U.S. Foreign Policy
What is the Wilsonian school of foreign policy and what President(s) (if any) are said to emulate it?
- Pushed for new institutions after the end of WWI (League of Nations)/ambitious, but ultimately failed
- Wilsonians are very optomistic, more or less "pro-Globalization"
- Strong in defense of small, European states/against tenets of realism, an idealist
- Often seen as the dominant school with focus on liberal traditions
- Reluctant "war maker"
- Was, however, incredibly racist and was FOR the segregation of African-Americans in terms of domestic policy agendas
- Some similarities to Trump (before 2025... perhaps) as he wanted to be the first "No New Wars President"
- Glasser/Mead suggest that Wilsonian foreign policy agendas have failed pretty frequently
Is China a "challenger" or "rising power" in the international system? What factors have allowed it to grow and be brought into a wider set of global institutions?
- Disgruntled with status quo? Treated unfairly by states throughout the 1900s
- Engagement by the West, integration into the international system has allowed China to stand on its own two feet and challenge the dominant position
- BRI, BRICS, AIIB, Shanghai Cooperation Organization
- Took a while for it to come into international institutions, often with the caveat that it adopt Western ideas of democracy and economic freedom (see Bill Clinton's remarks for the WTO). However, China paved its own way and has become a major player in not only adopting norms, but creating them or challenging pre-existing ones (see R2P)
- Wants UNSC reform, resistance to intervention in Libya, Syria
- Different ideas on how the world works
- See Discussion Week 3 PowerPoint slides for ideas onto how to answer this question further
What are some of the pros and cons that a state must consider when being part of the European Union?
Pros:
- Often has a shared set of common values/criteria to joining: stable institutions, guaranteeing democracy, rule of law, human rights, respect for minorities, functioning market economy, adherence to political/economic aims
- Biggest bloc of countries on one continent and enhancing its bargaining power, promotion of regional stability and diplomatic solutions
- Soft power (culturally and globally the EU is a hotspot for tourism, media, architecture, economic hub, ability to work in one country/live in another, popular films, etc.)
Cons:
- Unanimity requirement, often requires a large consensus among member states leading to stalled/slow responses
- Diversified interests (can be a positive, but most of the time it is seen as a hinderance because the varying national interests make it difficult to formulate a cohesive foreign policy), internal divisions especially on migration/immigration
- No classic hard power/military capability, relies on NATO for defense (not all EU members are NATO members either)
- Recent fragmentation among member states, war in Europe/Ukraine, conflict in the Middle East
What are some of the domestic constraints in Brazil's foreign policy?
- Went from being under military leadership to a "democracy"
- Still has a very large population that is impoverished, big inequality gap/issues to deal with, has the second highest amount of income concentrated in the top 1%
- Often polarized domestic politics/divisions/ideas
- Hunger/health a problem
Brazil and status via environmental foreign policy: a global leader or symptom of failure?
- Big participant in international agreements, climate negotiations, "halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030"
- Large biodiversity initiatives, home to approximately 10% of the world's biodiversity, rich ecosystems
- Lula/big on UN sustainable development goals
Global failure:
- Criticism for increase in deforestation rates, undermining its environmental protection
- Consistent failure to meet climate targets under the Paris Agreement
- Bolsonaro's administration saw significant rollbacks on environmental protections, exploitation of natural resources, etc.
Does Biden fit in with any of the personalist foreign policy traditions? Why or why not?
- Glasser thinks that over the last few decades its been a mix of Wilsonians, Hamiltonians (with the exception of Trump)
- Can be considered part of the Hamiltonian, focus on allies like Ukraine
- Wants strong institutions (Hamiltonian)
- Emphasis on internationalism, multilateralism/diplomacy
- Economic engagements and strategic partnerships: free trade and not protectionism (tariffs)
- Hamiltonians are less normative than Wilsonians (departure?)
What are the four phases of China's "outlook" on the international order?
- 2nd phase: Integrationist, Republican China (1896-1939), fragile period in time (Japanese occupation)
- 3rd phase: Revisionist/spoiler: Under Mao (1949-1976), he wanted to revise the international world order vis-a-vis his solidarity with the Global South
- 4th phase: Integrationist after setbacks (with Deng Xiaoping's reforms to the present day)
What is the so-called "faceless" personality of EU foreign policy?
- No classic/big personalities, big leaders, does not act as an ordinary actor, who speaks for the EU? The head of the European Commission (maybe, Ursula von der Leyen) but even then?
- No overall President, although presidents of EU not only of Commission but Council
- "Europe's voice" > individual voices are the most important
- Everybody interacts by the same standards, therefore citizens, businesses and societies all benefit and history has shown success with that approach
- Tries to act collectively, but comes under pressure at the national level as defense of sovereignty/own self-interests typically always prevail
- Anti-realist perhaps? Focus is on building a strong community and not going to war with each other
What role does the environment play in Brazilian foreign policy?
- Recent increase of wildfires in the last 10 years, dramatic, deforestation is a big problem
- Bolsonaro: not big on catering to the environmental concerns/activists
- Lula: bigger push on environmental norms and part of environmental conferences in the past 1992, and in the future COP 30 2025
- Supports UN Sustainable Development Goals and integrates it into its policy framework, Convention on Biodiversity
- Polarization about what type of development that Brazil should pursue on environmental norms/practices
What are some of the core tenets of realism in international politics and why is there a bias/tendency towards "big states" in this theory?
- State-centrism (only the state that matters in international politics as an actor)
- Presence of anarchy, no overarching authority to enforce rules or resolve disputes
- Self-help system created, every state fends for itself
- States then act on/prioritize their own national interest/survival and security above all else
- Pragmatic/pessimistic view of world politics and human nature as being power hungry (as opposed to liberal theory/traditions)
- Big states have the most power, set the rules/agenda, have military and latent power, greater capacity to project their power and get what they want, influence norms, are typically seen as the "victors" (China challenges this to an extent)
What is the Jacksonian school of foreign policy? What does it entail and what President(s) (if any) are said to emulate it?
- Wants to be seen as anti-establishment, aggressive, "big man"/warrior diplomacy
- Populist streak, mistrust of government elites like Jeffersonian, but not as intellectual/traditional
- Supports annexation of Texas/forced removal of Native Americans
- Very little focus on economics/transaction costs
- At odds with Wilsonian approaches, desire to defend/expand the homeland and not focused on improving the world as much
- Self-help oriented
- Sincerely attached to the Constitution
- Very much Trump
What are some of the challenges in conceptualizing Chinese foreign policy from a theoretical and/or practical standpoint?
- No agreement between Chinese IR scholars as to what constitutes as Chinese IRT/FP approaches
- No core assumptions to fall back on that one could identify as being a "Chinese theory"
- Potential doublespeak on Chinese FP: is it peaceful or aggressive?/contradictory objectives
- Related to this, does it display soft power or hard power?
- The legacy of historical grievances heavily influences China's foreign policy (i.e., driven by the national interest)
What are some of the core features of the European Union's structure?
- Highly bureaucratic/complex structure
- There is The Commission, The Council and EU Parliament, supranationalism versus individual states, is quite messy
- Council is the one that defines the political direction and priorities of the EU
- Commission is the one that represents the whole of EU as a collective and proposes new legislation (kind of like the legislative body for the EU so-to-speak), ensures laws are applied by member countries (can be also seen as interfering with national policies)
- Parliament is the supposed representative of EU citizens and is the only democratically/directly elected EU institution, been accused of a democratic deficit (i.e., Council and Commission are not elected like this), out of touch with citizens
- Very different form of agency due to different objectives, national/historical circumstances of member countries
What are some of the outstanding challenges India faces in foreign policy (both historical challenges and present ones)? Why are they important?
- The world's biggest "democracy" in terms of population and size, but at home, rife with domestic conflict, ethnic/cultural/religious tensions
- Territorial sovereignty and tensions (see below, but China is not the only example), historic rivalries/wars with Pakistan
- Sino-Indian conflicts, border disputes in the Aksai Chin region/valley, longstanding issues with China, seeks to balance against China, is part of the Quad (security dialogue)
- Is it truly aligned with the Global South? See its recent moves towards the United States, "West" generally speaking, Israel, but also there is now a conflict/tensions with Canada
- Wants a more elevated status at the UN, but does not have a UNSC seat
- Uneven development across the country, wracked by COVID-19 from a health-infrastructure prespective (domestically)
Free 300 points!
Yay!
What is "American exceptionalism" and how does it impact U.S. foreign policy?
- Define what American exceptionalism is first. The belief that the United States is inherently different from other nations, often due to its unique history, political system, and values.
- Kind of a core tenet of Jeffersonian democracy
- Isolationism, stay out of the world's problems
- Favours democracy abroad but not at the expense of higher taxes or big government (hates big government)
- Resistance to multilateralism
- Cooperation at home and not abroad
- However, is highly exclusive/racist
What is the relationship between China and complex interdependence?
- China is a major player in global trade, its economy is deeply intertwined with other countries like the United States
- Key component of global supply chain and supply manufacturing goes to US/EU
- China has a trade surplus of 49.8 billion, has been accused of being an unfair trader
- Belt and Road Initiative. It is a transcontinental trade passageway or highway of sorts both by land and sea from Southeast Asia through to Europe, Latin America, and Africa. Critics have accused China’s BRI as coaxing countries into a “debt trap diplomacy”. G7 has tried to emulate this project by introducing a counterbalance through the Build Back Better World (B3W). China’s approach in this initiative reflects moral realism because it focuses on long-term, sustainable development rather than short-term gains. Using our moral realist lenses, it serves Chinese strategic interest in terms of economic influence and global positioning, but the ethical dimension involves (at least on paper) helping developing countries improve their infrastructure and economy.
- Has implications beyond economic security/interests, as its rise and GDP growth have sparked cause for concern among countries in the region
- Decoupling?
What are some of the major challenges to EU foreign policy (both historical challenges and present ones)? Why are they important?
- Enlargement policy is waning and being challenged/more difficult for countries to get in these days (i.e., see Turkey that has had candidacy status since 1999), some stipulations force countries to come to terms with how they treat minorities/uphold democracy (which they do not want to do)
- Diverse national interests between countries/member states, some wanting to pull out and politically different (see the rise of far-right parties)
- Not all states are super receptive to some other member states (historic rivalries)
- Some states are leaning more towards China versus the West
- War in Ukraine, rising tensions with Russia, some are leaning towards Russia rather than being aligned with EU, oil/gas has become a problem due to this crisis
- Migration/refugee crisis particularly from major conflict zones (Ukraine/Middle East/Africa)
What does the "Great Game" entail for Indian foreign policy?
The "Great game" refers to strategic rivalries between the British/Russian empire in the 19th century over Central Asia
- India back then was of strategic importance for the British Empire, colonialism, military bases, resources, protecting interests from Russian expansion
- Set the stage for geopolitical dynamics in the 21st century
- How does India balance the "new great game" particularly with China as it seeks to become the regional hegemon (i.e., according to realists and others), plays out BETWEEN India and China
Does China have soft power? Hard power? Or a mix of both (sharp power)? Justify your answer.
Soft power:
- Cultural diplomacy/initiatives, Confucius Institutes, media influence shaping narratives about China, music/literature, films, etc. becoming increasingly popular abroad
- Economic aid and development (BRI/SCO/BRICS), investing in infrastructure of its own and other countries much to the displeasure of the U.S.
Hard power:
- Military expansion, territorial/maritime assertiveness in the East and South China Seas (hostile encounters), naval power, technology building
- Economic might and coercion, imposing trade restrictions due to political disagreements (see Australia 2017/2018, see recent tariff on U.S.)
Sharp power:
- Potential manipulation of information, using media and cultural influence to manipulate perceptions and undermine institutions of other countries (arguably the West actually does this too but we are conditioned to accept that its not propaganda)
- Censorship and control of information and narratives domestically and internationally (The Great "Firewall")
- Alleged cyberattacks on critical infrastructure/technology
What are some of the outstanding challenges of U.S. foreign policy (both historical challenges and present ones)? Why are they important?
- China's rise, a "Cold War 2.0"
- Climate change, not as important under the Trump administration
- Economy: what is even happening here? Tariffs, "America-First"
Why are the South China Sea disputes important for intra- and extra-regional powers from a foreign policy perspective?
- Critical sea lines of communications (SLOCs), maritime route for international trade (connection point between Indian/Pacific Oceans) nearly one-third of all global trade passes through the SCS
- Untapped natural gas and oil deposits under the seabed, fishing, etc.
- Area where naval supremacy is put on display (i.e., hostile encounters, FONOPs, etc.)
- Unresolved sovereignty claims over various islands, islets, atolls, rock features, etc., artificial island building, militarizing them, etc.
- Chinese aggression, ramping up confrontational behaviour, potentially another arbitration case being planned
- Trump administration: does he call out Chinese/flex military might with more FONOPs/agreements with allies in the region? Or does he go soft?
What is the role of "soft power" in the context of the European Union's foreign policy? How does it contrast with hard power of other countries?
- Promotion of values/membership criteria: democracy, human rights, rule of law, stable governments/institutions
- Cultural exchanges, economic ones too, cooperation and trade agreements
- Prioritizes diplomatic resolutions and negotiation over military intervention (this can also be a con depending how you look at it)
- EU positions itself as a leader in addressing climate change and advocating sustainable development
- Hard power is none of that, it is coercive, defined by military threats (whether real or perceived), etc. EU does not have a central military, etc. see U.S. or even China for some better examples of hard/sharp power.
In what ways are there parallels to Brazil from the perspective of India and its institutional choices?
Parallels:
- Both are more or less part of the Global South bloc of countries
- Neither have a UNSC seat
- Have a history of colonialism and internal strife, absent from post-1945 institutional creation and treaty talks that ended WWII
- Have a common goal of how to gain a greater status, both big "democracies"
- Committed to multilateralism, and have some ideas on sustainable development/environment
- Both are part of BRICS (B and the I, duh)
- Large involvement/relationship with the U.S., have a lot of focus on cultural diplomacy
- While Brazil was never a member of the Non-Alignment movement, it is a founding member of the G-77 that has strong links with NAM
- Ideas on global reform/some norms (Responsibilities while Protecting = RWP)
- Both are split between idealism and realism
What are some concerns within society (across countries) that complicate forces in the pursuit of foreign policy?
- Define what the national interest is: states seek to protect or achieve in relation to each other, bias towards realism and state-centrism
- Different administrations/parties have different interests and ideas on how one should approach the world and solve its problems
- Who defines what the "national interest" is?, the application of national interest is complicated (i.e., Trump/Brexit) what gives these supporters unity?
- Some want more international focus/involvement, others prefer to focus on domestic issues at home... others are a bit of both
- Domestic politics/public opinion can certainly impact foreign policy (i.e., see potentially South China Sea disputes and Chinese attitudes towards dispute)
- Socioeconomic concerns: economic inequality, identity politics/cultural/ethnic tensions, historical grievances, public safety, climate change