The Problem of Overextension: Analyzing America's Black Sea Policies through Jentleson's 4 Ps Framework.

• Author: Ulgul, Murat
• Position: ARTICLE

Introduction n November 2018, the Russian Navy fired on and seized three Ukrainian ships when they were passing through the Kerch Strait. Already frustrated by the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, Ukraine declared martial law and raised the possibility of 'full-scale war' with Russia (1) while Moscow exacerbated the issue by refusing to release twenty-four sailors from the ships despite calls from Western countries. One of the most serious reactions came from the American Congress as some respected senators recommended military action against Russia. "Putin is somebody that respects strength and territory. Words don't mean much to him. The action does, so I think we need to do more," said Republican Congressman John Barrasso, who has a seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (2) Military commanders were also in favor of a show of strength as the guided-missile destroyer USS Donald Cook was sent to Odesa, Ukraine's Black Sea port, to show solidarity. (3) The fact that more serious actions did not occur was mainly due to Trump's isolationism. Although his advisers recommended applying new sanctions against Russia or increasing the American naval presence in the Black Sea, what Trump did at most was to state that he did not like what happened and to cancel a meeting with Putin at the G20 Forum in Argentina, September, 2018. (4)

Trump's passivism toward Russia notwithstanding, the Kerch Strait affair demonstrates that the Black Sea region is still important for great power competition in general and American foreign policy in particular, despite the end of the Cold War. In this article, we will show the importance of the Black Sea in American foreign policy through both political history and international relations perspectives by examining certain foreign policy objectives of the U.S. In this regard, we borrow Bruce W. Jentleson's '4 Ps' framework which argues that there are four main foreign policy objectives that define American national interests: power, peace, prosperity, and principles. According to Jentleson, American interests abroad "almost always combines one or more of the 4 Ps" which are complementary but also regularly "pose trade-offs and tensions, and sometimes major dissensus." (5)

We choose Jentleson's framework to analyze U.S. Black Sea policy, as its constituting elements reflect major clashes of opinion about America's role in global affairs while combining major international relations theories at the same time. Americans differ about their country's appropriate role beyond the shores. The majority of Americans respect U.S. power and see their country as stronger than other countries, especially in terms of military power and technological achievements. (6) Americans, in general, prefer that the U.S. should maintain its superpower status in global affairs, while how the government should follow this objective is controversial. Whereas the Republicans are more inclined to favor military strength and unilateral action, Democrats overwhelmingly say diplomacy is the best method to ensure peaceful relations. (7) In this regard, the clash of realist and liberal theories can be visibly seen in these contradicting worldviews about the relationship between power and peace.

Prosperity is another critical variable in the conduct of American foreign policy. In partisan American politics, one of the rare agreements between the political parties is the belief that U.S. involvement in the global economy is a 'good thing' for Americans. (8) Nevertheless, as the trade wars and economic sanctions during the Trump Administration show, certain segments within the Republican Party believe that economic protectionism may be necessary for the prosperity of Americans while Democrats are more inclined to see free trade as a good thing while opposing protectionist policies. (9) In theoretical terms, this is the clash of mercantilism and liberalism.

Finally, principles create both common understanding and disagreements among the American public. While the majority of Americans saw themselves as an 'exceptional' nation and regarded the U.S. as a model country that should be taken as an example by other countries, throughout American history this self-perceived belief caused a significant ebb-and-flow between isolationism and internationalism. Internationalists believe that the U.S. has a responsibility to spread its values around the world, while isolationists prefer to stay away from the rest of the world community to keep the Americans pure and good. (10) The partisan difference today shows itself regarding this issue too, as compared to Republicans, Democrats are more inclined to promote democracy and human rights in other countries and be interested in helping to improve living standards in developing nations. (11) Therefore, while Jentleson's framework reflects foreign policy contradictions within the U.S., it also focuses on different variables prioritized by various international relations theories, especially realism (power), liberalism (peace, prosperity), and social constructivism (principles). All these controversies are important to understand the challenges the U.S. has faced in the Black Sea region since the end of the Cold War.

Below we will first explain the particulars of the 4 Ps framework and how it affects U.S foreign policy. By considering these elements, the next section will demonstrate American interest in the Black Sea region throughout history. Here we will show that in accordance with its power, the U.S. prioritized particular national interests at different periods and there was a relative consistency in the U.S. position over the Black Sea. The third section will concentrate on U.S. Black Sea policies after the Cold War and analyze how each administration focused on different goals in the 4 Ps framework, which prevented consistent and continuous policies in the region while leading to ambiguity in the minds of regional allies. The concluding section will summarize the findings and present a brief analysis of the Biden Administration's approach to the region.

4 Ps Framework: The Foreign Policy Objectives of the U.S.

Whether it is a great power or not, power is crucially important for all states mainly because it provides a basic need: security. In the anarchical international system, security and survival are the main concerns simply because states can never be certain of other states' intentions. That is why states try to increase their capabilities and relative gains by relying on power. (12) What Americans cannot agree on is how much power they need for security and survival. The supporters of primacy assume that the most secure way to survive is to be a hegemon within the international system as there is always a threat from other great powers who also seek global leadership. (13) In this view, power accumulation is a never-ending process while American leaders cannot avoid developments in other parts of the world.

Realists, on the other hand, believe that preserving power is more important than increasing it and they are mainly concerned with protecting the existing balance of power. Pointing out that the U.S. power is limited; realists are more inclined to share power with like-minded countries through alliances while increasing their military capacity. (14) Realists too are interested in developments in other regions, but only if these developments affect the existing balance of power. Finally, there is the strategy of retrenchment which argues that the best way to provide for U.S. security is to define core strategic interests and decrease the number of American security commitments around the world. The retrenchment proponents' understanding of American power is more pessimistic than primacists and realists while they believe that American shows of military power around the world have detrimental effects on security such as the rise of anti-Americanism. (15)

If one purpose of power accumulation is to provide security, the other is to realize peace, which is the second national interest in Jentleson's framework. All U.S. grand strategies we mentioned above believe in the possibility of peace through U.S. power. Primacists propose the hegemonic stability theory which assumes that the world is more peaceful under a hegemonic power that provides for governmental stability in an otherwise anarchical international society. (16) Realists reject this argument by pointing out that hegemonic rivalry is always present in the international system so the best way to secure peace is to rely on the balance of power between great powers. (17) The proponents of retrenchment, on the other hand, believe that multi-polarity is more peaceful, either because it prevents excessive and unnecessary show of force around the world by the U.S. or it satisfies other great powers by offering control in their spheres of influence. (18)

At the same time, we need to emphasize that peace is not only attained through power. Democratic peace theory argues that the rising number of democracies is the main reason for the declining amount of warfare among independent states since it is believed that democracies do not fight with each other. (19) This theory assumes that what the U.S. should do for global peace is to help democratization in the world. Another liberal theory, Liberal Institutionalism, holds that global peace is attainable through cooperation in international organizations and institutions because they play crucial roles as crisis-prevention mechanisms. (20) Finally, some liberals argue that economic interdependence through free trade gives states an important motivation to establish peaceful relations. Because the presence of conflict costs states the economic advantages of trade, they would be prone to establish peaceful relations if the level of international trade increases. (21)

The theory of economic interdependence brings us to another important U.S. national interest...