Foreign Policy Dilemmas Research Articles

Playing Identities, Preserving Interests: Balance of Identity and Indonesia's Foreign Policy Dilemma Amid the China-US Rivalry

A foreign policy dilemma often occurs when a country is caught in the middle of two or more conflicting countries. States that have no conflict of interest would normally choose neutral positions or maintain good relations with all parties. In the case of Indonesia's foreign policy toward the China-US rivalry, free and active policy is the fundamental principle to preserve its national interests. Both China and the United States are Indonesia's strategic partners, especially in terms of economic cooperation. Although conventional wisdom tends to argue that Indonesia's current foreign policy has been increasingly dependent on China rather than the United States, it is also clear that a free and active principle sustains. This article aims to analyze how Indonesia could manage its relations amid international rivalries. Most scholars argue that the principle is feasible due to rationalist calculations that put a strong emphasis on economic interest. Using the balance of identity theory, this article argues that in dealing with the dilemma of dependence amid the ongoing China-US rivalry, Indonesia could employ its identity to preserve its strategic position between the two conflicting parties. Unlike the rationalist argument, which emphasizes materialist incentives, balance of identity puts more emphasis on the social feature of interstate relations.

Entrenching Authoritarian Rule and Thailand's Foreign Policy Dilemma as a Middle Power

executive summary: This essay explores the strategies that Thailand has used to navigate the great-power competition between the U.S. and China as well as the factors that are driving contemporary Thailand's foreign policy orientation and dilemmas. main argument Recent Thai governments, whether authoritarian or democratically elected, have maintained amicable relations with Beijing while retaining close military cooperation with Washington. However, domestic political dynamics within Thailand are critical to the past and future trajectory of Thailand's bilateral relations with the U.S. and China. Bangkok's reversion toward authoritarian military rule over the past few years has created a different logic in its foreign relations. For the U.S., Thailand's authoritarian turn, although not to Washington's liking, can be tolerated as long as Thailand continues to serve U.S. strategic interests in the region. For China, cordial relations with the incumbent military government of Thailand pave the way for closer economic and political relations, yet anti-authoritarian sentiment within Thailand holds China liable and condemns China's complicity in Thailand's turn to military rule. Thus, balancing Thailand's domestic political dynamic with the foreign policy interests of the U.S. and China is the defining feature of Bangkok's maneuvering act between the two great powers. policy implications • As U.S.-China relations grow more tense, countries in Southeast Asia are feeling the squeeze from both sides. These states sense they need to prepare for choosing between the two powers while trying to delay or prevent such a choice from being necessary. • Thailand's turn toward domestic authoritarian rule creates a dilemma for both the U.S. and China. For the U.S., there is a need to tolerate an authoritarian government in Bangkok to maintain stable military and security cooperation. For China, Thailand's domestic political situation creates a backlash against Chinese interests in the country. • The current military government in Thailand is likely to prioritize its own domestic political legitimacy over relations with either power and will take advantage of the Sino-U.S. competition however best suits its own regime survival. • If Thailand reverts to a democratically elected government with popular support, healthy relationships with both China and the U.S. are more likely to result and endure.

Anticipating The Return of Foreign Terrorist Fighters: Indonesia-Australia’s Initiative on Sub-Regional Meetings on Counterterrorism

Efforts to overcome the increasing security threats of terrorism, violent extremism, and Foreign Terrorist Fighters (FTFs) have encouraged policymakers in Indonesia and Australia to strengthen cooperation in the security sector. Despite the Indonesian-Australian “turbulent” history of their bilateral relationship, the two countries have initiated a high-level meeting called the Sub-Regional Meeting (SRM) on Counter-Terrorism. Starting with six participants in 2017 (Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, and the Philippines), Indonesia-Australia’s co-leadership has attracted Myanmar, Singapore and Thailand to join the 2018 Jakarta meeting and the 2020 virtual meeting. Analyzing Indonesia and Australia’s initiative on the SRM can determine to what extent this cooperation has addressed the returning FTFs as one of the most imminent regional security threats in the Asia Pacific. This study adopted Buzan and Weaver’s regional security complex elements in explaining to what extent this regional security issue has put aside Indonesian-Australian differences and led them to the co-leadership position in anticipating the return of FTFs to Asia Pacific, prone to terrorist attacks and violent extremist beliefs. The analysis unveiled that Indonesia-Australia’s SRM initiative to anticipate the return of FTFs could, to some extent, address the elements of security complexes in the Asia Pacific subregion through the mutual co-leadership, reduce the lack of regional trust and foreign policy dilemmas, build bonded trust across all levels of government administration, and obtain the advantage of the securitization of the return of FTFs.

India 2019: Foreign policy dilemmas and their domestic roots

India 2019: Foreign policy dilemmas and their domestic roots

The Two Faces of Russia Foreign Policy toward China and Taiwan

Russia, as one of the key actors in international politics, faces problematic issues in Chinese-Taiwan Relations. As a significant player, Russia reserves a close and stable relationship with China. However, Russia could not avoid Taiwan's significant role in Northeast Asia, especially its role in allying with the West. Taiwan undoubtedly offers a promising prospect for the Russian economy, but political relations with Taiwan could not significantly contribute to Russian FP. In this paper, Russian foreign policy will be examined on both sides, Russian foreign policy toward China and Russian foreign policy toward Taiwan. The purposes of this paper are trying to analyze the Russian foreign policy dilemma toward China-Taiwan relation. The analysis of this paper will focus on President Vladimir Putin as the decision-maker and explore all circumstances that will influence the decision-making process. The level of analysis implemented in this paper is domestic politics that significantly contribute to Russian foreign policy decision-making. This paper will gather secondary data from the news, journal, and book as the primary sources. The paper's outcome is analyzing Russian foreign policy's dilemma and exploring how Russian foreign policy toward current dynamics of China-Taiwan Relations.

한국 민주화 과정의 외교정책딜레마: 양분화-정치화된 여론

본고는 한국의 민주화 과정에서 대중의 인식과 선호가 외교정책 결정 과정에 어떠한 영향을 끼치는지 살펴보았다. 특히 한국 민주주의에서 점점 뚜렷해지는 좌우 진영논리와 그로 인한 여론의 양분화와 정치화가 외교정책의 딜레마로 이어진 대표적인 세 가지 사례, 즉 i) 2008년 광우병 파동과 촛불시위로 인한 한미협상 결과; ii) 2015년 한일 ‘위안부합의’에 대한 여론의 반대와 그 결과; 그리고 iii) 2017년 THAAD 배치와 그에 따른 중국과의 관계에 대한 상충되는 주장을 비교 고찰하였다. 이들 사례를 통해 살펴볼 수 있듯이, 극도로 정치화･양분화된 여론 및 잘못된 포퓰리즘에 기반한 전략은 국익을 최우선시 해야하는 한국 외교에 커다란 걸림돌이 되어왔다. 따라서 정치지도자는 국익에 근거한 엄격한 외교정책원칙을 준수하며 불안정하고 자칫 감정에 치우칠 수 있는 여론에 휘둘리지 않는 인지적 분별력과 강단이 필요하다. 이와 동시에 민주적 책임을 진 지도자는 국민의 일상에 지대한 영향을 미칠 외교정책을 결정하기 전에 시민사회와의 ‘건설적인’ 대화를 지속해야 한다. 대중적 또는 당파적 선호 때문에 쉽게 흔들리지 않는 책임감 있고, 반응하고, 합법적인 외교정책을 수립·이행하기 위해 정부는 여론을 존중하고 국민은 국익이 무엇인지 이해하고 우선시하는 상호 윈-윈(win-win) 접근이 중요하다.

한국 민주화 과정의 외교정책딜레마: 양분화-정치화된 여론

본고는 한국의 민주화 과정에서 대중의 인식과 선호가 외교정책 결정 과정에 어떠한 영향을 끼치는지 살펴보았다. 특히 한국 민주주의에서 점점 뚜렷해지는 좌우 진영논리와 그로 인한 여론의 양분화와 정치화가 외교정책의 딜레마로 이어진 대표적인 세 가지 사례, 즉 i) 2008년 광우병 파동과 촛불시위로 인한 한미협상 결과; ii) 2015년 한일 ‘위안부합의’에 대한 여론의 반대와 그 결과; 그리고 iii) 2017년 THAAD 배치와 그에 따른 중국과의 관계에 대한 상충되는 주장을 비교 고찰하였다. 이들 사례를 통해 살펴볼 수 있듯이, 극도로 정치화･양분화된 여론 및 잘못된 포퓰리즘에 기반한 전략은 국익을 최우선시 해야하는 한국 외교에 커다란 걸림돌이 되어왔다. 따라서 정치지도자는 국익에 근거한 엄격한 외교정책원칙을 준수하며 불안정하고 자칫 감정에 치우칠 수 있는 여론에 휘둘리지 않는 인지적 분별력과 강단이 필요하다. 이와 동시에 민주적 책임을 진 지도자는 국민의 일상에 지대한 영향을 미칠 외교정책을 결정하기 전에 시민사회와의 ‘건설적인’ 대화를 지속해야 한다. 대중적 또는 당파적 선호 때문에 쉽게 흔들리지 않는 책임감 있고, 반응하고, 합법적인 외교정책을 수립·이행하기 위해 정부는 여론을 존중하고 국민은 국익이 무엇인지 이해하고 우선시하는 상호 윈-윈(win-win) 접근이 중요하다.

Foreign Policy Dilemmas and Opportunities for a New Administration: An Opinion Piece

Foreign Policy Dilemmas and Opportunities for a New Administration: An Opinion Piece

From ‘Soft’ to ‘Hard’ to ‘Moderate’: Islam in the Dilemmas of Post-2011 Saudi Foreign Policy

Due to its specific history, Saudi Arabia’s domestic and international politics are inextricably linked together. In the shaping and implementation of the kingdom’s essentially defensive international behavior, Islam has kept a central position as a legitimizing factor and as a tool of ‘soft power’ foreign policy. This paper firstly aims to explore the position that religion holds in the Saudi perceptions of stability in the post-2011 era, where safeguarding the status quo remained the priority, while the new administration responded to external pressure by shifting towards a ‘hard power’ foreign policy with questionable results. Furthermore, the paper explores the links between foreign policy choices and the promotion of a new, modern image for the kingdom whereas the regime has appropriated for itself the notion of ‘moderate Islam’ in order to restore its international image and attract investments for the ‘Vision 2030’ reform program. Finally, it proposes a discussion of the position of Islam in the future direction of the country, amidst an increasing authoritarian rule.

The American- Turkish Relationship and Its Effect on the Syrian Crisis

The Syrian crises have been an issue of international concern since 2011. The conflict, which pitched the Bashar al-Assad led Baath regime against domestic and international oppositions, has led to a chain of events which have cascaded into social, economic, and humanitarian crisis in Turkey which shares boundary with Syria. With the toll of dead civilians and combatants exceeding a half million and displaced refugees reaching more than five million people especially women and children, the attention of the US has been drawn to the region. The need for the US and Turkey to work together is traditional. However, differing perspectives have led to different priorities. This paper examines the Turkish focus on Syria as a foreign policy dilemma and American focus on the terrorism and the humanitarian aspect of the crisis and how this have affected the crisis in Syria.

Vietnam’s Persistent Foreign Policy Dilemma: Caught between Self-Reliance and Proactive Integration

Vietnam’s Persistent Foreign Policy Dilemma: Caught between Self-Reliance and Proactive Integration Huong Le Thu (bio) keywords Doi Moi Reforms, Vietnam, Foreign Policy, Self-Reliance, International Integration [End Page 123] executive summary This essay argues that “self-reliance” and “proactive international integration”—the two driving concepts in Vietnamese foreign policy since the Doi Moi (open door) era—are increasingly difficult to reconcile in the wake of China’s pursuit of regional and global dominance. main argument Vietnam’s partial reforms to its foreign policy have created an ideological dilemma between the contending conceptions of self-reliance and proactive international integration. The country’s foreign policy shift toward greater international political and economic integration since the Doi Moi era in the late 1980s has contributed to its postwar development and re-established the country’s position in the international arena. The reforms responded to the main threat of the time: regime collapse and economic disaster. The full expression of this change in defense policy has been restrained by the Vietnamese Communist Party’s adherence to the principle of self-reliance. While sustaining an independent foreign policy has been a strength for Vietnam in the past, self-reliance has limited alignment options in defense policies. Despite the overall accomplishments of diplomacy and the expanding areas of security cooperation, they seem disproportionately small in comparison with the challenges that Hanoi is facing. In the wake of growing tensions in Vietnam’s neighborhood, especially in the South China Sea, the main security challenges are now threats to sovereignty. Vietnam urgently needs to recalibrate and open its foreign and defense policies in response to the pressing challenges to its territorial integrity. policy implications • Unlike in the Doi Moi era, today Vietnam’s top priority increasingly is the defense of sovereignty—particularly given China’s unilateral actions in the South China Sea. • Integration rescued the Vietnamese economy and re-legitimized the socialist regime, but the government now fears deepening security relations because of its long-held value of self-reliance. • Given the positive trajectory of security cooperation with Japan, the U.S., India, and Australia, Vietnam should develop a policy that includes advanced security cooperation—in the form of new “yes’s” that serve national interests. This would be a positive addition to the existing policy of “three no’s.” [End Page 124] While most existing assessments of Vietnam attribute the country’s economic and foreign policy success to the Doi Moi policy (renovation policy, also known in the country as the “open door” policy), this essay argues that Vietnamese foreign policy is still obstructed by older revolutionist sentiments. Because of the long-held attachment of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) to the concept of “self-reliance,” there is a deep resistance to fuller international integration, which in Hanoi’s official language figures as “proactive international integration” (also often referred to as “total integration”). This impasse is impeding Vietnam’s complete integration into global affairs and limits its strategic options. In the 1980s, economic hardship pushed Vietnam to relax its ideological worldview in favor of a more pragmatic approach to managing its economy and political relations. After successfully defending threats to the country’s sovereignty, the CPV faced the challenge of regime survival in the wake of the crumbling Soviet bloc and poor economic management. The Doi Moi transformation of Vietnam’s foreign policy in the late 1980s and 1990s was advocated as a necessity—either “reform or die”—and was effective in responding to the challenges the country faced at that time: economic and ideological survival. But the policy’s relative success has made Hanoi elites complacent and resistant to further reform that would address Vietnam’s current strategic needs. The circumstances that Vietnam faces today are different and require more “opening” in the security sector to protect national interests. Sovereignty challenges are again at the forefront. A competitive international environment and regional instability pose new challenges in terms of the escalation of long-term issues, such as China’s militarization of the South China Sea and North Korea’s nuclear crisis, and emerging issues, such as the United States’ trade war against China and possible retrenchment from the region. These developments...

Bhutan and Sino–Indian Rivalry

The military standoff between Chinese and Indian troops in the disputed territory of Doklam brought forward the foreign policy dilemmas of Bhutan and its search for an optimal strategy toward its two neighboring big powers. This paper discusses Bhutan’s attempts to balance its overwhelming dependence on India with the necessity of normal diplomatic relations with China.

The dilemmas of Algerian foreign policy since 2011: between normative entrapment and pragmatic responses to the new regional security challenges

ABSTRACTThe strategic guidelines directing Algerian foreign policy are still dominated by normative principles inherited from the early years of the national independence war, which have underpinned the construction of the regime's legitimacy. This doctrinal position has been shaken up by new security threats coming from neighbouring countries. This article analyses the evolution of Algerian foreign policy since 2011, identifying the main constraints and obstacles that limit its ability to adapt to the new sub-regional context marked by the disintegration of the neighbouring states of Mali and Libya. Libya is in the midst of a massive security vacuum brought on by the absence of a central authority and a collapsing defence system. In Mali, in spite of the 2015 peace agreement designed to end the military and political crisis, the north is still facing high levels of violence and insecurity. This deteriorating regional security situation entails new challenges and dilemmas that are pushing Algeria to reconsider the normative foundations that have guided its foreign policy since independence, namely the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of another state, respect for state sovereignty and support for anticolonial and revolutionary movements. Furthermore, these security concerns are also closely connected with Algeria's domestic stability in terms of both state and regime security. The article addresses the following questions: How do these intertwined internal and external factors affect Algerian foreign policy? What are the main constraints that impede the emergence of a new strategic orientation to better respond to the challenges coming from Libya and Mali?

Ukraine–Turkey: the Political and Diplomatic Dialogue of the Geopolitical Neighbors Beginning of the XXI century (the institutional dimension)

The article deals with topical issues of the institutional model of political and diplomatic relations on the diagonally Ukraine–Turkey in the context of improving security institutions, achievements, problems and dilemmas of foreign policy and diplomacy, as well as their influence on the evolution of the foreign policy of these countries in a globalized world, new challenges and modern threats in the context of the new architectonic space security of the XXI century. The Republic of Turkey in recent years has taken the position of a regional leader and define its foreign policy strategy in the new polycentric world. At the same time, Ukrainian-Turkish and Turkish-Russian relations took a central place in the foreign policy of official Ankara, and greatly influenced the formation of its policy in the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, the Middle East and other regions of the world that are of strategic importance for Turkey.

Xi Jinping's Foreign Policy Dilemma: One Belt, One Road or the South China Sea?

Since Xi Jinping became President, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and head of the Central Military Commission in 2012-13, a significant amount of attention has been devoted to his leadership style and foreign policy initiatives. (1) Under his leadership, several significant foreign policy initiatives have been undertaken, including a more stringent policy towards North Korea and the establishment of an Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the East Sea. Moreover, during the US-China presidential summit in June 2013, Xi called for a new type of major-power relationship, in which and the United States would strive to avoid conflict, increase cooperation and develop a mutually advantageous relationship. (2) Arguably, since Xi's ascent to power, China's foreign policy has moved decisively away from the two-decade old taoguang yanghui (keeping a low profile) to fenfa youwei (striving for achievement). (3) With regard to Southeast Asia, and in particular the South Sea dispute, Xi has made some bold policy decisions. For example, in May 2014 deployed the HYSY-981 drilling platform into Vietnam's claimed exclusive economic zone (EEZ) triggering a major crisis in Sino-Vietnamese relations. More significantly, from late 2013, began transforming seven atolls under its control in the Spratly Islands into massive artificial islands, leading to accusations that Beijing was militarizing the dispute. (4) And in January 2013, refused to participate in a legal case brought against it by the Philippines under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which challenged Beijing's maritime jurisdictional claims in the South Sea, and subsequently rejected the final verdict when it was announced in July 2016. (5) At the same time as has been pursuing a more assertive policy in the South Sea, Xi has also telegraphed clear signals of goodwill and cooperation towards the countries of Southeast Asia. Perhaps the most important of these is Xi's proposed Economic Belt and the Twenty-first Century Maritime Silk Road announced in October 2013--together known as the Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative--which aims to promote joint development, common prosperity and cooperation between and many countries across Asia. OBOR aims to reorient China's domestic economic structure by enhancing connectivity and cooperation between and the rest of Eurasia. OBOR is also a useful tool for to shape international rules and norms, as well as influence the global economic order, all of which are crucial to achieving President Xi's domestic China dream and international national rejuvenation. (6) But are Xi's assertive policies in the South Sea and OBOR contradictory? It is extremely difficult for Xi to promote cooperation via the OBOR while simultaneously pursuing an assertive posture in the South Sea. China's territorial and jurisdictional claims in the South Sea are highly contentious, and over the past decade have led to rising tensions between Beijing and the Southeast Asian claimants (Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and even Indonesia), as well as between and other stakeholders such as the United States and Japan. Some scholars have even warned of the dangers of war in the South Sea. (7) Such a war, especially between and the United States, would be devastating for the entire region. It would also spell the end of China's grand cooperative initiative, the OBOR. Within China, opinions vary as to what the country's priorities should be. Some scholars tend to place less value on the OBOR and believe that upholding China's claims in the South Sea should take priority. (8) Other experts in believe that OBOR is more important than the South Sea, and that pursuing a hardline policy towards the dispute will undermine the initiative. …

Living on the edge: Georgian foreign policy between the West and the rest

This paper seeks to make three contributions to our understanding of small state foreign policy. First, the paper explains the foreign policy trajectory of one particular small state, Georgia, which has with limited success followed a foreign policy of inclusion into the West and its institutions. Second, the paper analyses how variations in statehood widen, narrow and transform the strategic options available to small states. Finally, the paper explores a number of small state foreign policy dilemmas and their consequences for policy success.

What can Lithuania offer for its Security?: Foreign Policy Dilemmas in Lithuania’s Relations with the United States

Abstract Strategic partnership between states is a reciprocal exchange built on mutual commitment. The significance of the United States to Lithuania is unquestionable. However, why should the U.S. care about Lithuania? The emphasis on the U.S. interests and policies allows ignoring the question about Lithuania’s engagement and input into the partnership. Therefore, this article asks how does Lithuania contribute to the strategic partnership with the U.S.? To be precise, does Lithuania support and pledge its allegiance to the U.S. when this support goes beyond the limits of direct responsibilities of strategic partner, or even enters into a conflict with other important responsibilities or interests of the state?

Constructing a ‘great’ role for Britain in an age of austerity: Interpreting coalition foreign policy, 2010–2015

This article interprets the ideational underpinnings of the British Conservative–Liberal coalition government’s foreign policy from 2010 to 2015. It uses qualitative discourse analysis of speeches, statements and policy documents to unpack the traditions of foreign policy thought which informed some of the key foreign policy practices of the coalition government. The analysis centres on the British identity constructed by liberal Conservatives, and the values and interests flowing from this baseline identity that the government’s foreign policy sought to express through its foreign policy. Liberal Conservative foreign policy is argued to have been an attempt to come to terms with the limits on Britain’s international agency in the face of three major foreign policy dilemmas: the legacy of the New Labour years, dramatically reduced economic resources in the ‘age of austerity’ and an increasingly restricted capacity for Britain to exercise ideational entrepreneurship in the international community. The article substantiates the claim in the extant literature that liberal Conservatism significantly adapted but did not restructure an established British foreign policy tradition of merging values and interests in complex ways.

The question of intervention: John Stuart Mill and the responsibility to protect

The question of when or if a nation should intervene in another country's affairs is one of the most important concerns in today's volatile world. Taking John Stuart Mill's famous 1859 essay A Few Words on Non-Intervention as his starting point, international relations scholar Michael W. Doyle addresses the thorny issue of when a state's sovereignty should be respected and when it should be overridden or disregarded by other states in the name of humanitarian protection, national self-determination, or national security. In this time of complex social and political interplay and increasingly sophisticated and deadly weaponry, Doyle reinvigorates Mill's principles for a new era while assessing the new United Nations doctrine of responsibility to protect. In the twenty-first century, intervention can take many forms: military and economic, unilateral and multilateral. Doyle's thought-provoking argument examines essential moral and legal questions underlying significant American foreign policy dilemmas of recent years, including Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Liberal Democracy and Nuclear Despotism: Two Ethical Foreign Policy Dilemmas

This article advances a critical analysis of John Rawls’s justification of liberal democratic nuclear deterrence in the post-Cold War era as found in The Law of Peoples. Rawls’s justification overlooked how nuclear-armed liberal democracies are ensnared in two intransigent ethical dilemmas: one in which the mandate to secure liberal constitutionalism requires both the preservation and violation of important constitutional provisions in domestic affairs, and the other in which this same mandate requires both the preservation and violation of the liberal commitment to international legal arrangements and to the rule of law generally. On this view, the choice to violate constitutional provisions and international legal arrangements is evidence of nuclear despotism. Moreover, this choice does not imply that the ethical foreign policy dilemmas were resolved. Instead, it implies that the dilemmas force liberal democratic governments into implementing ethically paradoxical policy outcomes.