A diversionary foreign policy, or a diversionary war, is an international relations term that identifies a war instigated by a country's leader in order to distract its population from its own domestic strife. The concept stems from the Diversionary War Theory, which states that leaders who are threatened by domestic turmoil may initiate an international conflict in order to improve their standing. There are two primary mechanisms behind diversionary war: a manipulation of the rally 'round the flag effect, causing an increase of national fervor from the general public,Sobek, David. "Rallying Around the Podesta: Testing Diversionary Theory Across Time." Journal of Peace Research 44.1 (2007): 29–45. 20 Oct. 2008 <http://jpr.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/44/1/29>. and "gambling for resurrection", whereby a leader in a perilous domestic situation takes high-risk foreign policy decisions with a small chance of success but with a high reward if successful.
Scholars of international relations have dedicated much research to the practical application of diversionary war. A large percentage investigates presidents of the United States and their disputed culpability for partaking in diversionary foreign policy.DeRouen, Karl. "Presidents and the Diversionary Use of Force: A Research Note." International Studies Quarterly 44.2 (2000): 317–328. American University. 20 Oct. 2008. Despite the immense amount of effort and research, scholars have not yet formed a consensus on the accuracy of the theory, and empirical evidence is mixed at best.Mowle, Thomas S. "Worldviews in Foreign Policy: Realism Liberalism, and External Conflict." Political Psychology 24.3 (2003): 561–592. American University. 20 Oct. 2008.
Effects Intended Generally, the pursuit of a diversionary foreign policy may offer the leader in power four benefits, all of which increase their ability to remain in power: A successful diversionary foreign policy could increase support for the domestic regime. This in turn increases the government's time to address their internal trouble. Artificial tension created from the international conflict may justify a leader's suppression of dissent. The war abroad could distract the population from the issues that induced the original dissatisfaction with the government. The external threat may unify the country through the rally 'round the flag effect by creating a new out-group other than the government for the population to direct its dissatisfaction.
Negative However, all of these benefits depend on success in said diversionary foreign policy. Failure in these international actions would backfire against the leader's initial intent. As a result, the leader would likely face more domestic strife, possibly hastening their loss of power.Chiozza, Giacomo. "Peace through Insecurity: Tenure and International Conflict." The Journal of Conflict Resolution 47.4 (2003): 443–467. American University. 20 Oct. 2008. . Nevertheless, this possible negative effect is addressed in the Diversionary War Theory. The theory itself states that rational leaders facing a near inevitable removal from office become more likely to gamble on a risky diversionary war. If the existing dissatisfaction is prompting their removal from office, a diversionary foreign policy only leaves room for gain.Smith, Alastair. "Diversionary Foreign Policy in Democratic Systems." International Studies Quarterly 40.1 (1996): 133–153. American University. 20 Oct. 2008. .
Evolution Although the theory was not officially addressed in academia until the past half-century, the benefits of a diversionary foreign policy had long been accepted by governments and others as conventional wisdom.Burbach, David T.. "Diversionary Temptations: Presidential Incentives and the Political Use of Force." MIT.edu. 20 October 2008 <stuff.mit.edu/people/dburbach/burbach_diss_intro.pdf>
In 1956, Simmel and Lewis A. Coser both published work applying the in-group/out-group psychology hypothesis towards International Relations. Essentially, their work postulated that populations of nations increase their cohesion during times of conflict with an out-group (another nation, organization, etc.). This often includes rallying around the country's leader. As an example, President George W. Bush's approval ratings soared to 80% following the attacks on September 11, 2001. This type of response suggests that leaders have an incentive to manufacture conflict whenever they are in the need of a boost of popularity. However, a 2022 study found that, using similar logic, presidents receive similar approval boosts when terminating a conflict.. This lessens the cynicism required for most theories of diversionary foreign policy and shows evidence of another tool presidents can, and may, use for diversionary purposes.
From this assertion, scholars have used this conventional wisdom to expand and test the theory's true applications. A significant number of studies have attempted to establish connections between the instigation of war as a way to divert attention from a struggling economy, or general low approval ratings. In addition, the theory has diverged into contemporary and traditional perspectives.
Conditions that lead to diversionary foreign policy The purpose of diversionary foreign policy is to divert the attention of the public away from domestic issues. This means that the conditions leading to diversionary tactics include any sort of domestic unrest. This incorporates dissatisfaction with domestic policies and poor economic conditions. The theory predicts that the use of external force will increase the chance of reelection, so it would be used during a time when the president does not seem to have a good chance of reelection. The necessary conditions of the opposing state differ based on which theory one ascribes to, traditional or contemporary. The traditional view of diversionary foreign policy suggests that a state will target another in which conflict is likely to be prolonged, which would be against states with comparable military capabilities. According to this point of view, the prospect of victory is not the most important aspect in choosing an enemy because it is based on a sociological "in-group/out-group" perspective. This refers to the increase of cohesion among the "in-group" because of the common enemy or "out-group". On the other hand, contemporary diversionary theory states that, due to the uncertainty of international relations and the high cost of war, a state is more likely to prey on a weaker state where victory will be more quickly and easily obtained.Foster, Dennis. "Relative Capabilities and American Diversionary Targeting Decisions" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois, Apr 15, 2004 Overall, diversionary foreign policy is more likely seen in a major power because they are less constrained by the international community. It is also seen more in democracies where the government needs to be more responsive to public sentiment.Morgan, Clifton. "Domestic Support and Diversionary External Conflict in Great Britain, 1950–1992." The Journal of Politics 61.3 (1999): 799–814. American University. 20 Oct. 2008. . Election cycles have a lot to do with diversionary wars because a war ideally increases the chance that the incumbent administration will remain.
The dynamics of diversionary behavior in nondemocratic regimes is less clear, as autocratic leaders may not be beholden to election cycles or may be less affected by negative sentiment in ways their democratic counterparts would be, and thus may not be a cause of diversionary war. Autocracies thus face varying levels of domestic constraint and diverse goals which may be absent in representative societies, and the leadership of these states may not wish to risk war. The institutional composition of a regime may serve as a determining factor in the diversionary goals and resultant choice of diversionary foreign policy in these states, as the level of control in highly institutionalized autocracies allows for the effective use of traditionally overlooked, and comparatively peaceful diversionary strategies outside of war.
Examples Pre World War II Hundred Years War In 1415, King Henry V of England invaded France shortly after his succession to the throne, resulting in a short campaign and a resounding victory at the Battle of Agincourt. This campaign initiated the third phase of the Hundred Years' War (1415–1453) termed the Lancastrian War.
Sir John Keegan has opined that the primary motivation for Henry's decision to invade France (ostensibly asserting, "on dubious legal grounds", a claim to the succession of the French throne), was to solidify his popularity at home and quell unrest from other English nobles, several of whom questioned the legitimacy of his dynasty, since his father, Henry IV, had usurped the throne from Richard II.Keegan, John. The Face of Battle (1976), John Cape, London, .
French Revolutionary Wars of 1792 In 1792, the French Government comprised a newly formed National Assembly, which had replaced King Louis XVI. In order to unify its citizens under the new flag and new leadership, the National Assembly began the French Revolutionary Wars. It first declared war on Austria, soon to be joined by Prussia.Cashman, Gregg. What Causes War? An Introduction to Theories of International Conflict. Salisbury, MD: Lexington Books, 1999.
Invasion of Algiers (1830) A number of writers and historians contend that Charles X's decision to invade the Regency of Algiers in 1830 (which marked the beginning of a French conquest of Algeria that would last decades) was, as least partly, motivated by a desire to distract the French public from his government's increasing unpopularity. Rachel Eva Schley states that in 1827, Minister of War Aimé-Marie-Gaspard de Clermont-Tonnerre believed that "a political and military distraction was imperative" to boost the king's international stature, and to divert attention away "from troubles at home."
Franco-Prussian War Otto von Bismarck utilized diversionary foreign policy often during his quest to unify Germany. These wars distracted the German people from the cultural differences that previously had prevented them from forming a single country. Bismarck used the success of the 1870–1871 Franco-Prussian War in a similar fashion, officially establishing a German Empire following the siege of Paris.Watman, Kenneth. The Relationship Between Regime Strength and the Propensity. Columbus: Ohio State University, 2003.
Russo-Japanese War One historical example that demonstrates the conventional acceptance of the effectiveness of a diversionary war is the Russo-Japanese War of 1904. During the months leading up war, Russia experienced numerous workers strikes that lead to internal unsettledness.Kowner, Rotem. Historical Dictionary of the Russo-Japanese War. Lantham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, 2006 These strikes coincided with the Russians' negotiations with the Japanese over expansion in Manchuria and Korea. It has been argued that, as a way to distract their population, Tsar Nicholas II and his ministers decided to goad the Japanese into declaring war, thereby turning Japan into the needed out-group. In fact, Russia's Minister of the Interior, Vyacheslav von Plehve, stated before starting the war:Morgan, Clifton, Diana Richards, Val Schwebach, Rick Wilson, and Garry Young. "Good Times, Bad Times, and the Diversionary Use of Force: A Tale of Some Not-So-Free Agents." The Journal of Conflict Resolution 37.3 (1993): 504–535. American University. 20 October 2008. .What this country needs is a short victorious war to stem the tide of revolution.