Preview

MGIMO Review of International Relations

Advanced search

A «Badge of Honour» or a «Stamp of Infamy»? NATO As A Marker of Status in International Politics

https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2019-2-65-57-85

Abstract

The symbolic significance of membership in NATO is widely recognized by Russian and foreign experts. However, attempts to systematically assess its role as a marker of the political status has not been made. This article intends to fill this gap, considering not only positive, but also negative consequences of symbolic capital associated with the NATO membership. In order to determine the possible contradictions, benefits and costs for states from participating in the alliance, the authors examined the record of its three participants – France, Germany and Turkey. The comparison of these three cases enables to trace various status consequences of participation in a bloc for players whose material capacities and overall symbolic capital in the international system undergo different transitions. The theoretical literature and empirical record of the selected NATO members confirm that states compete in the international system for highly differentiated symbolic capital embodying various kinds of recognition. Status markers are complex social constructs, combining various political meanings. Meanwhile, states are not always able to control which types of social recognition will be activated by their inclusion in particular institutions. Despite the fact, that they may be interested only in some of the meanings associated with a status marker, they are compelled to take into account its other political connotations. As a result, NATO membership could bear for states a range of various social consequences. This could lead to a situation when several of them are equally relevant for the same actor, but some contain positive value, while others are assessed negatively. In addition, actors could face a contradiction between the status and practical consequences of participation in the alliance.

About the Authors

I. A. Istomin
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO-University).
Russian Federation

Igor A. Istomin – Associate Professor.

119454, Moscow, Vernadsky prospect.



I. V. Bolgova
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO-University).
Russian Federation

Irina V. Bolgova – Associate Professor.

119454, Moscow, Vernadsky prospect, 76.



A. P. Sokolov
Moscow State Linguistic University.
Russian Federation

Artem P. Sokolov – Senior Lecturer.

119034, Moscow, Ostozhenka street, 38, building 1. 



V. A. Avatkov
Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia.
Russian Federation

Vladimir A. Avatkov – Associate Professor.

  119021, Moscow, Ostozhenka street, 53/2 building. 



References

1. Avatkov V.A., Kochkin M.V.. Parlamentskie vybory v Turtsii [Parlamentary Elections in Turkey]. Svobodnaya mysl’. 2015, no. 4 (1652). pp. 8–17. (In Russian)

2. Biryukov S.. Germaniya i Franciya: k soglasiyu vo imya Evropy? [Germany and France: for agreement in the name of Europe?]. Mirovaya ehkonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. 2014, no. 12. pp. 82-90. (In Russian)

3. Bourdier P. Prakticheskij smysl [Practical Sense]. Saint Petersburg: Aleteya, 2001. 562 p.

4. Kokeev A. Novye akcenty v evroatlanticheskoj politike Germanii. [New accents in the Euro-Atlantic policy of Germany]. Moscow: IMEMO RAN, 2011. 25 p. (In Russian)

5. Koloskov I.A. Vneshnjaya politika Pyatoy respubliki. Evoljutsija osnovnyh napravlenij i tendencij: 1958-1972. [Foreign policy of the Fifth Republic. The Evolutoin of Key Trends and Directions: 1958-1972]. Moscow: Nauka, 1976. 303 p. (In Russian)

6. Malashenko O. A. Voenno-politicheskie otnosheniya Frantsii i NATO: istoriya i sovremennost'. [Political and military relations between France and NATO: history and current period] Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. 2011, Seriya 25: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya i mirovaja politika, no. 4. pp. 42-56 (In Russian)

7. Meshkov A. Otnoshenij RF i Turtsii kak ran’she – uzhe ne budet [Relations between Russian Federation and Turkey as They Previously Were – Will Never Be]. RIAC, 2015. (In Russian) URL: http://russiancouncil.ru/analytics-and-comments/comments/otnosheniy-rf-i-turtsii-kak-ranshe-uzhe-ne-budet (accessed 30.04.2019)

8. Moshkin S.V. Diplomaticheskaya vojna za Tchernomorskie prolivy v 1944-1946 godakh [Diplomatic War for Black Sea Straights in 1944-1946]. Diskurs-Pi. 2016, Vol. 13. no. 1. pp. 112-113. (In Russian)

9. Narinskij M.M. Sovetskoe rukovodstvo: problema granits i sfery vliyaniya SSSR v 1941-1946 godakh [Soviet Leadership: the Problem of Borders and Spheres of Influence of the USSR]. Vestnik MGIMO Universiteta. 2008, no. 3. pp. 3-13. (In Russian)

10. Novik F.I. Ustanovlenie diplomaticheskikh otnoshenij mezhdu SSSR i FRG (sentyabr’ 1955 g.) [Establishing of Diplomatic Relations between the USSR and FRG (September 1955)]. Trudy Instituta rossijskoj istorii RAN. 2009, no. 8. pp. 231-251. (In Russian)

11. Obichkina E.O. Vneshnjaja politika Francii ot de Gollja do Sarkozi. [Foreign policy of France from de Gaulle to Sarkozy]. Moscow: Aspekt Press, 2012. 381 p. (In Russian)

12. Pil'ko A.V.. Bor'ba za prinyatie doktriny "gibkogo reagirovaniya" v NATO (1961- 1969). [Discussions about the recognition of the doctrine of flexible response inside NATO (1961-1969)]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. 2013, Ser. 8 “Istoriya”, no. 5. pp. 72-91. (In Russian)

13. Sotnichenko A. Osobennosti modenizatsii v Turtsii [Specifics of Modernization in Turkey]. Puti modernizatsii: traektorii, razvilki i tupiki [Ways of modernization: trajectories, crossroads and deadlocks]. Saint Petersburg: Evropejskij universitet v Sankt Peterburge, 2014. pp. 184-224. (In Russian)

14. Trunov F. Uchastie FRG v mezhdunarodnom krizisnom regulirovanii (1991-2012) [Germany's participation in international crisis management (1991- 2012)]. Mirovaya ehkonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. 2014, no. 9. pp. 34-44. (In Russian)

15. Williams C. 2002. Adenauehr. Otec novoj Germanii. [Adenauer. The Father of the new Germany]. Moscow: AST. 472 p. (In Russian)

16. Wohlforth W.C. “Rossijsko-zapadnym otnosheniyam nedostaet realistskogo mirovospriyatiya, prichem s obeikh storon…” [Russian-Western Relations Lack Realist Worldview from Both Sides]. Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy. 2015, Vol. 13, no. 4 (43). pp. 153-165. (In Russian)

17. Shlykov P.V. Voennaya elita i politicheskaya vlast’ v Turtsii 2000-kh gg.: smena paradigm? [Military Elite and Political Power in Turkey in the 2000s: the Change of Paradigm?]. Islam na Blizhnem i Srednem Vostoke. IDV RAN. 2012, no. 7. pp. 403-418. (In Russian)

18. Andréani G. La France et l'OTAN après la guerre froide. Politique étrangère. 1998, no. 1. p. 77-92 (In French)

19. Bozo F. Deux stratégies pour l’Europe. De Gaulle, les Etats-Unis et l’Alliance atlantique (1958–1969). Paris: Plon, 1996. 287 p. (In French)

20. Bozo F. La France et l’Alliance depuis la fin de la guerre froide. Le modèle gaullien en question. Cahiers du Centre d’Etudes d’Histoire de la Défense. 2001, no. 17.

21. Bozo F. La France et L’Alliance: Les limites de rapprochement. Politique Etrangere. 1995. № 4. – рр. 865-877. (In French)

22. Bozo F. La France et l’OTAN. De la guerre froide au nouvel ordre européen. Paris: Masson, 1991. 287 p. (In French)

23. Cameron A., Maulny J-P. France’s NATO Reintegration: Fresh Views with the Sarkozy Presidency? RUSI Occasional Paper. February 2009. URL: https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/200902_op_frances_nato_reintegration.pdf (accessed 30.04.2019)

24. Creswell M., Trachtenberg M. France and the German question, 1945–1955. Journal of Cold War Studies. 2003, Vol. 5. no. 3. pp. 5-28

25. David D. France/OTAN: la dernière marche. Politique étrangère. 2008, no. 2 (Eté). pp. 429-441.

26. Duffield J. S. NATO's Functions after the Cold War. Political Science Quarterly. 1994. Т. 109. №. 5. Р. 763-787.

27. Fish I.S. Is China Still a ‘Developing’ Country? Foreign Policy. 25.09.2014. URL: http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/25/is-china-still-a-developing-country (accessed 30.04.2019)

28. Frank R. Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and the Quest for Status. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1985. 306 p.

29. Ghez J., Larrabee S. France and NATO. Survival. 2009, Vol. 51. no. 2. pp. 77–90

30. Gilpin R. War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 272 p.

31. Gülnur A. The Evolution of NATO’s Three Phases and Turkey’s Transatlantic Relationship. Perceptions. 2012, Vol. XVII, No. 1. P. 19-36.

32. Hofmann S. Party preferences and institutional transformation: revisiting France’s relationship with NATO (and the common wisdom on Gaullism). Journal of Strategic Studies. 2017, Vol. 40. no. 4. pp. 505-531.

33. Howorth J. “Operation Harmattan” in Libya: a paradigm shift in French, European and Transatlantic Security Arrangements. Journal of Transatlantic Studies. 2014, Vol. 12. no. 4. pp. 405-417.

34. Howorth, J. The CESDP and the forging of a European security culture. Politique européenne. 2002, no. 8 (4). pp. 88-109.

35. Johnston A.I. Treating international institutions as social environments. International Studies Quarterly. 2001, Vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 487-515.

36. Kennedy P. The rise and fall of the great powers. N.Y.: Random House, 1987. 677 p.

37. Klein J.. France, NATO, and European Security. International Security. 1997, Vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 21-41.

38. Krebs R.R. Perverse institutionalism: NATO and the Greco-Turkish conflict. International Organization. 1999, Vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 343-377.

39. Kubicek P., Dal E.P., Oğuzlu H.T. (eds). Turkey’s Rise as an Emerging Power. Oxon: Routledge, 2016. 216 p.

40. Larson D.W., Shevchenko A. Managing Rising Powers: the Role of Status Concerns. In Paul T.V., Larson D.W., Wohlforth W.C. (eds) Status in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 33-57

41. Leeds B. et al. Alliance treaty obligations and provisions, 1815-1944. International Interactions. 2002, Vol. 28. no. 3, pp. 237- 260

42. Mearsheimer J. Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War. International Security. 1990, Vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 5-56.

43. Menon A. From Independence to Cooperation: France, NATO and European Security. International Affairs. 1995, Vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 19-34

44. Menon A. France, NATO and the Limits of Independence 1981-1997: the Politics of Ambivalence. London: McMillan, 2000. 256 p.

45. Morelli V., Belkin P. NATO in Afghanistan: a Test for Transatlantic Alliance. CRS Report for Congress. April 19, 2009. URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33627.pdf (accessed 30.04.2019)

46. Morgenthau H.J. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. N.Y.: Alfred Knopf, 1948. 489 p.

47. Neumann I.B. Status is cultural: Durkheimian Poles and Weberian Russians seek great-power status. In Paul T.V., Larson D.W., Wohlforth W.C. (eds) Status in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. pp. 85-113.

48. Oğuz Ş. The future of Europe’s defence: NATO or an EU army? Turkish Policy Quarterly. 2017, Vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 59-68.

49. Paul T.V., Larson D.W., Wohlforth W.C. Status and World Order. In Paul T.V., Larson D.W., Wohlforth W.C. (eds) Status in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. pp. 3-31.

50. Renshon J.B. Fighting for Status: Hierarchy and Conflict in World Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017. 304 p.

51. Reykers Y.F. No Supply without Demand: Explaining the absence of the EU Battlegroups in Libya, Mali and the Central African Republic. European Security. 2016, Vol. 25. no. 3, pp. 346-365.

52. Risse-Kappen T. Cooperation among democracies: The European influence on US foreign policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995. 250 p.

53. Sanchez-Gijon A. On Spain, NATO and Democracy. In Politics and Security in the Southern Region of the Atlantic Alliance. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1988. pp. 96-116.

54. Sarotte M.E. 1989: the struggle to create post-Cold War Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. 321 p.

55. Schmitt O. The Reluctant Atlanticist: France’s Security and Defence Policy in a Transatlantic Context. Journal of Strategic Studies. 2017, Vol. 40, №4, pp. 463-474

56. Schmitt, O. French Military Adaptation in the Afghan War: Looking Inward or Outward? Journal of Strategic Studies. 2017, Vol. 40, no.4, pp. 577-599

57. Schreer B. A New "Pragmatism": Germany's NATO Policy. International Journal. 2009, Vol. 64, No. 2. P. 383-398

58. Sjursen H. On the Identity of NATO. International Affairs. 2004, Vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 687-703

59. Snyder G.H. Alliance politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997. 414 p.

60. Terriff, T. Fear and loathing in NATO: The Atlantic Alliance after the Crisis over Iraq. Perspectives on European Politics and Society. 2004, Vol.5, no. 3, pp. 419-446.

61. Vaisse M., Bozo F.(eds.) (1996). La France et l’OTAN, 1949– 1996, Bruxelles: Bruylant. 646 p.

62. Valasek T. France, NATO and EUropean Defence. Policy Brief. Centre for European Reform. May 12, 2008. URL: http://www.cer.eu/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/pdf/2011/policybrief_nato_12may2008-790.pdf (accessed 30.04.2019)

63. Volgy T. Corbetta R., Grant K., Baird R. (2011). Major Powers and the Quest for Status in International Politics: Global and Regional Perspectives. N.Y.: Springer, 242 p.

64. Wall I.M. France, the United States, and the Algerian War. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. 335 p.

65. Ward S. Status and the Challenge of Rising Powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. 277 p.

66. Waterman H., Zagorcheva D., Reiter D. Correspondence: NATO and Democracy. International Security. 2002, Vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 221-235.

67. Wendt A. Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 429 p


Review

For citations:


Istomin I.A., Bolgova I.V., Sokolov A.P., Avatkov V.A. A «Badge of Honour» or a «Stamp of Infamy»? NATO As A Marker of Status in International Politics. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2019;(2(65)):57-85. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2019-2-65-57-85

Views: 1971


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2071-8160 (Print)
ISSN 2541-9099 (Online)