Does the comparative approach merit high priority?

Abstract

As I understand it, the 1971 regional A.A.A.S.S. symposium for which the papers presented here were originally prepared asked the authors to address themselves to three questions with regard to the comparative study of Communist foreign policies : (1) why should we compare, (2) what should we compare, and (3) how should we compare? The papers before us are long on “ why ” arguments, are short on “ what ” recommendations, and tell us almost nothing about “ how ” to do it. That is perfectly consistent with the difficulty of the questions. Unfortunately, the future of the comparative Communist foreign policy enterprise depends on the soundness of an integrated, rather than a sequential, answer to those questions. Roger Kanet’s approach to the “ why ” question is unobjectionable, but also not terribly useful. To argue against the reasons he advances for developing Comparative Communist Foreign Policies as a field would be like arguing against Motherhood. Study might broaden our understanding of the foreign policy process in general; might improve our understanding of how Communist policies differ from and are similar to the policies of non-Communist states; and might offer deeper insights than we might otherwise achieve into the foreign policies of particular Communist states. But while the virtues of Motherhood are unassailable in the abstract, it is necessary to arrive at puberty before getting pregnant; impregnation should be avoided when there is a high risk of miscarriage; and one ought to think about whether having a baby is the most useful or sensible nexr thing to do