Foreign policy and social democracy

The foreign policy of social democrats, much like their domestic policy, must be based on alignment with progressive values. It is the balanced consideration of these values that determines the actions of social democrats on any given foreign policy issue (especially since, as we will show below, their promotion is an important tool for expanding foreign policy influence today). In practice, this means, for instance, rejecting the short tagline (favored by various right-wing movements) that a situation where “everyone fears us” is a good thing. Social democrats do not need “to be feared” — as a rule, this is desired by people who were bullied in school or suppressed by their parents, which makes them feel a need in adulthood to ensure they are finally feared now. However, social democrats want something else — not building a barracks-style or prison-like hierarchy of international relations, but cooperation and mutual understanding with developed countries.

What is foreign policy

The Encyclopedia Britannica states that foreign policy is the general objectives that guide the activities and relationships of one state in its interactions with other states. The development of foreign policy is influenced by domestic considerations, the policies or behaviour of other states, or plans to advance specific geopolitical designs. Leopold von Ranke emphasized the primacy of geography and external threats in shaping foreign policy, but later writers emphasized domestic factors. Diplomacy is the instrument of foreign policy; war, alliances, and international trade may all be manifestations of it¹. The development of the theory of “foreign policy” is inextricably linked with the understanding of the “theory of international relations”². To put it in simple terms, foreign policy is how a state should behave toward other states and toward what happens within them.

What are the main goals of foreign policy? In most countries, social democrats can speak of the following goals:

• Ensuring the security of the country with the minimum resources spent on achieving this goal;
• Creating the most favorable conditions for economic growth, integrating the country into the world economy and global economic chains. It is impossible to develop a modern economy in isolation from the rest of the world. Foreign policy should not hinder prosperity, should not block receiving assistance from developed countries, and should not force spending huge amounts of money on defense. It should be a continuation of domestic policy;
• Solving global problems. We will talk about this further.

A course toward democratic allies

As a rule, progressive democratic states fight against each other much less frequently than conservative and authoritarian ones. There is a democratic peace theory, according to which democratic regimes do not fight each other at all for the following reasons:

• Democratic leaders are forced to accept culpability for war losses to a voting public;
• Publicly accountable statesmen are inclined to establish diplomatic institutions for resolving international tensions;
• Democracies are not inclined to view countries with adjacent policy and governing doctrine as hostile;
• Democracies tend to possess greater public wealth than other states, and therefore eschew war to preserve infrastructure and resources.

This refers primarily to the so-called “full democracies” and, to a lesser extent, to “flawed democracies” (we discussed this division in the article on political regimes). Authoritarian regimes, however, fight among themselves relatively often. One of the popularizers of the democratic peace theory (DPT) was US President Bill Clinton, who stated in one of his speeches: “ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don’t attack each other”³. Professor of international relations Fred Chernoff, in his article “The Study of Democratic Peace and Progress in International Relations”, conducted a methodological study and concluded that at the current stage of scientific development, the postulate that two democratic states will be more peaceful toward each other than any other combination of states with other forms of government is generally accepted⁴.

The DPT itself was formed after criminologist Dean Babst conducted the first statistical study in the field of war and peace in 1964 and published its results in the article “Elective Governments – A Force for Peace”. In his quest, Babst wondered if there were types of governments that do not unleash wars. Assuming that freely elected governments should be such, he studied data from Quincy Wright’s two-volume “A Study of War”, published in 1942. Although Wright’s statistics covered the period from 1480 to 1941, Babst analyzed data starting from 1789, as that was when the first elective government in history began to operate. Babst discovered that there was not a single war between independent states with “elective governments”. On this basis, he concluded that the existence of elective governments significantly increases the chances of maintaining peace⁵.

What are the reasons for a greater inclination toward resolving foreign policy issues through non-military methods? A state with a democratic regime is characterized by the separation of powers, institutions representing the interests of citizens, and the presence of a developed institution of civil society, all of which impose constraints on decision-making and adjust government preferences⁶. For this reason, democratic states are rational, predictable actors in international relations that can be trusted. The more progressive and democratic a state is, the lower the probability of military aggression on its part.

It is also important for us that democratic states are interested in preserving democracy in each other, while authoritarian ones are interested in preserving authoritarianism. Obviously, democratic states will be more interested in protecting a social democratic country than authoritarian regimes. Another argument in favor of an alliance with democratic states is their higher combat capability (this was best demonstrated, for example, by the War of the First Coalition, World War II, and the Arab-Israeli wars⁷, but we also have a separate article on this topic).

Thus, an alliance with democratic states allows reducing the risk of war with them (and therefore the risk of war as a whole), as well as gaining strong allies (which will help reduce military spending). These allies will be interested in preserving democracy in a social democratic country and will also be able to provide Russia with material assistance thanks to a mutual reduction of military expenditures in the European region (we have already discussed Western aid to Russia earlier). In the article on international organizations (which we will mention later), we recently wrote that in fact, the Second Cold War is beginning in the world — between democracy and authoritarianism. Democracies won World War II (in alliance with the Soviet regime) and the first Cold War, and due to their greater efficiency (discussed in detail here), they are likely to win the Second Cold War as well. It is very important that Russia takes the right side this time, and it must be said that its transition to the side of democracy will effectively guarantee another victory for the democratic bloc.

In view of all the above, the foreign policy priorities of social democrats in Russia are joining the European Union and NATO, and especially strengthening relations with countries where a social democratic or other progressive party is in power. This will allow getting rid of expenses related to fighting NATO expansion. Of course, this will require a significant amount of work (for example, increasing the level of the rule of law or democracy), without which Russia will not be accepted into these structures; such cooperation will also be impossible without resolving the Crimean issue. Since the annexation of Crimea violated many international norms (such as the Budapest Memorandum signed on December 5, 1994, when Russia, the US, and the UK provided Ukraine with guarantees of its territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal⁸, as well as other international obligations⁹), Russia will be obliged to return Crimea to Ukraine. Social democrats believe that the well-being of Russian citizens is more important than the size of the territories controlled by the Russian government.

Such a course will help in drawing closer to developed nations and exchanging experience with them. A visa-free regime should be introduced with such countries — for a start, at least unilaterally. In our article on national policy, we wrote that the role of the English language should be increased in Russia—perhaps even to the point of a partial transition to this language, which will also help in the exchange of experience.

Caution with authoritarian partners

The question of the social democrats’ attitude to the “export of democracy” is crucial. For example, US President from the Republican Party, George W. Bush, said: “I believe that democracy can provide peace. And that’s why I’m so strong believers that the way forward in the Middle East is the spread of democracy”¹⁰. However, in careless formulations, the concept of exporting democracy looks like a modified version of the Bolshevik concept of “export of revolution”/”world revolution”. Like the communists, some radical democrats suggest using methods of military intervention to facilitate the establishment of democratic regimes (including through the use of military force) and global democracy. Is this the right way for democracy to win worldwide?

Firstly, this intensifies confrontation with authoritarian regimes, which, in response to such decisive actions, not only strengthen their propaganda but also generally raise the stakes of the struggle (and the mobilization of forces is not a weak side of authoritarian regimes). Secondly, these are additional expenses that are unlikely to benefit the economy. Thirdly, this poses a risk to the lives of one’s own citizens. Fourthly, we have already mentioned that until a social democratic country becomes one of the world leaders in terms of key standard of living indicators, it should not spend resources on fixing the situation in other countries.

The best way to combat external authoritarianism is to show an example of transformation into a successful society that others would want to emulate. After that, it becomes possible to conduct information campaigns in the language of the state with the authoritarian regime, working on creating non-monolithicism, which will lead to the restructuring of this regime. It is also possible to provide political asylum for victims of repression by authoritarian regimes and implement other methods that we described here. Perhaps this, rather than the export of democracy, is the most effective policy for Russian social democrats today to combat external authoritarianism.

But, of course, extraordinary situations impose extraordinary obligations. This means that toward a country that is a military aggressor, one should not pursue the kind of “herbivorous” policy that was conducted toward Adolf Hitler’s Germany — instead, the kind of policy that was pursued toward Saddam Hussein should be implemented. Military aggression and gross violations of human rights (such as genocide or the use of chemical weapons) are valid justifications for removing the political leadership of the country where these violations are observed. In such situations, democratic countries are obliged to act together and decisively, while doing so proportionally to their economic potential (for instance, the main expenses for conducting operations out of the entire coalition will have to fall on the most economically developed and wealthy participant — at the current moment, this is the US). At the same time, if, say, a part of the coalition turns a blind eye to dictatorships “friendly” to the democratic bloc, such as the regimes of Augusto Pinochet or Suharto, social democrats must, on the contrary, emphasize and promote the idea that concessions toward such regimes by the democratic bloc are unjust and hypocritical.

In view of Russia’s specific geographical position, social democrats will have to exercise special caution here, as the country borders two key authoritarian regimes — China and the DPRK. In addition, among the authoritarian neighbors are also Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan, and not so far from the country lie the Middle Eastern states and some authoritarian regimes of Central Asia¹¹. For this reason, there is no particular sense in displaying extreme activity in the struggle against external authoritarianism, and it makes sense to concentrate on internal affairs, on creating that very successful example. This can hardly prevent tightening the belt when it comes to supporting small authoritarian regimes like the Belarusian or Turkmen ones, and cutting off any support to them. However, for example, supporting the democratic movement in China and the DPRK, as well as other interference in the affairs of these countries, would be a wrong step, considering how many problems confrontation with them can create.

The balance of military power

The confrontation between authoritarian and democratic regimes implies that the potentials of the armed forces of the two blocs must be at least equal. However, in the event of Russia’s transition into the democratic bloc, the forces of the latter will significantly exceed the forces of authoritarian states, which will allow for a reduction in military spending without causing any harm to the balance of military power, and even still seriously outmatching the opponent.

It is also important to note here that, whenever possible, social democrats strive to abandon the arms race and initiate its deceleration in every possible way; however, in the event that the adversary does not agree to this deceleration and builds up military potential, social democrats respond symmetrically — simply out of the need to increase the security of their citizens. As for nuclear weapons, social democrats are convinced that Russia should switch to a doctrine of minimum deterrence, meaning maintaining the smallest amount of nuclear weapons deemed necessary to have the capability to deter an enemy through the potential delivery of a retaliatory strike that entails unacceptable damage.

Soft power strategy to replace military might

Joseph Nye Jr., already mentioned above, is the author of the famous work “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics”¹³, where “Soft Power” is sometimes translated into Russian as “myagkaya sila”, sometimes as “gibkaya sila”, and sometimes as “umnaya sila”. According to Nye, what used to make a state “strong” — the army and navy — is becoming today only a part of a more comprehensive and flexible strategy of “soft power”, based on a combination of hard instruments of threats and violence and soft mechanisms of influence and attractiveness. “Soft power” is a state’s (alliance’s, coalition’s) ability to achieve desired outcomes in international affairs through persuasion (attraction) rather than suppression (coercion, violence, constraint), which is characteristic of “hard power”¹⁴. It is the ability to seduce and attract; it can also be based on an appeal to another state to follow reason and logic, while the solution to a controversial problem is presented in such a way that it is acceptable to the other side and does not look like its defeat. According to another definition, it is a special type of foreign policy activity associated with spreading the influence of one state over others through mass communication media, popular and high culture, providing education services, a favorable economic environment, spreading attractive humanitarian and political ideals, and one’s own original system of values that other actors in international relations would want to import¹⁵.

There are three main components of “soft power” through which a state is able to exert influence: culture, values (and not just declaring them, but adhering to them), and foreign policy as such. Today, the strong state is not the one that possesses weapons, but the state that possesses minds. The main strength of social democracy in the foreign policy arena lies in its attractiveness — if citizens of authoritarian countries flee to us for a better life, the demise of authoritarian regimes will be foreordained, both in the case of a direct clash and in its absence — the best and most capable cadres will flee from them to us in peacetime, and everyone else in wartime.

Improving international organizations

In the article on global problems and international organizations that solve them, we have already mentioned that social democrats solve global tasks through international coordination. For instance, one of the priority tasks could be displacing proponents of the concept of state non-intervention from the IMF and the World Bank in order to gain the opportunity to implement effective strategies for lifting the economies and living standards in democratic Third World countries. The second task is improving the UN and ISO, assisting these organizations and expanding their powers. A social democratic country should contribute to international work on improving ecology and promote the introduction of and adherence to new effective standards. Finally, the third task is to develop innovative programs. Russia may well have a joint space program with the European Union, especially since Europe sees the opportunity to cooperate even now¹⁶.

The verdict

The foreign policy of progressive social democrats is aimed at overcoming global authoritarianism primarily through the toolkit of “soft power”, at solving the global problems of humanity, ensuring the country’s security through alliances with strong and peace-loving states, spreading progressive values, and supporting social democratic parties. Blocs and cooperation with full democracies play an important role here.

1. Foreign policy // Britannica (www.britannica.com). [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.britannica.com/topic/foreign-policy (Accessed: 15.03.2021).
2. A.J.R. Groom. The Growing Diversity of International Actors / International Relations: Sociological Approaches // Ed. by Prof. P.A. Tsygankov. – M.: Gardarika, 1998. – pp. 222-239.
3. 1994 State Of The Union Address // The Washington Post (www.washingtonpost.com). January 25, 1994. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/states/docs/sou94.htm (Accessed: 15.03.2021).
4. F. Chernoff. The Study of Democratic Peace and Progress in International Relations // International Studies Review. 2004. No 6.- p. 72
5. D. Babst. Elective Governments – A Force for Peace / D. Babst // The Wisconsian Sociologist. – 1964. – Vol. 3. – №. 1. – p. 9–14.
6. A. Moravcsik. Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics. International Organization Volume 51, Number 4 (Autumn 1997) – p. 518-520
7. K.A. Panchenko. Arab-Israeli Wars // Great Russian Encyclopedia. Volume 2. Moscow, 2005, p. 137. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://bigenc.ru/world_history/text/1825463 (Accessed: 16.03.2021).
8. Conference on Disarmament // United Nations Documents (undocs.org). December 5, 1994. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://undocs.org/en/CD/1285 (Accessed: 15.03.2021).
9. Russia violates international obligations // Open Dialog Foundation. (ru.odfoundation.eu). December 3, 2014. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://ru.odfoundation.eu/a/5233,rossija-narushaet-mezhdunarodnye-objazatelstva/ (Accessed: 15.03.2021).
10. President and Prime Minister Blair Discussed Iraq, Middle East // The White House President George W. Bush (georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov). November 12, 2004. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041112-5.html (Accessed: 15.03.2021).
11. Democracy Index 2020: In sickness and in health? // The Economist Intelligence Unit (www.eiu.com). [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2020/ (Accessed: 15.03.2021).
12. Sibilla Bondolfi, Igor Petrov. Switzerland’s neutrality: a successful model? // SWI swissinfo.ch (www.swissinfo.ch). September 28, 2020, 15:19. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.swissinfo.ch/rus/история-и-современность_швейцария-испытала-бпла-в-израиле–вопреки-нейтралитету-/43648026 (Accessed: 15.03.2021).
13. Joseph Nye Jr. Soft Power: The Means To Success In World Politics – 192 p. – PublicAffairs: 2004
14. A.O. Naumov. “Soft Power” and Public Diplomacy: A Course of Lectures / A.O. Naumov. – 208 p. – M.: Moscow University Press, 2019. – p. 28.
15. A.O. Naumov. “Soft Power”, “Color Revolutions” and Technologies of Political Regime Change at the Beginning of the 21st Century. – 274 p. – M.: ARGAMAK-MEDIA, 2016. – p. 13.
16. Yury Sheiko. How the EU intends to protect its place in space // DW (www.dw.com). April 17, 2019. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.dw.com/ru/как-ес-намерен-защищать-свое-место-в-космосе/a-48379285 (Accessed: 15.03.2021).