheading the attack on Libya … because there’s huge French and British investments there. I suppose it’s a novel way of reaping dividends on your capital.

Fausto, the point of the post is that governments are now, more than ever, influenced by electoral considerations when it comes to commitment in “wars” (obliged inverted commas – we’ll soon need a term for this kind of conflict/intervention). Previously there was either a “state interest” that overrode electoral issues or a particular international policy being pursued – especially post-WWII.

I have not read Mona’s contribution although the point being made in this post can also be extended to financial considerations (though rather than safeguarding I’d have said investing in the new regime – and that applies to any intervenor with clout to invest).

Back to the electoral issue you’ll find that these sites might help:

New York Times on Germany

Independent (UK) discussing NATO

The point is not that the wage war /engage in conflict BECAUSE of elections but that elections and electoral considerations have become a much stronger factor in their considerations – one that gets prioritised over long-term international policy.

If you like you can even see Obama’s rush to pull out in the perspective of senate/congress pressure on the rising costs of the campaign. Since when was this the prime mover behind US intervention? A consideration maybe, but such an important consideration? No siree.

Finally, as an example of the twisted result when you rely too much on electoral considerations see Merkel’s half-assed reaction of beefing up Germany’s Afghanistan forces “in compensation” for staying out of Libya. What does that say about a coherent foreign and international policy?

I can’t find fault with the “weaker” version of the hypothesis you posit now.

Sure, the fact that an election is coming up in Turkey (there, another example for your list) could have determined Turkey’s stance on intervention. But should we forget that the Turkish PM is a laurate of the Gaddafi Prize for Human Rights?

Your opening hypothesis was much stronger: Would you believe that the international position of a number of countries is determined solely by the need to win points in national elections?

And my answer to that is still an unequivocal “no”.

Can the recent ‘harmonisation’ of the French/uk navies, untinkable up to a few years ago, be perhaps a pointer to the philosophies being adopted in the european power game? i detect a sense of italian domestic anger at its non-presence in said power game…something that may have dented berlusca’s image of a strong politician

Comments are closed.