Presidential Change and Foreign Policy Role Shifts: The United States at the UN, 2013-2020

Öz

This paper examines how presidential change affects the United States’ (US) foreign policy role conceptions, with a particular focus on its orientation toward the Liberal International Order (LIO). Conventional assumptions in International Relations literature suggest that the US, as both the founder and also the defender of the LIO, maintains a relatively stable foreign policy posture regardless of leadership transitions (Ikenberry, 2011). Challenging this expectation, we investigate the transition between Barack Obama’s second term (2013-2016) and Donald Trump’s first term in office (2017-2020). Drawing on Role Theory, we conducted a content analysis of eight US addresses to the United Nations General Assembly, coding role conceptions into four categories: assertive, cooperative, neutral, and challenger. Our findings reveal a clear departure from cooperative foreign policy roles under the Obama administration toward challenger foreign policy roles under the Trump administration. This shift underscores that presidential leadership can significantly influence the US’ stance toward the LIO, challenging the expectations of continuity of foreign policy across the US presidents. By analyzing the frequency and distribution of foreign policy roles elaborated discursively over time, this study highlights the importance of leadership styles and rhetorical choices in shaping grand foreign policy orientations. The findings contribute to debates about the resilience of the LIO and the extent to which domestic political change can influence global order commitments.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA)
• Role Theory
• United States Foreign Policy
• Content Analysis
• Liberal International Order

Destekleyen Kurum

TÜBİTAK

Proje Numarası

221K029

Teşekkür

This research was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK)’s 1001 program, under the project number 221K029. The authors would like to express their gratitude to the project assistants Dr. Emre Erdemir, Yağmur Yetimoğlu, Ayşe Serra Ünaldı, and Çağrı Çimen for their research assistance during the data collection and coding processes.

Başkanlık Değişimi ve Dış Politika Rolleri: BM Kürsüsü'nde Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, 2013-2020

Öz

Bu makale, başkan değişiminin Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nin (ABD) dış politika rol tasavvurlarını nasıl etkilediğini, özellikle de ülkenin Liberal Uluslararası Düzen’e (Liberal International Order-LIO) yönelik tutumu bağlamında incelemektedir. Uluslararası İlişkiler literatüründeki yaygın varsayımlar, ABD’nin LIO’nun hem kurucusu hem de savunucusu olarak, liderlik değişimlerinden bağımsız biçimde görece istikrarlı bir dış politika duruşunu sürdürdüğünü öne sürmektedir (Ikenberry, 2011). Makalede bu beklenti sorunsallaştırılmakta ve Barack Obama’nın ikinci başkanlık dönemi (2013-2016) ile Donald Trump’ın ilk başkanlık dönemi (2017-2020) mercek altına alınmaktadır. Makale, Rol Kuramı’ndan hareketle, ABD’nin Birleşmiş Milletler Genel Kurulu’nda gerçekleştirdiği sekiz konuşmanın içerik analizini yapmakta ve dış politika rol tasavvurlarını dört kategoriye ayırarak kodlamaktadır: iddialı, işbirlikçi, nötür ve meydan okuyucu. Bulgularımız, Obama döneminde baskın olan işbirlikçi rollerden, Trump döneminde giderek artan biçimde meydan okuyan rollere doğru bir geçiş olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu geçiş, başkan değişiminin ABD’nin LIO’ya yönelik tutumunu önemli ölçüde şekillendirebileceğini ve başkanlar arası dış politika sürekliliğine dair varsayımların sorgulanması gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Zaman içinde dış politika rol dağılımlarını ve sıklığını analiz eden bu çalışma, liderlik tarzlarının ve söylemsel tercihlerin dış politikanın büyük stratejik yönelimlerini nasıl etkilediğine dikkat çekmektedir. Bulgular, LIO’nun dayanıklılığına dair tartışmalara ve iç politikadaki değişimlerin küresel düzen taahhütlerini ne ölçüde etkileyebileceğine ilişkin literatüre katkı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dış Politika Analizi (DPA)
• Rol Kuramı
• Amerika Birleşik Devletleri Dış Politikası
• İçerik Analizi
• Liberal Uluslararası Düzen

Destekleyen Kurum

TÜBİTAK

Proje Numarası

221K029

Teşekkür

Bu araştırma TÜBİTAK 1001 programı çerçevesinde, 221K029 proje numarası ile desteklenmiştir. Yazarlar veri toplama ve kodlama sürecindeki yardımları nedeniyle proje asistanları Dr. Emre Erdemir, Yağmur Yetimoğlu, Ayşe Serra Ünaldı ve Çağrı Çimen’e teşekkürlerini sunar.

Kaynakça

1. Acharya, A. (2017). After Liberal Hegemony: The Advent of a MultiplexWorld Order. Ethics & International Affairs, 31 (3): 271-285.
2. Adigbuo, R. E. (2007). Beyond IR theories: The case for national role conceptions. Politikon, 34(1), 83–97.
3. Adler-Nissen, R., and A. Zarakol. (2021). Struggles for recognition: The liberal International order and the merger of its discontents. International Organization, 75( 2) : 611–34.
4. Akbaba, Y. & Özdamar, Ö. (2019). Role Theory in the Middle East and North Africa: Politics, Economics and Identity. Routledge.
5. Baturo, A., Dasandi, N., & Mikhaylov, S. J. (2017). Understanding state preferences with text as data: Introducing the UN General Debate Corpus. Research & Politics, 4(2), 1–9.
6. Breuning, M. (2007). Foreign policy analysis: A comparative introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.
7. Breuning, M. (2017). Role theory in foreign policy. in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, Oxford University Press.
8. Brummer, K., & Thies, C. G. (2015). The contested selection of national role conceptions. Foreign Policy Analysis, 11(3), 273–293.

9. Byman, D. L., & Pollack, K. M. (2001). Let us now praise great men: Bringing the statesman back in. International Security, 25(4), 107–146.
10. Cantir, C., & Kaarbo, J. (2012). Contested roles and domestic politics: reflections on role theory in foreign policy analysis and IR theory. Foreign policy analysis, 8(1), 5-24.
11. Chafetz, G., Abramson, H., & Grillot, S. (1996). Role theory and foreign policy: Belarussian and Ukrainian compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime. Political Psychology, 17(4), 727–757.
12. Checkel, J. (1993). Ideas, institutions, and the Gorbachev foreign policy revolution. World Politics, 45(2), 271-300.
13. Colgan, J. D. & Keohane, R. (2017). The Liberal Order is Rigged. Foreign Affairs, (May/June): 36-44.
14. De Vries, C. E. (2018). The cosmopolitan-parochial divide: changing patterns of party and electoral competition in the Netherlands and beyond. Journal of European Public Policy, 25 (11), 1541-1565,
15. Dueck, C. (2006). Reluctant crusaders: Power, culture, and change in American grand strategy. Princeton University Press.
16. Dyson, S. B. (2009). The Blair identity: Leadership and foreign policy. Oxford University Press.
17. Greenstein, F. I. (2008). The “strong leadership” of George W. Bush. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 5(3), 171-190.
18. Guzzini, S. (2001). The different worlds of realism in International Relations. Millennium, 30(1), 111-121.
19. Hagan, J. D. (2010). Regime type, foreign policy, and international relations. in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. Oxford University Press
20. Harnisch, S. (2012). Conceptualizing in the minefield: Role theory and foreign policy learning. Foreign Policy Analysis, 8(1), 47–69.
21. Hermann, M. G. (2001). How decision units shape foreign policy: A theoretical framework. International Studies Review, 3(2), 47–81.
22. Holsti, K. J. (1970). National role conceptions in the study of foreign policy. International Studies Quarterly, 14(3), 233–309.
23. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
24. Hudson, V. M. (2005). Foreign policy analysis: Actor-specific theory and the ground of international relations. Foreign Policy Analysis, 1(1), 1–30.
25. Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton University Press.
26. Keller, J. W. (2005). Leadership style, regime type, and foreign policy crisis behavior: A contingent monadic peace?. International Studies Quarterly, 49(2), 205-231.
27. Krotz, U., & Sperling, J. (2011). The European security order between American hegemony and French independence. European security, 20(3), 305-335.
28. Lai, B., & Morey, D. S. (2006). Impact of regime type on the influence of US foreign aid. Foreign Policy Analysis, 2(4), 385-404.
29. Lake, D., Martin, L., & Risse, T. (2021). Challenges to the liberal order: Reflections on international organization. International Organization, 75(2), 225–257
30. Lawson, G., and A. Zarakol. (2023). Recognizing injustice: The ‘hypocrisy charge’ and the future of the liberal International order. International Affairs 99 (1): 201–17.
31. Manifesto Project. (2024). Manifesto Corpus and Handbook. WZB Berlin Social Science Center. https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/
32. Mudde, C. & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2017). Populism: A Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
33. Müller, J. W. (2016). What is Populism? University of Pennsylvania Press.
34. Newman, E. and Zala, B. (2018) Rising powers and order contestation: disaggregating the normative from the representational, Third World Quarterly, 39 (5): 871-888,
35. Neustadt, R. E. (1990). Presidential power and the modern presidents: The politics of leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan. Free Press.
36. Nilsson, N. (2019). Role conceptions, crises, and Georgia’s foreign policy. Cooperation and conflict, 54(4), 445-465.
37. Nye, J. S. (2017). Will the liberal order survive? The history of an idea. Foreign Affairs, 96(1), 10–16.
38. Özdamar, Ö. (2024). Role Theory in Practice: US–Turkey Relations in Their Worst Decade. International Studies Perspectives, 25(1), 41-59.
39. Putnam, H. (1988). Representation and reality. MIT press.
40. Rodrik, D. (2021). Why Does Globalization Fuel Populism? Economics, Culture, and the Rise of Right-Wing Populism. Annual Review of Economics, 13,133–70.
41. Rosenau, J. N. (1968). Comparative foreign policy: fad, fantasy, or field?. International Studies Quarterly, 12(3), 296-329.
42. Ryu, Y. (2023). South Korea's role conceptions and the liberal international order. International Affairs, 99(4), 1439-1458.
43. Schafer, M., & Crichlow, S. (2010). Groupthink versus high-quality decision making in international relations. Columbia University Press.
44. Schweller, R. L. (1998). Deadly imbalances: Tripolarity and Hitler’s strategy of world conquest. Columbia University Press.
45. Shih, C. Y., & Yin, J. (2013). Between core national interest and a harmonious world: Reconciling self-role conceptions in Chinese foreign policy. Chinese Journal of International Politics, 6(1), 59-84.
46. Taylor, N. (2007). China as a status quo or revisionist power? Implications for Australia. Security Challenges, 3(1), 29–45.
47. Thies, C. G. (2009). Role theory and foreign policy. In P. D. ‘t Hart & R. A. W. Rhodes (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political leadership. Oxford University Press.
48. Thies, C. (2010). Role theory and foreign policy. in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies.
49. Thies, C. G., & Breuning, M. (2012). Integrating foreign policy analysis and international relations through role theory. Foreign policy analysis, 8(1), 1-4.
50. Verbeek, B. & Zaslove, A. (2016). Populism and foreign policy. In C. Rovira Kaltwasser, P. Taggart,P. Ochoa Espejo & P. Ostiguy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of populism. Oxford University Press.
51. Walker, S. G. (1987). Role theory and foreign policy analysis. Durham: Duke University Press.
52. Walker, S.G. (2011) Binary Role Theory. in Rethinking Foreign Policy Analysis, Walker, S.G., Malici, A. and Schafer, M. (eds), Routledge: New York and London.
53. Walker, S. G. (2017). Role theory as an empirical theory of international relations: from metaphor to formal model. in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford University Press.
54. Walt, S. M. (2018). The world wants you to think like a realist. Foreign Policy, 30.
55. Waltz, K. N. (1959). Man, the State and War. Columbia University Press: New York.
56. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Waveland Press: Long Grove, Illinois.
57. Weiss, T. G. (2016). What's Wrong with the United Nations and how to Fix it. John Wiley & Sons.
58. Wish, N. B. (1980). Foreign policy makers and their national role conceptions. International Studies Quarterly, 24(4), 532–554.