American Foreign Policy Research Articles

Strategic ambiguity and chemical warfare in Ukraine

Abstract This article revisits the concept of strategic ambiguity to identify and critically assess the overlooked role of international norms. Addressing a significant gap within the existing analysis of strategic ambiguity which fails to fully explain the role of norms, the article demonstrates how international norms construct and function within deliberately ambiguous foreign policy as the normative exploitation of epistemic ambiguity. Yet the article further reveals that strategic ambiguity is then systemically dependent on a precarious overreliance on epistemic ambiguity; this comprises a highly fragile policy framework which is excessively vulnerable to change. The article applies this innovative retheorization to an empirical case-study: United States foreign policy concerning the alleged Russian chemical warfare strategy in Ukraine. This analysis is based on an original and comparative discursive analysis of US administration and institutional public statements drawn primarily from government archives. The new analysis a) identifies US policy as strategic ambiguity and explains the strategy's motivations and perceived benefits; b) shows how an international norm (the chemical weapons taboo) was employed to enact an ambiguous foreign policy; but also, c) demonstrates the intrinsic fragility and potential collapse of this strategic ambiguity as a consequence of normative dynamics.

Anti-populism and the Trump trauma in US foreign policy

Abstract In challenging normal patterns of foreign policy legitimation and undermining the internationalist consensus in favour of liberal hegemony, Donald Trump's populism constituted a political trauma for the foreign policy establishment (FPE) of the United States. How did the FPE respond? Based on a discursive approach and using the methodology of qualitative frame analysis, we examine the anti-populist response to the Trump trauma on the part of the FPE. The findings show how the FPE framed Trumpian populism as a political anomaly through interlocking frames of authoritarianism, irresponsibility and immaturity. This could only be rectified through a process of foreign policy normalization, carried through the first two years of the Joe Biden administration, which aimed to stabilize US leadership and restore the consensus that existed prior to the populist disruption. Highlighting the emotional dimensions of anti-populism, the article contends that to fully understand the effects of global populism, we must examine elite responses to populist ‘ruptures’ of the kind Trump represented. By extending the concept of anti-populism to debates on foreign policy, the article addresses existing gaps in the literatures on anti-populism and the effects of populist foreign policy.

A ‘natcon takeover’? The New Right and the future of American foreign policy

Abstract Donald Trump's capture of the Republican Party enabled a radical questioning of received wisdom within the broader conservative intellectual movement. In particular, it enabled the emergence of a post-Trump, distinctly American New Right. This policy paper examines the American New Right and its visions for United States foreign policy. In the context of contemporary American politics, the New Right is best understood as a rejection of the ‘fusionism’ that has characterized US conservatism since the early decades after the Second World War. The paper argues that there are three major identifiable parts of the New Right: the Claremonters, the post-liberals and the national conservatives. In part because of their ‘big-tent’ character, as well as deft intellectual leadership by Yoram Hazony, the national conservatives have become the most influential group within the contemporary New Right. The article also examines how the New Right has attempted to create an alternative ideational infrastructure, with a clear focus on entrenching itself through large-scale credentialing of personnel deemed to be loyal to the New Right's agenda. There is reason to speak of a ‘natcon takeover’ of traditional conservative institutions. This is particularly the case with the Heritage Foundation, the largest and most influential conservative think tank. While all segments of the New Right ostensibly embrace some notion of grand strategic restraint, the policy paper argues that the rise of national conservatism is likely to accelerate the US pivot from Europe to Asia rather than lead to neo-isolationism, as is sometimes suggested.

Latin American foreign policies in the new world order: the active non-alignment option

Latin American foreign policies in the new world order: the active non-alignment option

"City upon a Hill" in the Face of Significant Challenges

The editor-in-chief proposes a context for examining the crisis processes in American society explored in the articles. The author suggests that this crisis should be viewed in the context of the American history cycles. Many of the current conflicts in the USA have a similar internal source, which is a sharp intra-elite conflict involving a significant part of society. This conflict is unusual in its depth, given that for many decades the «trademark» of the American political class has been its consensus character. One important element of this consensus can be seen as an unquestioned focus on global American leadership and a shared commitment among members of the community to the force imperatives in foreign policy – either the classic “hard” or “flexible” power. Among the sources of American foreign policy continuity are a number of factors. First, it is the stability of institutional mechanisms of decision-making, which, in turn, is based on a stable system of representation of dominant interests. Second, the stability of formal and informal institutions that ensure a high degree of elite cohesion; and the specificity of American political culture, which is based on a set of political and philosophical views of messianic nature. The consensual nature of the political elite was the system-forming basis of liberal democracy, so the breakdown of this consensus may entail – and partially has already entailed – a crisis of the US political system.

The Diplomatic Presidency: American Foreign Policy from FDR to George H. W. Bush. By Tizoc Victor Chavez. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2022. 320p. $39.95 cloth.

The Diplomatic Presidency: American Foreign Policy from FDR to George H. W. Bush. By Tizoc Victor Chavez. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2022. 320p. $39.95 cloth.

Presupposition as a Manipulation Strategy in President Biden's Reference to the War on Gaza

Political communication is a complex process of sharing concepts and beliefs to gain control over power and manipulate the mass population. In the face of heightening conflict and humanitarian issues, the US President Joe Biden’s communication occurred when the Gaza War was underway in the October of 2023. This study examines three hypotheses: Biden’s utilization of presuppositions for influencing perception and gaining approval on Israel’s behalf, for causing self-derogatory effect, and blaming Hamas alongside constructing an element of predestination regarding the United States foreign policy. In the present study, the researcher relied on a content analysis model and identified various presupposition types in Biden’s speeches in order to categorize them based on different manipulative strategies. The article concluded that Biden’s language often justified Israeli actions while attributing all harm to Hamas, thus aligning the audience with the U.S. and building a narrative of pure justice. Presuppositions were most detectable in Biden’s discourse about the IDF strike on al-Shifa Hospital, where he assumed that Hamas must have been operating out of the hospital. These findings therefore present presupposition as a major political resource in the construction of discourses, people, and policy reforms.

The US press and foreign policy information, cueing, and the democratic process in the Syrian conflict

There were three chemical attacks on Syrian civilians in 2013, 2017, and 2018. In 2013, President Obama proposed military action and it was rejected by Congress. President Trump ordered two airstrikes in 2017 and 2018, without congressional authorization. Investigating news reports and statements issued by the members of the House and Senate show that there were major criticisms among US officials in all three periods. In the month after the three foreign policy declarations (congressional vote in 2013, airstrikes in 2017 and 2018), the US press increased their reliance on US officials and followed the standpoint of powerful domestic officials in criticizing the military intervention policy – whether proposed or in action. They covered a significant amount of criticism in 2013 that officials voted a nay and raised their objections, and marginalized critical standpoints in times of forgoing democratic procedures and powerlessness of representatives to change the policy. This research also demonstrates the increasing role of NGOs and activists in picturing realities in Syria.

The Changes of United States Foreign Policy in The Arctic in 2022

The United States' (U.S.) attention to the Arctic region has intensified in recent years due to the opening of vast natural resources and the potential for new shipping routes resulting from global warming. As an Arctic nation, the U.S. has actively focused on the region. From its initial Arctic policy in 1971 until 2021, U.S. foreign policy remained relatively passive, merely outlining the general U.S. position in the region. However, in 2022, without significant changes or upheavals in the Arctic region, the U.S. significantly altered its foreign policy by incorporating military instruments To explore that factors that influenced the change in U.S. policy in the Arctic in 2022, this study employs the decision-making process theory. Utilizing qualitative research methods, the study relies on both primary and secondary data, drawn from official U.S. policies, supplemented by credible articles, news, and scholarly writings. The research identifies three factors that led to the U.S. altering its foreign policy in the Arctic in 2022: domestic political conditions, economic and military factors, and the international context.

RETURNING TO SAID AND HIS «ORIENTALISM»

This article examines the impact of Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism on the contemporary geopolitical landscape. The authors argue that while the critique of Orientalism has significantly influenced academic discourse and domestic policies in Western countries, particularly the United States, it has not led to fundamental changes in global geopolitical strategy. The paper focuses on two key aspects: the natural connection between knowledge and power, which cannot be altered by anti-colonial declarations, and the shift of colonial discourse to new regions, specifically non-Western Europe. The authors posit that the strength of a modern state lies in its ability to dynamically bifurcate its image into internal and external faces, presenting different aspects to its society and foreign partners. Using the United States as a case study, the article demonstrates how internal anti-colonial discourse coexists with an unchanging foreign policy strategy of global dominance. The authors criticize the illusions about the possibility of changing the fundamental principles of US foreign policy, which has remained consistent since 1941. The paper emphasizes the continuation of a strategy aimed at fostering global dependence on the West, despite anti-colonial rhetoric. The article explores the complex interplay between domestic movements for social justice and decolonization, and the pragmatic realities of international relations. It argues that the deconstruction of Orientalism, while challenging the legitimacy of historical colonial practices, has not transformed the core geopolitical interests of Western states.The authors contend that the apparent dichotomy between internal anti-colonial discourse and external policy reflects both the complexity and strength of states like the US, where domestic and foreign policies can be shaped by different institutional and ideological forces. The paper also discusses the expansion of the concept of liberal democracy as an export product to regions deemed lacking in popular sovereignty.In conclusion, the article suggests that the critique of Orientalism, despite its academic and cultural impact, has been effectively neutralized in geopolitical practice. This is achieved through a shift in focus to regions not traditionally considered part of the «old» Western colonies, allowing for the implementation of economic partnership policies without the moral self-flagellation associated with charges of Orientalism. The paper ultimately argues that renaming reality does not change its underlying structure, and that the postmodern belief in the power of language to transform geopolitical realities is akin to magical thinking. It concludes that the critique of Orientalism has not fundamentally altered the eternal principles and interests guiding global geopolitical strategies.

Contact Groups as Diplomatic Intervention Tools in Civil Wars: US Diplomacy

Summary American diplomacy employs contact groups to secure the United States’ national interests and fulfil its role as a superpower in several regions worldwide. This article explores three examples of contact groups formed by US diplomacy to intervene in the civil wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen. It tracks the groups’ formation process, meetings’ content and the US assessment of their influence on American interests and the course of the conflicts. The article concludes that the formation process was developed under sensitive compromises among the stakeholders of each conflict and led to the exclusion of some essential actors. The contact groups were influential at the tactical level and impacted the course of the conflicts in the short term, preventing humanitarian disasters, taking de-escalation steps and securing American interests, but they failed to achieve successful settlements.

Assembly line for ideas in US foreign policy and the issue of international relations actors’ trust hereinunder

Assembly line for ideas in US foreign policy and the issue of international relations actors’ trust hereinunder

US Diplomatic Visits and Allies’ Military Spending

Abstract This article develops and tests two competing arguments regarding how a patron’s diplomatic visits influence the military spending of protégés. One argument posits that a patron’s visits will decrease allies’ defense spending by producing reassurance (reassurance hypothesis). Another perspective contends that such visits will increase allies’ burden sharing by fostering allied partnerships (partnership hypothesis). I test these hypotheses by analyzing US presidential visits to allies and the annual percentage changes in allies’ military spending from 1950 to 2007. I find evidence supporting the reassurance hypothesis, indicating that diplomatic visits by US presidents are associated with lower military expenditures by allies the following year. Furthermore, I find that the negative effect is primarily observed when visits are made in the first 3 years of a presidential term, while visits in the final year of a presidency do not result in significant changes in allied burden sharing. The findings highlight the role of a patron’s travel diplomacy in providing reassurance in military alliances, as well as its unintended consequence for protégés’ foreign policy: reduced alliance contribution.

Amigo shoring (1940): Washington’s first experiment with “friend shoring” and what it tells us about geo-economic strategy

There has been an intensifying debate lately within America’s circle of allies regarding the merits of “de-risking” the economic relations they conduct with autocratic great powers. Sometimes this debate makes explicit appeal to the novel name of “friend shoring.” The name may be new, but what it represents – namely an American (and allied) desire to minimize security problems stemming from economic ­interdependence – can be dated back to the middle of 1940, with the short-lived Inter-American Trading Corporation (IATC). This bold initiative was the first great instantiation of friend shoring in US foreign policy, and was focused upon the Latin American republics to the southward. This article’s purpose is to describe and analyze, in theoretical and empirical context, that early, unsuccessful, instance of friend shoring, and to suggest ways in which the IATC experience might be considered of relevance to the contemporary debate over the security consequences of interdependence.

The “Two Koreas” Problem in U.S. Policy, 1974–1980

In this article, the author charts the evolution of US Korea policy after the failed attempts to establish a unification dialogue between the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the reduction of the US military presence on the peninsula in 1974–1980. In 1973, The United Nations Commission for the Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea (UNCURK), which the Americans had supported for decades, ceased operations. The question of the fate of the United Nations Command loomed large. On the whole, in 1974–1980, the Americans did not reduce their military presence in Korea. At the same time, diplomatic support for negotiations on this topic and participation in maintaining the inter-Korean dialogue on the status of the ROK and DPRK in the UN and scenarios for possible unification of the country were quite effective. The Americans managed to prevent destabilisation in South Korea even in the face of a sudden change of power following the assassination of Park Chung-Hee. Simultaneously, the necessary international structures, such as the ROK/US Joint Forces Command, were put in place. Moreover, US diplomats managed to preserve even such a relic of the Korean War as the UN Command. At the same time, the issue of Korean unification had by this time become an instrument of political manipulation by all countries concerned. Under these circumstances, unification could not be achieved by diplomatic means alone.

Undermining economic engagement and enlargement: The Kremlin’s impact on US foreign economic policy in Ukraine (1993–2001)

ABSTRACT The Clinton administration’s drive to enact reform in Ukraine during the 1990s was viewed at the time as being necessary for the nation’s revitalization and re-integration into Western Europe. Decades later, these policies have been critiqued for antagonizing the Kremlin, causing it to seek political control over its former satellite. This paper addresses the viability of the Clinton administration’s efforts and the reasons for their ultimate failure. It finds that despite its best intentions, the administration’s economic strategy faced unanticipated resistance from the Kremlin, as long-standing ties with Kiev undermined US-led efforts for economic and political reform.

The Anatomy of Regime Change: Transnational Political Opposition and Domestic Foreign Policy Elites in the Making of US Foreign Policy on Iraq

The Anatomy of Regime Change: Transnational Political Opposition and Domestic Foreign Policy Elites in the Making of US Foreign Policy on Iraq

Plan B?: Reconsidering Australian Security in the event of a post US alliance era

ABSTRACT The rise of China combined with a growing “America First” approach to US foreign policy has generated a debate in Australia about the status of the alliance with the United States. This article contributes to this debate by exploring what a Plan B, for Australian security outside the alliance, might look like. It assesses existing scholarship on the subject, highlighting how recent arguments that Australia can “go it alone” are fundamentally flawed as they fail to address requirements to protect the economic and human security of Australians. The article goes on to examine why it is still necessary to consider a Plan B, and what Australia’s core national interests are. It emphasises the importance of protecting the lives and livelihoods of Australians, as opposed to the pure focus on the territorial defence of Australia that has marked out much of the existing literature. This leads the article to conclude that, outside the US alliance, Australia would need to rely on a more holistic concept of security, and less on a military approach. It concludes by putting forward suggestions for how Australia could provide itself with security outside the US alliance, primarily through building resilience and adopting a form of neutrality.

The Reagan Doctrine or “Sandinista Chic”? Political Balance in the Committee to Protect Journalists’ 1982 Mission to Central America

ABSTRACT The Committee to Protect Journalists is a world-renowned press freedom organization that advocates on behalf of journalists being persecuted for doing their work. Launched in 1981, CPJ was originally imagined as a group of US journalists who would speak out on behalf of beleaguered colleagues working under both right-wing and left-wing dictatorships. CPJ was a product of the late Cold War, and its members found it particularly challenging to navigate US foreign policy—especially when advocating for journalists in Central America. This article tells the story of CPJ’s first international mission to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua, showing that the mission was riddled with internal tension. Such tension centered on the question of how to gain credibility with both conservative and liberal lawmakers in Washington. CPJ members each believed that they could and should gain this credibility by striking a political balance among the delegates themselves, as well as in the official statement that followed the mission. Yet, the political differences among the people who went on the mission ultimately led to bitter disagreements about how to represent journalists’ persecution in that region of the world.

The US, Iran, and Saudi Arabia: An empirical analysis of stimulus response theory: 2009–2020

Objectives: The study presented an empirical analysis of the impact of US foreign policy toward Iran on Iran’s foreign policy toward Saudi Arabia during the Obama and Trump presidencies. It argues that Iran’s foreign policy toward Saudi Arabia is one way of getting back at the US, considering it a key ally. Method: It adopted an action-reaction model to test various hypotheses on the proposed relationships, using American and Iranian presidential remarks utilizing stimulus-response theory to test the relationships. Results: The study showed a set of correlations between certain US behavior toward Iran and Iran’s foreign policy toward Saudi Arabia, based on the monthly and annual data. Conclusion: It concluded that Iran’s action toward Saudi Arabia appeared to be a reaction to the US strategies toward Iran.