Interpreting interventions: Identity, images, and the perception of normative behavior

I examine how states perceive and judge military interventions in world politics. Conventional approaches assume observers perceive a state's actions much the same, and that judgment varies either on the basis of material interest considerations or on the normative basis of intervention. I argue for a theory of “ethnocentric inference” that suggests differences in state identity leads to differences in the understanding, and thus evaluation, of interventions. I argue that evaluations of acts and actors are normatively driven, as constructivists suggest and materialists overlook. But I go further to argue that the interpretation of behavior interacts situationally with a state's self-image and image of the intervener. I trace this influence of identity and image in a series of case studies of US and US-led military interventions in the Post-Cold War era. I look at countries with various identities and images and how these effect interpretations of interventions justified on normative grounds. I conclude that perception is heavily influenced by prior ideational baggage, especially in situations of normative ambiguity. The clearer that an act is socially appropriate, the more perceptions converge; the more ambiguous the act, the more divergence in perceptions occurs along the lines of identity and image. In terms of intervention behavior and the United States' image abroad, these conclusions suggest that UN-authorized multilateralism mutes critics, whereas unilateralism empowers critics and creates negative images that could lead to a challenge to US power.