Western Foreign Policy Research Articles

Drowning Out Dissent: The Thai Military’s Quest to Fabricate Popular Support on Twitter

Why and how do autocracies discursively conduct digital astroturfing against their populations? As these regimes increasingly co-opt social media to manipulate online political discourse, the current political disinformation literature continues to privilege a Cold War paradigm, focusing on countries that dominate Western foreign policy priorities and concerns. Its normative underpinnings overshadow other understudied cases that have also been weaponizing social media to manipulate domestic online discourses. Concurrently, findings from ethnographic interviews and big data approaches remain theoretically disconnected from the long-held logics of regime stabilization. I argue that regime digital astroturfing follows offline events that spark online discourses with collective action potential. In countering these discourses, regime-linked digital astroturfers exploit social media affordances to discursively cheerlead the regime and devalue regime challengers to create a semblance of popular support for the former. I adopt a mixed-methods approach informed by Contextual Text Coding to examine 14,430 tweets linked to the Royal Thai Army in February 2020 to subject my central propositions to empirical scrutiny. My findings demonstrated that astroturfing efforts on Twitter throughout this period, which discursively cheerleaded the military/autocratic regime of General Prayut Chan-o-cha and devalued their pro-democratic opposition with negative frames, were spurred by a mass shooting incident in the city of Korat that exposed the ruling elites to widespread online backlash. This contribution deepens case-specific knowledge about an understudied case in the literature and also strengthens our understanding about the adaptations of authoritarian legitimation strategies in the digital era and the militarization of social media communication.

Why is the West so rotten at strategy?

Abstract Why has western foreign policy exhibited a record of sustained strategic failure, from Afghanistan to Ukraine? Why is it that despite the intellectual attention devoted to identifying the foundations of good strategy, outcomes remain so poor? This study seeks to bring a process of academic rigour to these questions. It pinpoints an inability to relate to problems proportionately as the major factor that accounts for bad strategic results and the growth of an anti-strategic predilection in policy-making. This lack of proportionality arises largely from a liberal-elite commitment to moral missions that undermine exit plans and bounded objectives. This sets in train an escalatory dynamic that inexorably spirals towards failure. Furthermore, rarely is there any accountability for predictive ineptitude or reckless advocacy, which merely entrenches the propensity towards poor strategic performance. The argument contends that these factors can all be captured within an enduring paradigm of total war, which exerts an overdetermining influence on western policy-making, pushing the formulation of strategy towards abstract goals and the unrestrained application of resources. While there are no easy answers to overcome these deep-seated problems in western strategic formulation, this article suggests that an attempt to move the idea of strategy away from ‘problem-solving’ to ‘problem-framing’ can offer the prospect of more considered policy reflection and facilitate a process of learning from mistakes rather than repeating them.

Comparative Analysis of Western Nations’ Actions in Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine Conflicts

This study explores and contrasts the responses of Western nations, specifically the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), and the European Union (EU), to two pivotal conflicts: the 2022 Russia-Ukraine conflict and the 2023 Israel-Palestine conflict. Adopting a multidisciplinary approach, the analysis delves into the political, historical, and humanitarian dimensions of these responses, aiming to unravel the intricate factors that shape Western foreign policy. Through a qualitative content analysis of diplomatic statements, and policy actions, the research discerns the motivations guiding the approaches of these key Western players to these conflicts. By using a comparative in foreign policy framework, a pivotal finding emerges, emphasizing that diverse in responses are primarily driven by interstate perspectives, thereby revealing nuanced positions influenced by varying regional alliances within the US, the UK, and the EU.

Political Invisibility: Structural Realism and The Kahnawà:ke Mohawk Nation

This research critically examined the intersection of structural realism, normativity, and political invisibility, with a particular focus on its implications for peripheral actors in international relations (IR), exemplified by the Kahnawà:ke Mohawk Nation. Based on the assumption that structural realism governs Western foreign policy, the research investigated the possibility of political invisibility not as an indication of weakness but as a strategic method for political liberation. Through a theoretical analysis that contrasted the normative assumptions of structural realism with critical theory, a qualitative methodology, integrating a critical literature review and a case study analysis were employed in the research in order to dissect the dynamics of political invisibility and its potential as an emancipatory force. The results indicated that political invisibility, when utilised effectively, can function as a subversive instrument enabling marginalised actors such as the Kahnawà:ke Mohawk Nation to maneuver through and capitalise on the normative oversights of structural realism. This subversion challenges conventional IR perspectives by demonstrating how marginalised groups can assert agency and sovereignty despite systemic exclusion from central dialogues and decision-making processes. The scientific novelty of this study lay in its focused critique of structural realism through the lens of political invisibility and the politics of refusal, offering a unique perspective on the agency of peripheral actors in IR. Its practical significance emerges from the potential applications of these insights in fostering a more inclusive and equitable global political discourse, emphasising the strategic potential of invisibility for political mobilisation and emancipation. By positioning political invisibility as a catalyst for emancipatory politics, this research contributed to a broader discourse on power dynamics within IR, challenging established norms and suggesting a paradigm shift towards recognising and leveraging the political agency of marginalised actors.

Gaza War: From Identity Politics to Polarization in the Western Foreign Policy

"One of the trickiest conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa has reopened as a result of the October 7 terrorist strikes. Open discussions were however halted by Hamas' unilateral strike, even though the two-state solution appeared increasingly likely with the Palestinian Authority serving as the future structural restructuring of #FreePalestine. The situation in the Gaza Strip caused a great deal of divisiveness in western public opinion in addition to internal conflicts and tensions. So, the purpose of this paper was to provide a poststructuralist analysis of the dominant academic viewpoints on the state of affairs between Israel and Palestine. The relationship between identity and foreign policy is examined in this study by utilising the primary methodological instruments of reflectivist international relations theory, including intertextuality, genealogy, discourse analysis, and deconstruction. They study both epistemological and ontological aspects because of the theoretical framework, and the narratives of ""us and them"" were and continue to be important components in the history and current circumstances of the Gaza Strip. The findings provide context for the significance of Hamas' rhetoric and the monopoly of power, as well as outlining the identitarian divide between Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Key words: Poststructuralism, Palestine, Israel, Gaza Strip, Hamas identity and foreign policy."

О западной внешнеполитической риторике как гиперпостмодернистской

Contemporary Western foreign policy rhetoric is defined as hyper-postmodern. The cliche “Putin's inflation” is shown as the result of the exclusion of the necessary logical link, flawed logic or its complete absence. At the same time, it is a “strong” metaphor used as a semiotic icon in ideological rhetoric conducted in a strictly controlled media space – knowledge of the laws of semantics and advertising is inherent in experienced behind-the-scenes puppeteers standing behind the backs of politicians who are rather illiterate in geopolitical terms. Thanks to the method of ascent from the particular to the general, from real facts, the model of a “democratic” state is reproduced in the Western view. The resulting surreal picture has nothing to do with the classical definition of democracy, reminiscent of the Third Reich or an ideal state from the point of view of ISIS. This rhetoric is not logical and not pragmatic, as it is based on the ideology of hyper-moralism (A. Grau) – hypertrophied morality, not moral, having no other basis than itself and based on the “rules” it establishes. This rhetoric deserves the name of hyper-postmodernist, because it is hypertrophied and, surpassing the present, is not aimed at the future. If hyper-moralism, by extolling “gender diversity”, calls into question the continuation of the human race, hyper-postmodern foreign policy rhetoric and its continuation policies not only destroy the economy, but also threaten the future of the planet.

Mediální džihád v reflexi představitelů českých muslimů

This paper focuses on two intertwined research questions, namely, what is the perception of the Czech media coverage of jihad among the Czech Muslim leaders, and what is their perception of the public and media demand for their condemnation of the terrorist attacks perpetrated abroad in the name of Islam and jihad? The paper aims to discuss the research findings in the broader context of the risk of the possible future social exclusion of the as yet well integrated Czech Muslims, as well as in the context of the revised theory of the de-privatization of religion. The qualitative research is based on structured interviews with those Czech Muslim leaders who are close to the organizational cores of Islamic institutions in the Czech Republic. It is analysed using open coding. The Czech media coverage of jihad is seen as demonising the Islamic concept, stereotypically depicting Muslims as aggressors rather than victims, suggesting that although not all Muslims are terrorists, all terrorists are Muslims, decontextualizing the coverage of terrorism, releasing news coverage suggesting the connection between Muslims and v iolence w ithout prior due v erification, and u sing the adjective Islamic as an implicit means of explaining the root causes of the attacks. Informants also claimed that the selective media coverage of the jihadist causes and its extreme interpretations of Islam promote the recruitment of new terrorists and terrorism. There was a consensus among the informants in terms of the critical reflection of the media coverage of the concept of jihad, however not so much for the reasons as for the fact. At the same time, is seems plausible to claim that the Czech Muslims’ distrust of the media is one of the factors leading to a very ambivalent stance on the matter whether they should or should not issue public statements condemning terrorist attacks in the name of jihad. Other factors that lead to this ambivalence include the criticism of Western foreign and military policy leading to the rise of terrorism and the consequent victimising of the West, the alleged double standards of the media and public applied to that policy and to the acts of the so-called Islamic terrorism, the scepticism whether the public condemning of violence in the name of jihad can in fact stop future terrorists, and finally, the feeling that there is no connection between the given Czech Muslim and the terrorists attacks abroad, and thus, they personally carry no responsibility for those attacks and in turn, there is no need to publicly distance themselves from them or even to be publicly sorry for them. The whole media and public discourse on so-called Islamic terrorism can be seen as part of the specific pattern of the de-privatization of religion in the Czech Republic, where Islam was nationalised by nonbelievers, put to the fore of the public sphere, and rose to the top of the media, political, and public agendas. The concept of the privatization of religion is thus problematized in this respect.

Examining the ‘developmentalisation’ of humanitarian response: the politics of migration and development in Tunisia

Since 2011, political liberalisation in Tunisia has created opportunities for reform in the country’s mobility policy regime. It has also become a small but important player in the international ‘humanitarian–development nexus’, which seeks to ‘better protect and assist refugees and support host countries and communities’. However, this article finds that institutional change in the country’s approach to managing mixed migratory flows has not materialised. This is linked to political incentives, including the regional security environment and the influence of Western foreign policy partners, primarily European states and the European Union. This institutional and political context, I argue, has limited efforts to offer better protections and improve the long-run development outlooks of people on the move. Programming in the humanitarian–development nexus construes the lives and livelihoods of refugees and migrants as a product of technical interventions and individual actions, without an adequate consideration of the political and institutional realignments that are necessary to create a meaningful and sustainable impact on those targeted as beneficiaries.

The effectiveness of embargoes: Evidence from Russia

AbstractWhile sanctions have been an increasingly popular instrument of Western foreign policy over the past several decades, retaliatory measures by non‐Western targets of Western sanctions are a more recent development. In this study, I focus on the first such incident in recent history: the Russian retaliatory embargo imposed in August 2014 in response to the anti‐Russian sanctions that have been in place since March 2014. I formulate a comprehensive approach to analysing the impacts of such retaliations on trade and how retaliating countries deal with lost trade. Towards that goal, I use a quadruple difference approach with high‐dimensional fixed effects to disentangle various effects of the retaliatory embargo on the extensive and intensive margins of trade. I find that such retaliation comes at a cost to both the retaliating country and the target of retaliation, while not being effective as Russian sanctions are still in place today. I estimate that the total loss of trade from such retaliation amounts to about 42 billion USD in the first 1.5 years after the imposition of the embargo. The disturbances caused by such retaliation destabilise bilateral trade by causing negative spillovers and significantly increase the costs of retaliation as an economic policy or political strategy. Note: This paper was written prior to the Russian invasion in Ukraine on 24 February 2022.

SHARIA LAW- THE WEST ENGULFED IN A FRENZY OF FEAR

Our paper aims to decode the immense fear which is evoked by the word Sharia in the West. For the masses of the West-mainly European and North American, Sharia is no less threatening than Lord Voldemort himself- something which is widely misinterpreted as medieval legal system with only one version of extreme interpretation which is used by bearded mullas to oppress women and give draconian rulings. However, at the back of their minds they also have a deep-rooted suspicion that Muslims want to impose Sharia law in Europe and America to dominate the West, this view is often pumped by the media when they generalize the whole 1.8 billion Muslims based on the actions of a few. Our main purpose is of writing this paper is to convey that this gloomy image of Islam and the massive ignorance at understanding Sharia did not come out of the blue. It is a deliberate manipulation to support western foreign policy goals. Throughout the paper we would elaborate the misinterpretation of Sharia by debunking 5 popular myths and how media made it worse, by quoting these peddlers of hate. We would trace how this fear was exploited by politicians to increase their vote bank and manipulate general population into supporting their interventionist foreign policy. Later on, we establish the link between these Islamophobic statements and spike in hate crime against Muslims-a direct consequence of ingesting fear 24/7. Towards the end, we give an insight about what the word Sharia really is and give solutions to actively combat the underlying hysteria of Sharia threatening the West civilization.

On the scarcity and promise of survey-based studies of international relations and security affairs in the Middle East

ABSTRACT Despite a dramatic increase in the availability and quality of public opinion data from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) since the Arab uprisings of 2011, the use of surveys to study international relations and security affairs in the region remains notably rare. One likely reason for the dearth of survey-based work is the assumption that there are relatively few important questions regarding which citizens in the mostly authoritarian MENA states can be expected to influence outcomes, particularly those relevant to Western foreign policy interests that have historically dominated the research agenda. This introduction contends that current events, as well as governments’ own behaviour, contradict the idea that public opinion does not inform or constrain the policy choices of MENA leaders on international and security issues. But it also argues that such popular influence on foreign and security policy should not be the standard for judging the utility of survey-based research. It concludes by introducing the articles of this Themed Section, which, although examining diverse substantive topics, are united in showing the value of survey methods and evidence for generating novel insights about international and security affairs in the MENA region.

Forgotten Conflicts: Producing Knowledge and Ignorance in Security Studies

Abstract Security studies privileges the study of civil wars in some contexts over others. The field's leading journals mostly publish studies of armed conflicts in Africa, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. Armed conflicts in Asia receive comparatively little attention, despite their prevalence and protracted nature. Against the background of our own empirical archive—the decades-old but largely ignored civil war in Myanmar—we ask why some conflicts draw more scholarly interest than others and why this uneven attention matters. In doing so, we argue that the empirical selectivity bias in the study of civil war and armed conflict reflects (1) institutional entanglements between the field of security studies and Western foreign policy; and (2) sociological factors that shape the formation of scholarly subjectivities and pertain to methodological challenges. This uneven empirical landscape shapes our conceptual understanding of civil wars. In fact, prominent debates within leading security studies journals surrounding the nature of civil war and armed conflict are inseparable from the empirical contexts in which they emerged. Leveling such an uneven empirical landscape thus generates opportunities for discussing conflict, insecurity, and violence in a different light. In shedding light on this issue, we urge closer attention to questions of place, time, and power in the scholarly production of knowledge and ignorance.

China: ‘Rising Threat’ or ‘Rising Peace’

‘China threat’ as a western foreign policy orientation and ‘Peaceful rise’ which later became ‘Peaceful development’ concept of Hu Jintao administration is debated since last two decades. Visualising rising China, her policies and its implications on the liberal world order have become debatable on the agenda of global intellectual community. The paper addresses the same theme and questions; whether China’s rise would be peaceful or not? Further, this research looks at the possible scenarios of comprehending rising China’s impact on international politics. The paper tries to explain the possible scenarios from different theoretical perspectives and the implications of each scenario. The paper concludes that the rising China’s impacts are long-lasting whether peaceful or threatening power depends on the members of the international community, especially the existing great power; the US, how latter accommodates the interests of a rising state and manages misperception, and maintain the balance of status in the global politics. Though minor conflicts can occur in several regions of overlapping interests, any major conflict would be avoided at the behest of both the major stakeholders.

Setting the Strategic Cat among the Policy Pigeons: The Problems and Paradoxes of Western Intervention Strategy

In theory, the idea of strategy is easy to comprehend but in practice it is a hard taskmaster because it often involves calculations of political values that are rarely amenable to the kind of rationalistic application of “expert” opinion to which Western nations invariably default when considering overseas interventions. Based on remarks to the Oxford Changing Character of War Centre, this research note argues that foreign policy experts frequently find themselves out of touch with the sentiments of their own populations, which in part is responsible for the poor strategic outcomes that Western foreign policies have incurred in recent years. A number of remedies are suggested, based principally on returning Western policy making to a tradition of prudential realism.

Unpredictability as doctrine: Reconceptualising foreign policy strategy in the Trump era

This article tackles the question of whether US President Donald Trump’s foreign policy is informed by doctrine and, if so, what that doctrine is. In doing so, it positions itself with those who argue for the presence of a doctrine and specifically those who argue for a doctrine of unpredictability. The article problematises current understandings of doctrine, and the notion of unpredictability itself. The tendency to rely on the rational decision-making model is identified as a hindrance to analysis that acknowledges the possibility of a doctrine premised on a deliberate strategy of obfuscation and of wrongfooting both friend and foe. A four-pronged model of unpredictability is posited, consisting of inconstancy, inconsistency, unconstrainedness, and unreliability. This model encourages research unimpeded by prior ideas that treat Western foreign policy as rational and therefore expands the range of possible foreign policy doctrines that analysts contemplate.

Explaining Homegrown Western Jihadists: The Importance of Western Foreign Policy

In both the United States and Europe, explanations of homegrown radicalization emphasize the power of Salafi-jihadist ideology and Muslim experiences of discrimination and socioeconomic deprivation in Western countries. Polls of U.S. and European Muslims, and case histories of jihadist plots for attacks in the United States, indicate that another source of homegrown radicalization is Western foreign policy, especially Western interventions in predominantly Muslim countries. Poll results support a two-factor model in which seeing the war on terrorism as a war on Islam is predicted by both perceived discrimination and grievance related to Western foreign policy. Consistent with this model, UK practitioners in counter-radicalization programs find it useful to recognize Muslim grievances related to Western foreign policy in order to argue that violence does not reduce Muslim suffering. These observations indicate that Muslim grievances relating to Western foreign policy are important for under - standing and countering support for jihadist violence in Western countries.

Iraq and the Kurds: How the 1960s-1990s Portrayed the Future of the Kurds

Kurdish ambitions and demands relative to the Iraqi central government have always impacted the equilibrium of the country. Kurdish requests shifted from demanding autonomy to insisting on recognition, causing the various Iraqi administrations to change their policies towards the Kurds many times. These changes in Iraq’s policies often caused violent repercussions among the Kurds, which sometimes escalated into armed conflicts. This paper aims to analyze the events that occurred between the Kurds and the Iraqi government from the 1960s to the end of the 1980s, specifically: the 1st and 2nd Iraqi-Kurdish War, how foreign countries were involved in these conflicts, and what were the short- and long-term consequences of the wars on the Kurdish population that paved the way to the al-Anfal Campaigns. A more in-depth analysis will be done on the 2nd Iraqi-Kurdish War and on the eight al-Anfal Campaigns, as the consequences were devastating for the Kurdish population, and marked a turning point in Kurdish relations with foreign countries. The goal of this study is to add a new understanding on how Iraqi and Western foreign policies affected the Kurdish sense of identity and of the state-building process that led to what is known today as the Kurdistan Regional Government.

The role of Muslim identity in predicting violent behavioural intentions to defend Muslims

A sense of shared Muslim suffering seems to play a key role in uniting Muslims around the world. Therefore, in the current paper we hypothesized that the social psychological underpinnings of Islamist extremism would be similar for Muslims living in the West and Muslims living in countries with prolonged and ongoing exposure to Western-led military interventions. Across 4 studies among Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan ( Ns = 425, 402, and 127) and Muslims living in 20 Western countries ( N = 366), we examined a path model in which group-based anger mediated the link between Muslim identification, perceived injustice of Western military and foreign policy, and violent behaviour intentions. Our results indicate that regardless of whether Muslims live in places with prolonged and ongoing experience of Western military interventions or not, the social psychological factors predicting violent Islamist extremism appear to be similar. We discuss implications for future theory and research.

The Evolution of Turkey’s Asia Policy in Historical and Contemporary Perspectives

Turkey’s transition from a Western foreign policy template to a ‘multidimensional foreign policy’ has brought Asia-Turkey relations once again into focus. However, the transition is yet to find a strategic convergence by accommodating Asian powers in a way that does not destabilise Turkey’s relations with the West. This paper argues that Turkey’s increased attention on Asia, now through its rebranded Asia Anew approach, is to be determined by three factors: first, the changes in ideological fault-lines within Turkey have helped reset its foreign policy; second, the changing global balance of power between the West and the rest in which the role of Russia, China and India has grown globally and regionally; and thirdly, Asia’s internal struggle for global and regional leadership mainly between India and China and bilateral competitions such as the triangle of Pakistan, India and China. The paper also argues that Turkey’s assertive politics in Syria, Libya, Qatar, and elsewhere in the Middle East, Mediterranean and the Balkan, and its increasing soft power are also factoring in their Turkish perspectives. Turkey’s quest for an upgraded relationship with Asia to strategic levels depends on how Turkey engages, not just bilaterally, but also how it accommodates the Asian perspective of international politics represented by collective visions of SCO, BRICS and other regional groups which are so visibly critical of the West, of which Turkey is a longtime ally.

Post-Orientalism and Geopolitics: Three Debates that inform Islam and US Foreign Policy

This article argues that a post-orientalist discourse has emerged over the past few decades to challenge the dominance of orientalism on Western foreign policy thinking towards Islam and the Muslim world. The paper examines the geostrategic thinking of Bernard Lewis, Edward Said, and John Esposito, and their impact on Western perceptions of Islam. The paper submits that while Edward Said exposed the prejudice inherent in orientalist thought, it was John Esposito and a cohort of post-orientalist scholars who engaged in three critical debates with the orientalist to provide a more authentic vision of Islam and a more nuanced picture of the politics of the Muslim world. The paper however concedes that while post-orientalism has triumphed in the academic setting, the orientalist perspective still dominates the policy sphere and continues to shape American foreign policy.