Traditional middle powers
What does the "tyranny of distance" mean with respect to Australia? Touch on some key foreign policy issues and the role of geographic distance.
- While it is considered a "Western liberal democracy" it is not situated in the so-called geographic West
- It is a geographically dislocated actor in the international system with implications for its identity formation (both historically and in present day)
- The literal geographic distance between Australia and its impact on GDP is significant
- At the same time, while it is considered a Western liberal democratic state, it is situated in the Indo-Pacific/Oceania, so it is also heavily dependent on the markets/states in that region... and China
- China and Australia have had not-so-great diplomatic relations, but yet they are dependent on each other
- So where does its identity lie between the ideological (and traditional) proximity with the North Atlantic/Western Europe? Or geographical proximity with the Asia Pacific?
What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of maintaining a ‘modest’ foreign policy?
- Focus on domestic politics more than foreign policy goals (head down, avoid doing much on the global stage and focusing more on the problems at home)
- This is/can also be seen as a negative as it remains largely an outsider and may not receive as much attention/help from greater powers
- Foreign policy is usually of a regional focus and not so much global
- More concerned about its sovereignty than diplomacy, reduced spending commitments
- Is vulnerably to shifts in global politics, financial and climate/natural disaster crises at home- Does not have much of a say in shaping global norms and participating in key decisions
Free 100 points!
(I really could not come up with another question)
What are some of the characteristics (outlined in the lecture and readings) of small states?
- Significant power disparity
- Do not get a lot of focus in the academic literature (i.e., you can actually use one of the bigger theories on IR like realism to showcase this)
- Most are former colonies, decolonized in the post-WWII era (and can be marked by violence)
- Are often seen as hubs for collective action especially in the wake of the post-WWII era when a bunch of states decolonized and became independent (see NAM, G77, UNGA, NIEO)
- Sometimes smaller states end up banding together (i.e., ASEAN is very much made up of smaller states more than middle or regional powers)
- Solidarity among small powers on issues of trade, commodity, agriculture, and debt relief
- Vulnerable to shocks both military and economic, easier for a big country to invade
- Are oftentimes at the expense of larger corporations and extractive industries and intellectual property/patent theft
- You don't need to be a Global South country to be a small state and be impacted by economic shocks (see Iceland, we also talked about this for those in my PSCI 231 in the summer)
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 foreign policy strengths and weaknesses of Canadian foreign policy?
- Geographically and ideologically better placed (than say Australia)
- Has had a historic relationship with the United States and Western Europe
- Has a multilayered foreign policy: feminist foreign policy (FFP), cultural diplomacy, Indo-Pacific strategy, Africa strategy, etc.
- Has interests in the Arctic, Pacific, Atlantic, and the Americas
- Has been instrumental in the Peacekeeping Mission (1956 Suez Canal Crisis), Arctic Council (1996), UNDRIP (this is questionable), Ottawa Treaty banning the use of Landmines (1997)
- Cautious, fairly predictable foreign policy (perhaps this is also a negative depending how you frame it), not as willing to call out other countries as say Australia is
- Recent tensions with the Trump administration/U.S. has revealed the ways in which Canada has some incentive to decouple or not rely as much on American trade as it is running a large deficit
- Does Canada turn back to China (even though it has had some issues in recent years with Canada-China relations)
Discuss Mexico's break from solidarity with the Global South? What are its implications?
- Rise of the cult of technocracy and competitiveness in the 1980s
- Significant ideological change (and economic, too) away from developmental/import substitution towards the more neoliberal/export-led model of development and growth among the public
- Educating of technocrats in the United States
- Decline of developmentalism and embracing foreign ownership and investment
- This has also caused a bit of internal resistance to agreements like NAFTA such as the Zapatista movement
- Exploring more closer integration with more Western/Global North powers to diversify its assets/power projection which put aside the Global South to a degree
- Has embraced North America to a large degree (NAFTA, USMCA) even though there are many risks associated with it mainly due to the unpredictability of the Trump administration, drop/loss of output in GDP, tequila crisis
In what ways are countries like South Korea and Mexico are tied to the regional hegemon? Highlight areas of foreign policy where they are intrinsically linked and give specific examples.
- Both are economically constrained to the United States in some way (though SK is more reliant on China than Mexico is) and have "free" trade agreements with the U.S. (USMCA or NAFTA previously)
- Mexico has significant issues related to migration and the border with the United States, and it has had to negotiate its way out of tariffs (with the Trump administration for example) by stating that it will crack down on illegal border crossing and the fentanyl problem
- South Korea's largest trading partner is China, Mexico's is the United States
- Difference is that South Korea can be much more assertive than Mexico which usually prefers to be defensive/cautious (though this might be changing)
In what ways does Singapore leverage its assets in its foreign policy? Use examples.
- Is an Asian Tiger (saw much economic success in the 1980s) and its location is an asset (seen as a global hub in Asia)
- Has a lot in sovereign wealth funds, is the 9th largest in the world and is successful in its own rite in regional terms (lots of trade with ASEAN member states)-High end tourism, positive attraction and relative soft power
- Challenges the idea that island states are inherently weak, vulnerable, and will descend into failure
- Corporatism development, attracts foreign capital, redistribution of wealth/welfarism, etc.
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?
Discuss the ways in which Australia strives to be a "good international citizen"
- Plays up on the good international citizen by not just being self-interested
- Takes a more activist/aggressive approach in its problem-solving orientation (in comparison to Canada for example)
- Has historical links with the United States and the United Kingdom (was the third to join the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance)
- Has sought to project its power through institutions, policy leadership, etc. is an advocate of UNSC Reform, hosted the UN Roundtable discussion on Equality, Rights, and Progress towards the Millennium Development Goals
- Guided by followership, has gone into wars (Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan) with the United States and has declared its support/commitment to the War on Terror in the Bush era
- But the counter to this is that Australia has offshore migrant camps which is at odds with this ideal of a "GIC" and has had a bit of reputational damage
- Also war crimes (lots of them)
Take Indonesia as a case, what is Indonesia’s perception of its role in the international order? How (if applicable) does it challenge or maintain the status quo?
- Has had a legacy of constraints that has impacted its ability to be a global leader in recent years (though it was briefly an anti-colonial leader in the 1950s)
- Has not elevated its role in formal IOs, multilateralism, no visible campaigns for a UNSC seat, does not even critique it
- Indonesia's only real "big" gamble politically and economically is with ASEAN and doing things the "ASEAN Way" though it is very reluctant to make big political statements or be involved in negotiations of any kind (South China Sea dispute, lowkey, also has had significant sovereignty problems with countries in the past)
- No explicit strategy from Indonesia to enhance its status in the world, has refused to join BRICS as well
- Is a bridge builder more than a global leader
In what ways does domestic/national interest overlap with foreign policy? How might domestic issues impact a state's approaches to diplomacy? Use examples with regard to specific countries to make your answer more credible/analytical.
- Need to protect national security/maintain internal stability (i.e., The United States after 9/11 and the War on Terror, securitization (folks from PSCI 281 will know this), it can affect (and did) affect its relationships with countries in the Middle East
- Desire to uphold economic interests and trade, investment, expand into the global markets (i.e., China is a good example with its Belt and Road Initiative) as it wants to divert other countries away from working with the United States or Western powers to build infrastructure, deepen dependency, and project power (and home in on the economic growth at home too)
- Promotion of the international order (liberal world order), human rights, and democracy (i.e., Canada has been typically good at this), we strive to paint ourselves (and our foreign policy) as being peacekeepers, leading the way on eradicating poverty, shaping the "rules-based international order" but there have been challenges to this (i.e., refusal to ratify UNDRIP is hypocritical)
- Social issues and immigration (i.e., see the case of Germany or other European Union nations) the Syrian Refugee Crisis impacted its foreign policy as Merkel's decision to have open borders on the basis that it was driven by its "domestic values" eventually caused a lot of domestic backlash, rise of populism/far-right movements that were opposed to migrant quotas
Free 300 points!
(Sorry, it was hard to come up with questions)
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 is used to define a middle power? What are some of its features?
- Middle powers are states with "medium range capabilities" and sufficient resources at their disposal to generally protect their core interests
- Generally speaking: size, behaviour, identity, and impact are the elements used to define middle powers
- They often have more complex political structures and government institutions in comparison to small states (or even non-traditional powers), advanced foreign policy, are regionally dominant, and are recognized by others as being significant
- Features: interest in supporting the international system, are geographically scattered, heterogeneous.
What are some key features and problems that non-traditional middle powers face?
- Often do not have democratic traditions of traditional middle powers like Canada and Australia and are often held back by a form of colonial, military/authoritarian rule or violence either in the past or present
- More prone to political unrest and changing political system(s), likely experienced some type of trauma (see first point)
- Often have rampant corruption (i.e., Indonesia, though the same could be said about Western countries as well if you make a case for it/better at hiding it, maybe?)
- Have differing ideas/ambitions, some look to speak for the regional or being a regional hub, some are not and do not move up in the "hierarchy" and overcome constraints
What is the impact of South Korea's global reach vis-a-vis soft power?
- Big big big on soft power and exporting its cultural icons abroad: K-pop (listen to Jennie's new album), k-drama, manhwa (Kami no Tou is GREAT), k-cinema (Parasite is a really good example here!)
- It's soft power has traditionally derived from the country's significant economic growth as well as the means of which it was able to achieve such economic success (see Asian Tiger movement 1980s)
- Technological power and cars (KIA, LG, Samsung, Hyundai, etc.) and big exporter to the U.S.
- Has served as a development model for other countries in the region
What is the culture of "risk" in small state foreign policy?
- Some will have to take risks regardless (go big or go home) see Asian Tigers like Singapore and South Korea to see how taking risks paid off for them
- Have only a few certainties (much can be out of their control)
- Being a small state does have an impact/restrain agency
- In cases like Singapore and Qatar though, they do have some weight behind them and therefore are not constrained like other, not-so-notable states
- Have some inclination for self-help even if they do to some degree show "good international citizenship" mediation in the case of Qatar and the conflict between Israel and Hamas
- Certain actions (or inaction) can cause reputational damage
- Despite some successes, you can still be alienated in the region (see Qatar) and also its image compromised by poor domestic policies/situation
- You have to embrace a certain type of "uniqueness" which may be unconventional (i.e., see Al Jazeera)
In what ways does the Jacksonian and Jeffersonian School of foreign policy show up in American politics? Tell me the core tenets of each school (2-3 minimum) and use examples with specific reference to a U.S. President.
Jacksonian school:
- 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
Jeffersonian School:
- American exceptionalism/isolationism
- Self-governance (suspicious of big government/elites)
- Cooperative at home, isolationist abroad
- Agricultural, not industrial
- Highly exclusive/racist (endorses slavery, no political rights/space for African Americans)
- Revere supreme on the Second Amendment (more than Jacksonians)
What is a dilemma that traditional middle powers face? How might they differ from those of non-traditional powers?
- Traditional middle powers: Have much more security in their alliances and typically their economy, typically have a good amount of natural resources or technological innovation to offer, but might be dependent on a great power for military security, may not have as much wiggle room to divert to another ally (if the great power is not on good terms with that particular country), have more global engagement/recognition
- Non-traditional middle powers: Are often still emerging economies, may not have much in terms of natural resources/technological innovation, most likely rely on great powers more for military security or assistance, but have greater flexibility in foreign policy due to not being tied by traditional alliances or expectations, but may not have as much global engagement/recognition, could face challenges to defending their sovereignty
What are some domestic constraints in South African foreign policy? Use 2-3 examples.
- The historic role of apartheid (and its lingering effects) due to a deeply polarized population, racial inequities, inequalities, etc.
- Much more regionally uncomfortable, is part of much more unstable/struggling coalitions such as BRICS, only African country that is in the G20 for example
- Has been traditionally isolationist in the 1980s and tried to assert itself as a responsible global citizen... much to its ineffectiveness/poor result(s)?
In what ways does geography help or constrain a state's foreign policy? Use examples with regard to specific countries and how they are advantaged (or disadvantaged) by their location/geography.
- The closer you are to your allies (both geographically and ideologically), the better (usually)
- This can be a positive or negative, but often times this closeness can also dictate a large majority of a state's foreign policy (placing emphasis on certain areas at the expense of others)
- More of a negative point is that the closer you are to your allies, the more reactive and deeply affected you will be by changes in their foreign policy (as they will be in yours)
- In the case of Australia, South Korea, and even Japan for example, while they align more with general principles of democracy (questionable in the last two), they are isolated/far away from some of their largest trading partners or closer allies
- Even more ambitious or "rising" states depending on how you see it (like India) have to cope in a difficult region (may not be conducive to their foreign policy goals, have issues related to sovereignty or historical rivalries of some kind (see India and Pakistan or China)
- Are typically surrounded by bigger countries
What challenges do you think small states pose to greater powers? For example, how can small states exert their own levels of influence (e.g., in the United Nations General Assembly or Security Council)?
- They (great powers) might have power, but small states may outnumber them on certain areas/issues
- Can be perceived as irritants and mavericks by greater/bigger powers in the international system and often have creative diplomatic means or ways of fighting against the status quo
- Generally, small powers are disadvantaged in formal international organizations and institutions and may band together to find ways to reform these institutions or make their own in pursuit of greater equity
- Being anti-colonial or increasingly skeptical/critical of Western powers and their policies/approaches
What is "American Exceptionalism" in foreign policy? Refer to the school that the concept is associated with.
- 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