Abstract
AbstractResearch on foreign policy change claims leaders seek to restructure their country's foreign relations when internal and external opportunity structures are permissive. However, a number of prominent efforts at achieving change have occurred during times of considerable domestic upheaval and rigid international constraints. To understand why, this article examines three well-known cases of Cold War foreign policy change, focusing on the external relations of Charles de Gaulle in France, John G. Diefenbaker in Canada, and Willy Brandt in West Germany. These cases suggest that domestic upheaval and foreign policy change were inextricably interwoven and that efforts to effect strategic change on a grand scale were motivated by a desire to respond to the demands of marginalized domestic constituencies without incurring the costs of domestic reform. Our analysis suggests key moments of international change are best understood as domestic incorporation strategies rather than instances of significant and principled foreign policy change.
Highlights
Why have some of the most prominent efforts to undertake foreign policy change taken place when international and domestic constraints are at their highest? France’s Charles de Gaulle, West Germany’s Willy Brandt and Canada’s John G
Very often the principal achievements of foreign policy changes are to be found in the quieting of discontent at the domestic level
Each of the three cases fits the criteria we set out to investigate at the beginning of the article: They are all examples of attempted foreign policy change during times of domestic upheaval and an international context not conducive to alteration by such medium sized states
Summary
Why have some of the most prominent efforts to undertake foreign policy change taken place when international and domestic constraints are at their highest? France’s Charles de Gaulle, West Germany’s Willy Brandt and Canada’s John G. Strategic change provides political actors with a broader canvas to demonstrate their reformism: as the state redefines its position and purpose vis-à-vis the dominant lines of competition permeating the international structure, it can present this structure as something that itself needs to be overcome It is this ostensible firmness of the international structure that makes it a resource and opportunity for insider-outsiders at times of domestic crises of incorporation, one reason why efforts to achieve domestic change during the Cold War focused so heavily on the external environment. Different frames can help actors to identify specific threats (Chaban et al, 2019), specify appropriate comparisons (Khong, 1992; Oppermann and Spencer 2013), convey the level of risk involved (Levy, 2000; Maoz, 1990: 88-90), and organise the representation of facts (Kaarbo 2008: 68) They are a crucial aspect of how foreign policy changes are represented domestically. Over the longer-term, change may be significant, since even minor strategic shifts can have considerable path-dependent effects, not least given the importance of discourse and identity in framing subsequent (foreign) policy choices (e.g. Aran and Fleishmann, 2019: 618; Blyth, 2002; Katzenstein, 1996; Schmidt, 2008)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
