Tufts University Political Scientist
Decries Ethnic Influence in Policymaking

by Michael Zwirn, '01

The influence of American ethnic groups in determining foreign policy is real, substantive, and pervasively contrary to national interests, said Tufts University professor and Fletcher alumnus Tony Smith. Smith, in a presentation at the Ginn Library on March 28, 2001, discussed the findings of his book, Foreign Attachments: The Power of Ethnic Groups in the Making of American Foreign Policy.

Introducing his subject, Smith observed that when he began his research, "No one knew much" about the topic. He himself didn't claim to be an expert, only a concerned observer. Embarking on the study of ethnic minorities in American foreign policy, Smith had been warned that the topic was a "small fish, with a lot of bones" -- unlikely to yield much theoretical value, and certain to annoy certain constituencies. International relations theory is bad at studying ethnicity, he said, and groups themselves don't like to be studied!

Some particular cases that he included were Israel and the Arab world, Iran, Cuba, and India and Pakistan. Finally, Smith argues that debating ethnicity in policy is difficult, because American political discourse lacks the vocabulary to discuss the legitimate role for ethnicity without risking the appearance of bigotry.

Smith, who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and holder of the Cornelia M. Jackson Chair in Political Science, described himself as a liberal pluralist, but was troubled by what he sees as a dissolution of fundamental consensus on the values that bind Americans as a nation. He is skeptical of "hyphenation" and post-national ethnic politics, particularly when scholars in the field of "diaspora studies" refer to the United States as the "host nation," rather than home. He stressed pluralism on the basis of the United States national motto, e pluribus unum -- from many, one. 

During an extended discussion, Smith described his studies in a range of ethnicities. He noted that too many ethnic groups were dependent on a "great man" who unifies immigrant and ethnic groups to influence foreign policy, but was critical of the abilities of most of these groups to remain intact as lobbying units. The foreign policy role of ethnic groups shows numerous damaging effects, in Smith's analysis. He observed that Armenian-Americans made the mistake of opposing Armenian independence from the Soviet Union, and squandered their legitimacy in policy circles. Greek-Americans frequently had conflicts with the government in Athens, and the role of Cuban-Americans and Iranian-Americans in preserving economic embargoes against their homelands is legendary. One of the persistent questions in American politics is the relatively minor role of African-Americans in U.S. foreign policy. Smith pointed out the success of black leaders in promoting intervention in Haiti to restore the government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, but noted that organization in the African-American community is immature.

Pearl Robinson, of the Tufts Department of International Relations, added that mechanisms for black involvement in foreign policy are weak, priorities are guided by "political entrepreneurs," and consensus rarely emerges on focal issues.

During the question and answer period, Rytis Paulaskas '02, a diplomat in the Lithuanian foreign service, pointed out that Americans of Baltic descent had played a vital role in shaping the U.S. non-recognition policy of Soviet occupation of the Baltic states. Smith concurred, but pointed out that the U.S. State Department also exploits ethnic groups via liaisons with these communities, in order to lobby Congress for favorable policies. Stephen Bosworth, Dean of the Fletcher School, argued that the end of the existential security threat of the Soviet Union had enabled the end of "Americanism" and common ideals. To this Smith replied, "In the face of a crisis, [ethnic group] might back up .. but they might create the crisis" in the first place!

In terms of policy recommendations, Smith called for campaign finance reform and a reassertion of the Executive Branch in foreign policy. Both, he said, would minimize the role of lobbyists from ethnic constituencies, making foreign policy less susceptible to influence from special interests.

Comments? Write us at letter@fletcherledger.com

[return to News Page]