The politics of foreign policy

A good friend and former colleague showed me an article on Chinese Premier Li Qiang's visit to Australia and questioned the depth of the analysis from a foreign policy standpoint. It highlighted for me the tension between how political leaders manage foreign policy issues and how these efforts are received by the public and the commentariat.

Unless they have had first-hand experience as a practitioner, foreign policy is not natural terrain for political leaders, at least at the beginning. Putting aside the largely formulaic, handshake-based set pieces seen during the Li visit, foreign affairs issues generally don’t register on the radar of most domestic political audiences unless there is a crisis, so it often hits the headlines for the government as a reactive issue, and by its nature occurs in far flung places that most people have little familiarity with (or indeed lasting interest in beyond the spectacle).

So political leaders have a difficult needle to thread when it comes to marrying effective foreign policy with satisfying domestic political imperatives. Their response needs to meaningfully contribute to the prevailing debate and inform the public mood. But ultimately the goal is to reach a sustainable position that helps resolve the issue in line with the country’s national interests (and hopefully doesn’t cost too much).

It seems the geopolitical dilemmas and diplomatic challenges being hurled at political leaders these days are both relentless and politically fraught. Foreign policy purists demand adhering to the sanctity of the “international rules based order” and relying on highly orchestrated diplomatic solutions to inherently dynamic political problems. Meanwhile, domestic interest groups maximise political pressure, including through the media, to force governments down often unintended diplomatic routes. And political leaders who try to be all things to all people inevitably fail and are labelled ineffective. Leaders can lose hard won political capital cheaply because seldom do foreign policy issues win or lose elections.

So how should political leaders navigate today’s foreign policy complexities? Do they rely on their diplomats to inch towards an outcome while the media cycle ticks over, or do they attempt to wrest control of the foreign policy narrative themselves? As is often the case in foreign affairs, there are no easy answers.

Take China for example. Most countries around the world continue to grapple with the right balance to strike between maximising the considerable economic benefits of favourable relations with China while minimising the political fallout of being seen as too close. In some countries there is the additional electoral quandary—how to appropriately respond to actions that might be regarded by the international community as unacceptable without alienating ethnic Chinese communities?

The other wickedly difficult foreign policy problem for many Western countries is how to effectively respond to the ongoing tragedy unfolding following the attacks of 7 October 2023. There is vast analysis illustrating the complexities that political leaders continue to face, which is amplified by daily news coverage and the voices of highly influential stakeholders on all sides of this debate. And political leaders have to find a way to show resolve, sympathy and fairness, while not alienating domestic communities. An impossible situation from a human standpoint, let alone a political one.

Leading a foreign policy debate with a domestic political lens is also a risky strategy. There are a litany of examples where political leaders have sought to score seemingly easy political points at home, but unwittingly caused lasting damage to important bilateral relationships and tainted their country's international reputation. Leaders seem particularly susceptible to this in and around elections, when the time for assessing the angles for policy decisions is severely compressed.

While I don’t claim to have easy solutions, I can at least offer a few practical perspectives in navigating diplomatic events and evolving foreign policy challenges that could apply to political leaders or really anybody engaged in these kinds of issues.

Knowing the difference between what is said publicly and privately on sensitive diplomatic issues is vital to understanding foreign policy dynamics and should be leveraged appropriately. There are diplomatic expectations around the minimum that needs to be said about a particular event or incident at any given time. But there is far more that happens behind the scenes and in the margins that creates the space for political momentum and the prospect of a resolution.

Consultation is critical. Investing the time to consult domestic stakeholders personally and regularly can help mitigate misunderstandings and navigate events as they unfold. Failing to do this can cause certain groups to feel alienated or not listened to, who then turn to the media, forcing the government to respond and restricting diplomatic freedom of movement. The most dangerous stakeholder politically is usually the one who has been overlooked or feels they have no voice.

Time is never your friend when it comes to diplomatic problems. The public demand for decisive action is always high and the relentless 24-hour media cycle places sustained pressure on political leaders to be seen to act. But sustainable diplomatic solutions require maximum flexibility and time for iteration and discussion. Political leaders need to create time and space to judge the complexities of a given foreign policy issue, but they also need to know when to stop talking and start acting. Diplomats will instinctively take extra time to consider an issue if allowed it, often failing to appreciate the political capital at stake.

Whatever your political stripes, having a clear understanding of your equities in a particular diplomatic issue and the associated red lines should help inform how you tackle it and what you say about it publicly. This framing should hopefully keep you from straying into unfamiliar territory until you are ready to do so.?This is where good diplomats are worth their weight in gold. They can concisely give you the history, the pros and cons, as well as provide the policy baseline so you can formulate a way forward. I have seen political leaders and their officials work amazingly well together to reach seemingly impossible diplomatic outcomes when both sides know what is expected of them.