Image Source: pxhere.com, public domain
Donations keep this site going. If you like what I’m doing here and think this work is important to the independence movement, consider a donation. One-off or monthly; as little or as much as you want. Click the links below, or full details are available here.
The different schools of thought when it comes to international relations aren’t rigid and can change with a change in government. US presidents often have very different foreign policies from each other, and different UK governments have had different foreign policy approaches from each other too.
Related to this are the concepts of “Hard Power” and “Soft Power”.
Also, in full democracies, different political parties will have different approaches. They’ll have different ideas on “what works” and different thoughts on which countries we should prioritise relations with or try to distance ourselves from.
In Wales’ case, Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives may (as examples) have very different ideas on how close an independent Wales’ relationship would be with the EU, Israel and the United States.
It’s difficult to tell which school of thought an independent Wales would use to develop our foreign policy.
Though if you’re that interested, just go through what’s been said by Welsh politicians on foreign policy down the years. You might get hints as to what a Welsh foreign policy might look like.
The Big Two
- Support for democracy.
- Countries working together on common goals (multilateralism).
- Rules-based order – respect for international law and human rights.
- Support for international and intergovernmental organisations (i.e. UN, EU, WHO, World Bank).
- Free trade, free markets, free people.
- “We are all citizens of the world”.
Liberalism is underpinned by a belief that military might isn’t the only source of a nation’s power, as global trade and culture play an important role too. Disputes should be resolved peacefully and, only when that has failed, should force be used. More idealistic than cynical.
- Realpolitik – choose what’s practical/what works over what’s “moral”.
- Unilateralism and self-interest – acting alone wherever possible.
- Balance of power between competing spheres of influence (“multi-polar world”).
- “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
- Security over freedom.
- “My country, right or wrong”.
Within realist foreign policy, countries are the most important actors and they will always act out of self-interest. Nations rise and fall based on their ability to outlast the competition. International cooperation is fine, but it’s disposable; a country that’s an ally one decade can be an enemy in the next. More cynical than idealistic.
Other Important Theories
Other factors shape how a country or its people think about relations with other countries. These may be combined with Liberalism and Realism to create a more-rounded foreign policy.
- “Things are the way they are because we want them to be”.
- International relations are driven by culture, language, beliefs and ideas.
- Rejects the principle that international relations are solely about power plays and alliances (materialism).
- Nation-states will act in a way that fits within certain values and norms.
- Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are more important than institutions in changing behaviour.
This one’s a bit more difficult to describe. Institutions, trade, military power etc. are less important. What’s more important is how different cultures and peoples interact.
For example, even though one nuclear weapon is as destructive as another, the United States will take very different stances towards Russia, North Korea and China on one side, compared to the UK, France and Israel on the other.
- The legacy of 19th and 20th-century colonialism still impacts the world today.
- Focused on global wealth inequality (Global North & South).
- Critical of viewing foreign policy through the eyes of “The West” (eurocentrism) and “othering” non-Western cultures.
- Rejects the idea (aka. “The White Man’s Burden”) that societies or cultures that existed before colonialism were “primitive” and needed civilising.
That summarises it pretty well and there’s little to add. There’s a heavy social justice angle and some countries may accuse others of acting in an “imperial” manner while acting in an imperial/colonial manner themselves. Some of this may also be tied to Marxist theories around international relations, but that’s been less and less important or influential since the 1980s.
- Nation-states are no longer as relevant as they once were.
- The interests of specific countries need to take a back seat to common interests as “we’re all in the same boat”.
- Power should be used at the most appropriate level it can be managed efficiently (subsidiarity, federalism).
- Strong belief in international law and international organisations having authority over nation-states (where agreed to).
The European Union is one of the best examples of functionalist foreign policy that has worked as intended, despite the pushback. You probably can’t say the same about the International Criminal Court (ICC) or the United Nations.
This could also be tied to Green thinking on foreign policy and climate change, with the need for both local and global action to address it (“think globally, act locally”).
- International relations are determined by geography as well as politics.
- A country’s foreign policy is driven by control of natural resources and territory.
- Belief in spheres of influence and a hierarchy of countries (i.e. superpowers, great powers, regional powers) based on their geography and resources.
- Countries and peoples have natural borders (islands, rivers, mountain ranges).
This has heavily influenced American, Russian and Chinese foreign policy for the last 20 years or so – but it’s as old a concept as countries and empires themselves.
Many countries have used their national resources and geography to pursue foreign policy goals. It even features in discussions for and against Welsh independence. These include debates around Welsh control over our own natural and energy resources (such as the Crown Estate) and our “porous border with England” that supposedly makes independence unviable.
You Might Also Like....
No AI tools were used to draft this post.
