The Role of Ethnic Interest Groups in U.S. Foreign Policy: The Case of the Cuban American National Foundation

Abstract

The role and range of activities of ethnic interest groups in U.S. foreign policy has received relatively little scholarly attention, though in the wake of the Cold War analysis of their activities has increased. The case of the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) during the 1980s suggests, however, that ethnic interest group activity is not new and may be far more complex than our standard conceptualizations allow. We review the literature on the role of ethnic interest groups in U.S. foreign policy and assemble some common assumptions and arguments about their origins, roles and relations with the government, and the conditions that favor their success. Then we examine origins of CANF, its web of relationships with government even during the Cold War, and its role as a near co-executor of policy. We conclude by assessing what the CANF case suggests about standard views of the roles of at least some ethnic interest groups in the process of making U.S. foreign policy, including the need to see how the state may try to use and sponsor such groups to further its policy goals.The study of U.S. foreign policy, and foreign policy analysis more generally, has paid relatively little attention to the role and power of ethnic interest groups and the full range of their activities. Early studies showed these groups to have little influence, and the Cold War contributed to a foreign policymaking process that was largely dominated by the president. Interest group activity in foreign policy seemed relatively unimportant with a few notable exceptions. In the wake of the Cold War, though, scholars and journalists have begun to pay more attention to the activities of these groups in foreign and security policy. In an era when security threats are less pressing, when Congress is more engaged, and when the distinction between "foreign" and "domestic" politics is less clear, many have pointed to the increasing activism, if not always influence,

Extra-territorial interventions in conflict spaces: Explaining the geographies of post-Cold War peacekeeping

“…Through lobbying, strategic voting, media influence, etc., migrant communities may seek to represent and advance these interests, exerting potentially significant pressure on governments to assist their "home" countries (Popescu, 2005, Shain, 1994. Indeed, several authors have documented how "diaspora politics" have been influential in moulding target countries' foreign policies, particularly in areas involving self-determination, democracy and human rights (Carter, 2005, Dodds, 2000, Haney and Vanderbush, 1999. A high number of migrants from the target state might also help a government in the (potential) troop sending country to secure domestic legitimacy for intervention.…”

Foreign policy analysis, globalisation and non-state actors: state-centric after all?

“…Thus, NSAs influence governmental decision making at a very early stage. 6 Moreover, private and transnational actors such as ethnic interest groups (Haney and Vanderbush 1999;Paul and Paul 2009), transnational advocacy networks (Keck and Sikkink 1998) and the media (Wood and Peake 1998) exert significant influence on governmental agenda setting. NGOs and activists can also be helpful allies (or powerful enemies) of governments.…”

Muslims and foreign policy in France: A case-study of UOIF and the Palestinian issue

“…When we talk about 'ethnic groups and foreign policy', it is usually and implicitly inferred that we actually mean 'ethnic groups and foreign policy in the United States': there is a wide range of literature dedicated to this question, from general studies about this relationship (Ahrari 1987;Deconde 1994;Shain 1999: Smith 2000: Ambrosio 2002 to specific case studies (Croucher 1996: Haney & Vanderbush 1999: Walt & Mearsheimer 2006. Some observers have a negative view of ethnic lobbying seen as jeopardizing the national interests (Huntington 1997) while others consider ethnic groups as potential agents for the promotion of democratic values in their countries of origin, which can benefit the United States (Shain 1999 (Allen 2006).…”