Explaining American foreign

policy

• Task is infinitively complex.

• Many diverse factors at play that it often difficult to
determine the underlying reason.
• As a result of this complexity, need to adopt theory,
which tell us what to focus on and what to ignore.
• No overarching theory to capture variety sources of
American foreign policy.
 Theories of American Foreign
Policy

• Intense debate ( i.e. external vs.

internal factors) to determine the most
important source(s) of a state’s external
behavior & explain what states try to
achieve in the external realm and when
they try to achieve it.
 One US Foreign Policy, Many
Theories
1.Systemic Theories

(Defensive Realism, Offensive realism)

2.Internal, domestic theories (Liberalism, Marxism)

3.Toward a synthesis: neoclassical realism

4. Constructivism
1.Systemic (Foreign Policy) Theories
• The most important influence is the international system
and specifically the international distribution of power (i.e.
unipolar , bi-polar, multi-polar)

• Defensive/Offensive realism stress upon systemic

pressures play a decisive role.

• Both assume that 1) Anarchy 2) Sovereign states 3)Self-

Help 4) Power as the main currency.

• For both it truism to state that “capabilities (power)

largely determine interests.”
 1.1.Defensive Realism

• States are fundamentally security maximizers.

• In order to ensure survival in anarchical environment, the US
seeks an appropriate amount of power, not more.

• Expansionist/aggressive policies are counterproductive due to

counterbalancing (i.e.SCO ).

• If any other state over-expands, the domestic level is to blame.

• Considering the US is extraordinarly secure, neo-isolationists is
firmly anchored to the theory of defensive realism.
 1.2.Offensive Realism

• Rather than security maximizers, states are power

maximizers.
• The best way to ensure survival is to be the most powerful
state in the system.
• Global hegemony is the highest goal, but not possible
due to “ stopping power of the water.”
• Favor an “ offshore balancing” grand strategy.
• Primacy as grand strategy position derives from this
approach.
 2.Internal, domestic theories

• De-emphasize the utility of system-level

explanations
• Reversing the chain of causation from an outside-
in explanation to an inside-out explanation.
• Pressures within a states ( elections, public
opinion polls, the domestic economy,
unemployment level, etc.) determine foreign
policy outcome.
 2.1. Liberalism

• Given that the US is a liberal state, liberalism is one of

the most prominent theories to explain its foreign
policy.
• The logic of liberalism dictate the US to reflect/magnify
the liberal democratic character of the American polity.
• Beneficial for the US to have many like-minded liberal
states around the world.
• Even though they agree on reflecting domestic political
values, disagreement on the best way.
 3 Main Pillars of a liberal theory of
American Foreign Policy

1. Democracy Promotion (i.e.USAID)

2.The Promotion of Free Trade (i.e.WTO)
3. International Institutions (i.e.UN)
 2.2.Marxism
• Another inside-out explanation
• Emphasize the economic determinant, the capitalist
economy of the US pressuring on an expansionist and
imperialistic foreign policy.
• The interests of the capitalist class and the large
corporations.
• Promotion of the interests of the capitalist class by
providing a stable international environment for the
expansion of capitalism ( i.e. Open Door policy).
• Domestic needs of the American economy for markets
and cheap sources of raw material, such as oil.
 3.Neoclassical realism

• Combine systemic and domestic factors.

• Look at interaction of systemic and domestic factors.
• Both individual decision makers and domestic
politics, including the governmental structure,

matter in understanding the foreign policy.

 4.Constructivism

• The role of ideas and identity

• Identities and national interests are all socially
constructed
• Identity is never self-referential, but rather is always
relational and emerges by differentiating oneself from
others (i.e. evil USSR , axis of evil).
• Interests not a function of material gains, but
identities/perceptions/ideas.
• Keen interest in explaining change.
For both insurance and international relations…danger
is the consequence of a calculation of a threat which
‘objectifies’ events, disciplines relations, and
sequesters an ideal of the identity of the people said to
be at risk…In announcing that the US was sending
military forces to Saudi Arabia, President Bush
declared: 'In the life of a nation, we're called upon to
define who we are and what we believe.' By manifestly
linking American identity to danger, the President
highlighted the indispensability of interpretation to the
determination of a threat, and tacitly invoked the theme
of this study: that the boundaries of a state's identity
are secured by the representation of danger integral to
foreign policy.(Campell, 1992, 3)