print

Assembly line for ideas in US foreign policy and the issue of international relations actors’ trust hereinunder

Pavlov V.V.,

Institute for International Studies, MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, v.pavlov@inno.mgimo.ru

elibrary_id: 845426 | ORCID: 0000-0003-1128-2106 | RESEARCHER_ID: AAC-1764-2020

Article received: 2023.09.23 13:41. Accepted: 2024.06.21 13:41


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2024.04.07
EDN: OVTZVQ

Rubric: Orbis terrarum

For citation:

Pavlov V.V. Assembly line for ideas in US foreign policy and the issue of international relations actors’ trust hereinunder. – Polis. Political Studies. 2024. No. 4. P. 89-104. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2024.04.07. EDN: OVTZVQ

The research is funded by the Russian Science Foundation, Project 22-18-00664 (https://rscf.ru/ project/22-18-00664/).

Abstract

Modern US foreign policy is aimed at maintaining the world order favorable to Washington by means of military force projection, economic potential and a liberal ideology. A distinctive feature of US foreign policy behavior is the production of new ideas and projects, ranging from ‘The End of History’ to the ‘rules-based order.’ Despite a number of foreign policy setbacks (interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia), Washington’s cascade of ideas does not weaken, and US allies and some other actors continue to demonstrate acceptance of new speculative projects. In order to explain this irrational situation, the author employs content analysis of the State of the Union addresses and the US National Security Strategies is conducted to examine the main narratives of the US presidential administrations. This analysis shows that Washington tries to use international ethics to its advantage by formulating narratives that benefit US, as well as to put forward proposals convenient for Washington to replace the norms of international law. Moreover, the author (1) discusses the reasons for such a situation in US foreign policy decision-making; and (2) in order to resolve the issue of acceptance of US ideas, turns to the psychology of international relations. The categories of trust, habit and hypocrisy, according to the author, are able to provide an explanatory framework which closes the gap that appears when attempting to apply rationalist theories.

Keywords

decison-making process, interventionalism, narratives, State of the Union Address, National Security Strategy, content analysis.

Blau, P. (2002). Reflections on a career as a theorist. In J. Berger, & M. Zelditch Jr. (Ed.), New Directions in Contemporary Sociological Theory (pp. 345-357). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Campbell, D. (1992). Writing security: United States foreign policy and the politics of identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Cook, K.S. (2005). Networks, norms, and trust: the social psychology of social capital. 2004 Cooley Mead Award Address. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 4-14.

Debrix, F. (Ed.). (2003). Language, agency, and politics in a constructed world. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.

Dobson, A., & Marsh, S. (2001). U.S. foreign policy since 1945. London: Routledge.

Farrell, H., & Finnemore M. (2013). The end of hypocrisy: American foreign policy in the age of leaks. Foreign Affairs, 92(6), 22-26.

Hansen, L. (2016). Discourse analysis, post-structuralism, and foreign policy. In S. Smith, A. Hadfield, & T. Dunne (Ed.), Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases (pp. 95-108). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Herring, G. (2011). From colony to superpower: U.S. foreign relations since 1776. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hoffman, A. (2002). A conceptualization of trust in international relations. European Journal of International Relations, 8(3), 375-401. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066102008003003.

Hopf, T. (2010). The logic of habit in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 16(4), 539-561. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066110363502.

Jaworsky, B.N., & Qiaoan, R. (2021). The politics of blaming: the narrative battle between China and the US over COVID-19. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 26, 295-315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-020-09690-8.

Kramer, R., & Cook, K. (Ed.). (2004). Trust and distrust in organizations: dilemmas and approaches. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Kubálková, V., Onuf, N., & Kowert, P. (Ed.). (1998). International relations in a constructed world. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.

Kydd, A. (2005). Trust and mistrust in international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Larson, D. (1997). Trust and missed opportunities in international relations. Political Psychology, 18(3), 701-734.

Lasswell, H.D. (1927). Propaganda technique in the world war. London: Kegan Paul & Co.

Lerner, A.B. (2023). Blurring the boundaries of war: PTSD in American foreign policy discourse. Perspectives on Politics, 21(2), 569-586. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720004223.

Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Macmillan.

Luhmann, N. (2000). Familiarity, confidence, trust: problems and alternatives. In D. Gambietta (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations (pp. 94-107). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Manheim, J.B., & Rich, R.C. (1986). Empirical political analysis: research methods in political science. New York; London: Longman.

Neumann, I.B., & Sending O.J. (2010). Governing the global polity: practice, mentality, rationality. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Mercer, J. (2005). Rationality and psychology in international politics. International Organization, 59(1), 77-106. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818305050058.

Orbell, J., van de Kragt, A., & Dawes, R. (1988). Explaining discussion‒induced cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 811‒819.

Rathbun, B. (2009). It takes all types: social psychology, trust, and the international relations paradigm in our minds. International Theory, 1(3), 345-380. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971909990121.

Snyder, J. (2004). One world, rival theories. Foreign Policy, 145, 52-62. https://doi.org/10.2307/4152944.

Stein, A. (1991). Why nations cooperate: circumstance and choice in international relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Uslaner, E. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society. Volume 1: An outline of interpretative sociology. New York: Bedminster Press.

Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612183.

Wheeler, N.J. (2010). ‘I had gone to Lahore with a message of goodwill but in return we got Kargil’: the promise and perils of “leaps of trust” in India-Pakistan relations. India Review, 9(3), 319-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/14736489.2010.506349.

Zinnes, D.A. (1968). The expression and perception of hostility in prewar crisis: 1914. In R. Snyder (Ed.), Quantitative International Politics (pp. 85-119). New York: Free Press.

Zmerli, S., & van der Meer, T.W.G. (Ed.). (2017). Handbook on political trust. Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Autova, F.H., Golik, M.Ya., & Dolgopolov, V.A. (2015). Mutual perception of USA and Сhina based on content-analysis of media. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 3, 177-184. (In Russ.)

Khrustalev, M.A. (2008). Analiz mezhdunarodnykh situatsii I politicheskaya ekspertiza: ocherki teorii I metodologii [Analysis of international situations and political expertise: essays on theory and methodology]. Moscow: MGIMO-NOFMO. (In Russ.)

Kun, Ts. (2013). Comparison of anti-terrorism discourse by George Bush and Barack Obama. Vestnik Orlovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Novye gumanitarnye issledovaniya, 6, 240-243. (In Russ.)

Pechatnov, V.O., & Manykin, A.S. (2012). Istoriya vneshnei politiki SShA [The History of the United States]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. (In Russ.)

Vasil’ev, S.V. (2011). Political discourse of the US foreign policy. Izvestiya Ural’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 3: Obshchestvennye nauki, 4, 30-37. (In Russ.)

See also: