Foreign policy change as rhetorical politics: domestic-regional constellation of Global South states

Abstract

Although the recent advancements in critical constructivist IR on political rhetoric has greatly improved our understanding of linguistic mechanisms of political action, we need a sharp understanding of how rhetoric explains foreign policy change. Here we conceptualize a link between rhetoric and foreign policy change by foregrounding distinct dynamics at the regional and domestic institutional environments. Analytically, at the regional level, we suggest examining whether norms of foreign policy engagement are explicitly coded in treaties and agreements or implicit in conventions and practices of actors. And at the domestic level, we suggest examining whether a particular foreign policy issue area is concurrent or contested among interlocutors. In this constellation, we clarify how four different rhetorical strategies underwrites foreign policy change – persuasion, mediation, explication and reconstruction – how it operates, and the processes through which it unfolds in relation to multiple audiences. Our principal argument is that grand foreign policy change requires continuous rhetorical deployments with varieties of politics to preserve and stabilize the boundaries in the ongoing fluid relations of states. We illustrate our argument with an analysis of Brazil’s South-South grand strategy under the Lula administration and contrast it against the rhetoric of subsequent administrations. Our study has implications for advancing critical foreign policy analysis on foreign policy change and generally for exploring new ways of studying foreign policies of nonwestern postcolonial states in international relations.

The Strategy of Chaos: Brazilian Foreign Policy under Jair Bolsonaro (2019-2022)

“…More precisely, whilst Brazil's and China's administrations mention formally the states' friendship, Bolsonaro showed in some moments his preference for a personal relationship with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Despite the various agreements on infrastructure development and agricultural trade with Chinese companies, Bolsonaro did not achieve any relevant deals on economic and technological cooperation with China (Guimarã es & Silva, 2021;Hamill-Keays, 2020;Santoro, 2020;Sawicka, 2020;Villa & Sundaram, 2021;Walt, 2019;Zheng, 2020).…”

“…Furthermore, Bolsonaro administration's rhetorical moves made Brazil's rejection of a South-South strategy both meaningless and dangerous, which is compatible with the pillars of the most conservative members of the coalition that supports Bolsonaro's government, with a new high level of the personalization of politics regarding the alignment with the US for benefits and changes in historical foreign policy positions. Nevertheless, the biggest bets of Bolsonaro's administrationthe US-Brazil alliance, the OECD, and the EU-MERCOSUL dealwere disappointing (Pecequilo, 2021;Vidigal, 2019;Villa & Sundaram, 2021;Wehner, 2022).…”

“…The prioritization of relations with the Global North was also visible in the signature of the EU-MERCOSUL Trade Agreement, which provides for lower tariffs on imports of cars and auto-parts, clothing, textiles, beverages, and chocolates, but includes a clause with reference to the preservation of the Amazon and respect for the Paris Agreement. The deal between MERCOSUL and the European Union was threatened by European leaders as governmental and societal actors in Europe have demanded putting a stop to Amazon and Pantanal deforestation before proceeding with the deal (Neves, 2021;Prinsloo, 2019;Saraiva & Silva, 2019;Villa & Sundaram, 2021;Weiffen, 2022).…”