The Domestic Sources of Détente: State–Society Relations and Foreign Policy Change during the Cold War

Abstract

Research on foreign policy change claims leaders seek to restructure their country's foreign relations when internal and external opportunity structures are permissive. However, a number of prominent efforts at achieving change have occurred during times of considerable domestic upheaval and rigid international constraints. To understand why, this article examines three well-known cases of Cold War foreign policy change, focusing on the external relations of Charles de Gaulle in France, John G. Diefenbaker in Canada, and Willy Brandt in West Germany. These cases suggest that domestic upheaval and foreign policy change were inextricably interwoven and that efforts to effect strategic change on a grand scale were motivated by a desire to respond to the demands of marginalized domestic constituencies without incurring the costs of domestic reform. Our analysis suggests key moments of international change are best understood as domestic incorporation strategies rather than instances of significant and principled foreign policy change.

Populism and the politicisation of foreign policy

“…Another sphere of politicisation that is not reflected in our data is Modi’s proactive cultivation of India’s diaspora (Plagemann and Destradi, 2019) – arguably a group that had been marginalised in India’s foreign policy establishment but now forms a strong part in the societal coalition that sustains Modi’s power (also see Chryssogelos and Martill, 2021). Nonetheless, the relative irrelevance of foreign policy issues in Modi’s speeches to the widest audiences is telling.…”

“…The literature on the 'rally-around-the-flag effect' tells us that foreign policy issues and potential threats from abroad can be easily used for domestic political mobilisation (Tir, 2010). More generally, political leaders play 'two-level games', seeking to satisfy domestic supporters while negotiating international treaties (Putnam, 1988) or revising their countries' grand strategies (Chryssogelos and Martill, 2021). In the case of populists in power, we might expect such links between foreign and domestic issues to be even stronger.…”

Grasping Foreign and Security Policy Change: Patterns and Conditions of Change Among Liberal Democracies

“…Far less common, scholars apply a comparative perspective. Notable exceptions include edited volumes with single-case studies (Haesebrouck & Joly, 2021b;Rosati et al, 1994);Welch's (2005) monograph on critical junctures and decision-making processes with seven case studies on different countries; Chryssogelos and Martill's (2021) analysis of the evolution of détente strategies during the Cold War era in Germany, France, and UK; and an assessment of foreign policy change among Latin American countries by Merke et al (2020), which is also one of the few quantitative studies. Hence, summing up the empirical state of affairs, while we do know a lot about single cases, we lack both genuine comparative studies (beyond some notable exceptions) and a systematic operationalization of policy change that can be applied to the selected countries.…”

A sovereignist revolution? Italy’s foreign policy under the “Yellow–Green” government

“…9 While "scepticism about the merits of international cooperation is nothing new, and countries" national interest has always been at the heart of international politics, what is new, however, is the increasing politicization of international cooperation" (De Vries et al 2021, 2). Indeed, political entrepreneurs mobilize the discontent over existing forms of cooperation (De Vries et al 2021), also due to "perceived gaps in the in-group's exercise of sovereignty" (Jenne 2021, 326), promoting change in foreign policy to satisfy marginalized constituencies and obtain domestic benefits (Chryssogelos and Martill 2021). Sovereignist actors adopt frames of "incomplete sovereignty", prescribing-symbolically or materially-foreign policy revisionism, "rejecting the authority of supranational actors" or even "turning away from allies who are seen in limiting the sovereignty" of the "authentic" state community (Jenne 2021, 332).…”