Foreign Policy Isn't About You
The Ten Key Mistakes People Make When Discussing Foreign Policy
Viewing events on the other side of the world through your own lens.
Consider the importance of cultural relativism and understanding local contexts. Western analysts and citizens are often surprised by the decision-making in other parts of the world. Everyone's "calculus" depends on their situations, strategies, and worldviews, which may be very different from your own.
Thinking your own country is singularly responsible for both the problems and the solutions.
It's not about you. Civilization is 20,000 years old, and there are 7-8 billion people currently alive on the planet. Emphasize the complexity of global issues and the role of multiple actors.
Ignoring colonial or imperial history.
Why are things the way they are? Colonial and imperial history played a major role in shaping the world. Highlight how historical context shapes current events and relationships. Remember, Europeans and Americans were hardly the only colonizers throughout history.
Ignoring local agency and non-colonial history.
You make your own decisions. You can't just blame England. Recognize the importance of local actors and their histories in shaping current dynamics. There are good people, bad people, and everything in between, everywhere. As the military adage goes, "the enemy also gets a vote." Again, it's not all about you.
"They/them control the world" theory.
The more I learn about the world, the more it is clear that no one is in control. Our society is a complex system of systems. There are powerful people who try to manipulate those systems, but history tells us they have far less power than we think they have. It's important to point out the dangers of conspiracy theories and oversimplified views of power dynamics.
Ignoring global systems of security, economics, and international cooperation.
Stress the interconnectedness of global systems and the importance of multilateral institutions. It's easy (and important) to point out that a system has flaws. But those flawed systems may still play a vital role in local, regional, or global society. Think of it like medicine—if someone has lung cancer, you can't just cut out their lungs; you'll need to fix them or replace them. But be careful—sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, and sometimes a small problem that goes untreated could spread to other systems.
Ignoring the good by focusing on the bad.
Balance criticism with recognition of positive developments and efforts.
Misapplying history through category error.
Ensure accurate historical analogies and avoid oversimplified comparisons. In America, we always seem to be fighting the last war. People wanted to remain neutral in World War II because they saw the destruction of World War I. People thought Vietnam could be won easily because the Allies were victorious in World War II. People thought the first Gulf War would be another Vietnam, and the US coalition easily won. People thought the Iraq War could be easily won based on the success of the first Gulf War. It's easy to cite history, but it's much harder to know which is the right history to cite.
Equivalence.
Avoid false equivalencies and recognize the unique contexts of different situations. No, what Russia is doing in Ukraine is not the same as what the US did in Iraq. No, the BBC is not the same as RT. Dictators and autocrats use surface similarities to justify their bad actions. Don't fall into this trap. If you're about to write or say the phrase "both sides," you're probably about to make a mistake.
Unrealistic expectations.
Set achievable goals and acknowledge the limits of influence and intervention. Look at Libya, where there have been many problems since the NATO intervention in 2011/2012. But that ignores the fact that Gaddafi was hell-bent on destroying the country, and it wasn't exactly a shining example of success before that intervention. It's fair to critique the intervention, but let's not forget the context and blame all the problems that exist on that intervention.
