Introduction
World leaders, to the extent that they formulate foreign policy, generally do not consult International Relations texts for guidance. The well-worn trio of Realism, Constructivism and Liberalism (or what used to be called Idealism) are purely ideal types, themselves reflecting no nation’s foreign policy. These theories are the creations of academics, not governments. The examples below of Russia, the USA and Iran are no different. Their foreign policies are not “formulated” but are reactions to the world around them and their own domestic capabilities. The authors referenced below too use different theoretical approaches to write their pieces, often featuring the inability to mention any inconvenient information tat harms their (implicit or explicit) agenda. If anything, those writing on foreign policy are more apt to see the world through a theoretical lens than world leaders.
In the examples below, the authors writing on different foreign policy ideas greatly distort the international situation. They make wild and sweeping assumptions that often require a second reading to ensure the assumption was actually made. The articles below on Iran and Russia are examples of a radical, almost pathological constructive. They are projections of western biases against two nations few, including elites, know anything about. They are the “dark unknowns” that are inherently seen as hostile and frightening. That the article on Russia’s expansion into the Arctic was written by a military man working for two NATO countries should immediately send up a red flag.
Three Paragraphs
Realism is the best known theory of International Relations. It is also the simplest. It argues that all foreign policy can be reduced to states, that is, governments, seeking security in an international environment where no legal structures apply. Generally, security is defined as military security, assuming that economic benefits from global trade can exist only from military force. In addition, it assumes that the growth of any government, the increase of its security, can only come at the expense of others. Its assumptions are its weakest point and is the most abstract of all the theories.
Liberalism is amorphous since it takes the abstract “human rights” agenda and believes that it can be the foundation of a more “modern” and less “militarist” foreign policy. Liberalism stresses international cooperation over the zero-sum drive for security. Of course, cooperation can fit easily into the vague contours of Realism as well. Since any foreign policy whatsoever can be seen as the augmentation of security, it ends up explaining nothing n that it explains everything. Liberalism, despite itself, also relies greatly on military force. Its agenda is vitiated by the fact that the statues routinely accused of human rights violations all happen to be states that reject the economic and political domination of Washington DC. That there are no exceptions to this should go far in poking holes in these ideal-type theories as separate notions. They all seem to be one and the same, differing only in the rhetoric used. The “neoconservatives” referenced in the Obama piece below are identical to Liberals in this respect. It is not in bad taste to suggest that rejecting Washington is identical with violating “human rights.”
Both Liberalism and Realism require Constructivism. Constructivism is the idea that foreign policy elites do not react to “facts” of other nations’ drive for security and stability. Rather, they project their own self-interest, desires and biases on the world. This is why Constructivism is the most useful of all the theories, party because it explains the others very well. “Security” does not define itself. “Human rights” and their alleged violation too are imposed on the world. Countries that are less well known to Americans, such as North Korea or Burma, are almost seen as violating “human rights” by their very existence. The line between projection and Construction is non-existent.
The articles mentioned below certainly impose their agenda upon their subject matter no differently than any foreign policy might. In order to be a Realist, one must project what “security” is and interpret what other countries do. For example, concerning Iran, Israel’s self-interest dictates that it “construct” Iran for Americans, both elite and common. This requires Israel to depict Iranians as bloodthirsty terrorists. Others might construct Iran as a Third World state seeking to defend its interests from a nuclear armed Israel and endless American and NATO threats. Which interpretation one takes as defining “security” for the US is then constructed. There is no Realism without Constructivism.
Coffee’s piece on Russia’s development of the Arctic is far from a work of scholarship. As a military man serving one side in an ongoing war against Russia, he is a pure Constructivist reflecting those who he has served in the past. Without irony, he states,
It is Russia’s prerogative to place military assets inside its national territory, however, these actions should be of concern to others in the region because Moscow has shown its willingness to use military force to achieve its national objectives outside its national borders.
Apparently, only the US can do otherwise. This is constructivist because it implies that the US is a crusader for human rights and military force from Washington is acceptable wherever a fire is to be extinguished. On the other hand, “Russia” is constructed as an imperial power that uses “force” to achieve its “national objectives.” This former officer for the United States projects State Department goals onto the world, seeing the USA as a moral user of force and Russia as a “cause for concern.” There is no distinction between his analysis and that of the US State Department. As an undeclared war has been underway against Russia since at least 2000, this should not be surprising.
President Obama was never focused on foreign policy. As a long time “community organizer,” his concerns were almost exclusively domestic until he was brought into the presidency. Given the tremendous work of an American president, it is doubtful that he or any other chief executive has suddenly become an expert in Chinese foreign policy goals or the economic problems of the European Union. Chances are his foreign policy is the creation of private actors or career diplomats at State.
Groll suffers from the same lack of knowledge. Referring to the war in Eastern Ukraine as “Russian backed” conveniently ignores the (now) well known fact that it was the western powers who organized and bankrolled the insurgency against President Yanukovych, seen as inconvenient by the west. Yet again, he was “constructed” to be siding with Russia against the west. While this might be a good example of Realism, the neoconservatives and Liberals (broadly speaking) both said the same about him: he was a “dictator” and the rest of the rhetorical arsenal. Realism must use Liberal rhetoric while “constructing” both itself and its opponents. The same was done in Syria. These wars are the result of western actions that fell short of military force. For a country that is drowning in debt financed in part by foreign powers, this is an acceptable substitute.
Assuming the author is correct, Obama’s “foreign policy” comes from the simple fact that there is no money, public support or manpower to implement the neoconservative dream of an American empire. Yet, this is the identical goal of the liberal “human rights” crusaders. There is no distinction in the goals or the means to achieve them. Rhetoric alone is different.
In Iran, the special nature of Israel relative to the US is the main issue. Iran does not nor could not threaten the US. It threatens Israel and thus, Netanyahu has to package his rhetoric such that Iran becomes a threat to the US. In so doing, Americans might get the impression that in attacking Iran, they are standing up for “American interests” rather than, yet again, starting yet another war for Israel’s interests.
For his part, the Iranian foreign ministry seems to take the rhetorical position that “cooperation” with the world is the primary way to package their own agenda. Since it would be virtually impossible to justify a war with Iran (which would be a global war), Iran’s desire for cooperation certainly is morally superior to the endless Israeli drive to force Americans to die for them. Israel was built and functions entirely on violence and, without it, would lose their claim against the American taxpayer. Mr. Botelho is being intellectually dishonest in refusing to mention that Israel is a major nuclear power and its well known “Sampson Option” of destroying the Middle East in case of a lost war is official Israeli doctrine.
These three articles seek to describe the foreign policy of Russia, Iran and the US. Of course, they are written by those not directly making foreign policy, so the Construction is double: the establishment itself constructs the world according to its own interest while the journalist constructs their construction and simplifies it for a mass audience. These all show that Constructivism encapsulates both Realism and Liberalism, since neither can function unless its terms are defined. Their terms concern foreign affairs, and hence, a broad notion of self-interest governs the definition. Security, human rights or “American interests” are the products of interpretation, construction, bias and the collection of elite interests that all go into the blender of foreign policymaking. Realism and Liberalism, or so it seems, refer to rhetorical means of putting that into action.
- Coffee, L. Russia’s Arctic Opportunity: Russia is Already Militarily Securing the New Economic Opportunities that Melting Ice in the Arctic. Al Jazeera, December 19 2014 http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/12/russia-arctic-opportunity-2014121854828947405.html
- Groll, E. Obama’s Foreign Policy Summed Up in One Quote. Foreign Policy, February 9 2015 http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/09/obamas-foreign-policy-summed-up-in-one-quote/
- Botelho, G. Iranian President: We Will Stick to our Promises on Nuclear Deal. CNN, April 3 2015
