Mõttekodade India ja Pakistani tuumarelvadealase diskursuse sõltuvus nende ideoloogilisest suunitlusest Heritage Foundationi ja Brookings Institutioni näitel 1994-2003

Abstract

The aim of this thesis is to test the preferred ideological positions of think-tanks against empirical material. For this purpose i have chosen the Heritage Foundation and the Brookings Institution as examples of think-tanks. These two think-tanks were chosen due to their mainstream reputation and distinguishable ideological positions as well as the existence of teams of analysts dealing with international relations issues. The time period under research is 1994-2003 which i have divided into three: 1994-1997, 1998-1999, 2000-2003. I have decided to name the years 1998-1999 the period of crisis because in May 1998 India and Pakistan signalled themselves as established nuclear powers by conducting several nuclear tests. Even though the two countries have had crises prior and after 1998, those have largely been regional in their nature. From international and security-related perspectives, the 1998 crisis had a global effect on the perceptions and approaches of the international community and public opinion in general. The empirical material consists of 71 texts of different types. Taking into consideration the aspirations of both think-tanks stated on their websites (www.brookings.edu, www.heritage.org) and given that both think-tanks strive to offer policy advice to the US, i think it is proper to test the ideological compliance of statements written in the texts by their analysts on nuclear India and Pakistan through the usage of the concept of the leading role of the US. Filtering the texts by how the analysts from the two think-tanks see the role of the United States in dealing with the threat posed by nuclear armed India and Pakistan and highlighting what they advocate will help me ascertain whether in fact the think-tanks comply with what they preach. To summarize, the positions advocated by the Heritage Foundation are as follows: - The importance of maintaining US superiority on both the conventional and the nuclear front - The preservation of US sovereignty and freedom of action in foreign policy - Continuation of the fight against the proliferation of nuclear weapons - Enforcement of US power and influence on occasions of nuclear crises The positions advocated by the Brookings Institution are as follows: - The leading role of the US should find expression in its commitment to assist others in resolving common security problems and in adapting to changed power relations - The US needs to make an effort to take the seemingly uncontrollable process of nuclear proliferation under its control and ensure that existing nuclear weapons states become responsible - The US must back up the NNPT regime with all of its authority but at the same time understand that due to the hypocritical nature of the NNPT treaty certain exemptions regarding other states are sensible - US policy on nuclear armed states must be based on a case-specific and realistic approach - Stable international relations are important for the US; hence the country should take upon itself the leading role in solving security problems in order to deprive others of motives for the acquisition of nuclear weapons In the process of comparing the texts to the preferred ideological positions of the two think-tanks an index will be used for estimation. For both think-tanks the same 5 point scale of 0-4 will be used. In the case of the Heritage Foundation, values 3-4 will show compliance with ideological positions, 0-1 will show non-compliance and 2 dearth of information. In the case of the Brookings Institution, values 0-1 will show compliance with ideological positions, 3-4 non-compliance and 2 dearth of information. In the process of comparing texts against ideal ideological positions of the two think-tanks, three hypotheses have been formulated for testing: 1) The preferred ideological positions of the two think-tanks should be reflected in the texts written by their analysts on nuclear armed India and Pakistan from the perspective of the leading role of the US 2) The texts written on Pakistan by analysts from the Heritage Foundation are more in line with its ideological positions than those written on India; No such difference should exist regarding the texts written by analysts from the Brookings Institution 3) The texts written on both countries during the crisis period of 1998-1999 should be more in line with ideological positions than the texts written during the subsequent 2000-2003 period In general, if the texts contained sufficient information on the leading role of the United States on the nuclear weapons that India and Pakistan possess, the texts were mostly in compliance with the ideological positions of the two think-tanks. However, in the case of Brookings Institution, a considerable portion of the texts (50% for Pakistan and 59% for India did not contain sufficient amount of information on this issue). The implications for the Brookings Institution behind these numbers could be that the leading role of the US is not something their analysts are convinced in promoting. Secondly, we cannot speak of any ideological control or constraining framework from the part of the think-tank on its analysts. The figures do not confirm the second hypothesis. In general, however, the discourse of both the Heritage Foundation and the Brookings Institution over India is different from their discourse on Pakistan. The attitude of the Heritage Foundation analysts was harsher on Pakistan whereas representatives of the Brookings Institution remained more even-handed and objective while outlining some reasons for different approaches towards two different countries with a similar problem – nuclear weapons. Unfortunately too few texts were written during the pre-crisis period on Pakistan’s and India’s nuclear capabilities to conclude anything about that particular period. Hypothesis 3 was overwhelmingly supported by empirical material. The discourse on both Pakistan and India is moving away from the ideological positions of the Heritage Foundation during the 2000-2003 period while being firmly in line with those positions during the crisis period. In the case of the Brookings Institution, the statements in the texts do not move away from its ideological positions during the 2000-2003 period, rather there is a significant amount of texts that simply do not contain enough material for making an estimation on the leading role of the US on nuclear armed India and Pakistan. I conclude that sticking to its ideological positions during a crisis period might be a good thing to do but in the long run the dogmatic ideological positions of the Heritage Foundation might constitute a hindrance to achieving the goals this think-tank holds dear. That is in my opinion the reason behind the ideological confusion that is reflected from the texts by analysts of the Heritage Foundation during the period 2000-2003. The texts written by the analysts of the Brookings Institution, on the other hand, reveal the fact that if they decide to write about nuclear armed India and Pakistan and give advice to the US, they generally do so in accordance with their ideological principles. However, there are cases when writing about India and Pakistan on nuclear issues, the leading role of the US is not highlighted. The reason behind this is their ambivalent attitude towards nuclear states and the leading role of the US in general. The representatives of the Brookings Institution do not see that the United States has the moral high ground or the leverage to prevent the emergence of new nuclear powers. Therefore, they do not highlight what for them seems a US leading role lacking right and influence. In conclusion, in times of a nuclear crisis similar to the one that shook the world in May 1998, we can expect the same pattern of behaviour from the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation.