Ethnic interest group

An ethnic interest group, according to Thomas Ambrosio, is an interest group (often a foreign policy interest group) established along cultural, ethnic, religious or racial lines by an ethnic group for the purposes of directly or indirectly influencing the foreign policy of their resident country in support of the homeland and/or ethnic kin abroad with which they identify.

Common characteristics

Motivations and context

According to Ambrosio, "like other societal interest groups, ethnic identity groups establish formal organizations devoted to promoting group cohesiveness and addressing group concerns." While many formal organizations established by ethnic identity groups are apolitical, others are created explicitly for political purposes. In general, groups who seek to influence government policy on domestic or foreign issues are referred to as interest groups. Those interest groups established by ethnic identity groups are referred as to ethnic interest groups.

Foreign policy is often a focus

Main article: Foreign policy interest group

According to Thomas Ambrosio, most ethnic identity groups have connections outside their host country. These connections can be derived from membership in a diaspora, with ethnic kin in their historical homeland (eg. Anglo-Saxon Americans and Britain, Italian-Americans and Italy, Armenian-Americans and Armenia, Arab-Americans and the Middle East) or scattered among many countries (eg. Jewish-Americans, Palestinian-Americans), or based on perceived similarities with others even though they may share little or no common ancestry (eg. White Southerners and Afrikaners in South Africa, African-Americans and black South Africans, Muslims worldwide.) Because of the concern of the ethnic groups for "kin" in foreign states, many ethnic interest groups focus on influencing the foreign policy of their host countries to benefit there foreign "kin" and thus act as foreign policy interest groups.

Factors determining degree of influence

The influence of ethnic groups on the foreign policy of many states, including that of the United States, is "a reality", although these ethnic groups must "compete for influence with a plethora of other special interest groups and institutional interests." According to a literature review of the topic conducted by Patrick J. Heney and Walt Vanderbush, the primary factors that determine the relative strength of influence of an ethnic interest group are:

1. "Organizational strength -- organizational unity, a professional lobbying apparatus that provides useful information, and financial resources;
2. Membership unity, placement, and voter participation -- based on the group's electoral implications;
3. Salience and resonance of the message - the ability to influence public opinion;
4. Push on an open door -- ethnic interest groups will be more successful if they promote policies that the government already favors;
5. Strength of opposition
6. Permeability of and access to the government -- ethnic interest groups [in the context of the United States] are more likely to be successful when the policy in question requires a congressional role since it is usually more porous than the executive;
7. Mutually supportive relationships -- while groups need policy makers to do something for them, policymakers also need the ethnic interest groups. Ethnic interest groups may provide a host of valuable resources to policymakers, including information, votes, and campaign contributions."

Conflicting interpretations

The diversity that enriches our domestic life remains a recurrent cause of difficulties in our foreign relations. — U.S. Senator Charles Mathias (R-Md.)

The influence of ethnic interests groups on foreign policy formulation, according to Ambrosio, are often subject to one of two opposing interpretations by political observers, analysts, commentators and competing advocacy groups. One interpretations welcomes a multicultural foreign policy and thus views the influence of ethnic groups as legitimate. The opposing interpretation comes to a conclusion that the influence of ethnic interest groups can result in a parochial capture of a nation's foreign policy that harms the "true" national interest and common good.

Enriching multiculturalism

Those arguing for a multicultural foreign policy "see little wrong with ethnic groups having a voice in the foreign policy process." They tend to "believe that a more diverse foreign policy" results in the enrichment of the nation "both at home and abroad."

There are six common arguments in favor of the enriching multiculturalism interpretation:

1. "A multicultural foreign policy is a reflection of [a state's] liberal democratic ethos.
2. It respects the diversity of the [nation].
3. It serves as a correction for historically '[dominant ethnic group-centric]' foreign policies.
4. It helps to resist the trend towards isolationism.
5. It spreads democratic principles throughout the world.
6. Ethnic identity groups can reinforce [national] interests."

Parochial capture

Those who argue against the idea of a multicultural foreign policy influenced by domestic ethnic interest groups "often start with the premise that there exists 'objective' [national] interests that may (or may not) differ from the interests of substate political actors (ethnic, business or otherwise). Thus, a tension potentially exists between 'national' and 'special' interests. According to this argument, ethnic identity groups may harm the [nation] if these groups distract the [nation] from the pursuit of its national interests or induce it to pursue a foreign policy contrary to its national interests. In the worst-case scenario, ethnic groups can effectively hijack the foreign policy process and use the strength of [the nation] for their parochial interests."

There are seven common arguments in favor of the parochial capture interpretation:

1. "Ethnic interest groups often put their own interests ahead of '[national]' interests.
2. They undercut the foundations of [nation's] democracy.
3. They may be agents of foreign (and possibly hostile) governments.
4. They promote an incoherent foreign policy.
5. They resist/prevent necessary changes in [the nation's] foreign policy.
6. Certain ethnic interest groups are simply too powerful.
7. They may get the [nation] involved in conflicts where no [national] interest is threatened."

See also

• Interest group
• Ethnic group
• Ethnic interest groups in the United States
• Foreign policy interest group

Further reading

• Ambrosio, Thomas. 2002. "Ethnic identity groups and U.S. foreign policy." Praeger Publishers. ISBN 027597532
• Ahrari, Mohammed E. 1987. "Ethnic Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy." Greenwood Press. ISBN 0313254125
• Said, Abdul Aziz. 1981. "Ethnicity and U.S. Foreign Policy." Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0275907163