The Role Of Political Leaders In Foreign Policy Change

Argentina and Colombia have been close US allies in the past decades. Argentina duringthe90’s was the showcase country for the success of the US-led neoliberal policies.Colombia has been the closest US ally from the mid90’s onwards, is has allowed USpresence in the region because of the aid it provided in fighting guerrillas and drugorganizations, to the point of alienating its neighbors. However, under Nestor Kirchner’s andJuan Manuel Santos’s administrations one can see changes in the foreign agenda of these twotraditional US allies: both turned to mending and strengthening their ties to traditionalregional rivals. Upon coming to office Santos quickly restored bilateral relations withVenezuela and Ecuador, and begun seeking to develop a strategic partnership with Brazil.While mending regional relations, Santos also adopted some policies that differ from USinterests. Kirchner, during the first half of his mandate, maintained moderate and cordialrelations with the US, while seeking to further the integration process with Brazil. It was hisgoal to draw strength from regional integration in order to face the country’s economicproblems. Disenchanted by the slow pace of the integration process, he would later seek anddevelop close ties with Chavez’s Venezuela, who was able to provide him with quick (andshort-termed) access to the resources he needed. During the second half of his term in officehe developed increasing anti-US rhetoric.What brought about these sudden changes in the foreign agenda of these countries? Whydid this two traditional US allies distance themselves from the northern power? Why didKirchner seek to further the integration process with its traditional rival Brazil, despitemutual distrust and competitiveness? And what led Kirchner later to develop close relationswith Venezuela, a country with which it had previously little contact? Why did Santos renewties with the highly confrontational Chavez regime, and later on with Ecuador, after accusingboth of aiding Colombian guerrilla forces? These cases are interesting because these twocountries abandoned a beneficial long-term alignment with the US in order to deal with short-term domestic issues.This thesis analyses the reasonsbehind the foreign policy changes during Juan ManuelSantos (2010-2014) and Nestor Kirchner (2003-2007) administrations. The second chapter ofthis paper developsa theoretical framework to analyze the changes. Adomestic politics approach is key, Hudson and Vore stress the importance of domesticpolitics in foreign policy analysis: the state is no longer viewed as a unitary rational actor, butthe interest of various domestic actors and the constrainsthey face domestically,are alsorelevant. The second section states the importance of domestic politics influence on smallthird world countries foreign policy, given that leaders in these states tend to suffer domesticchallenges to their office. It will analyze the characteristics of these Third World Statesgovernmental structures, which allow for a greater concentration of power in the executivebranch, and how this, coupled with the possibility of reelection may lead to the abuse ofresources to secure perpetuation in office. Hagan remarks that leaders,when defining theforeign agenda, must play two games domestically: one aimed at building coalitions and theother at retaining power. He states that in order to succeed they may use foreign relations tomobilize public support to their regime. The final section of this chapter explores the role ofleaders in defining foreign policy. Margaret Herman develops a framework to understandwhich Decision Unit shapes Foreign Policy; she states that the Decision Unit is likely to be aPredominant Leader if the regime has one individual vested with the authority to commitgovernment resources, as could be the case in a presidential political system. She furtherspecifies that under the following situations these leaders are prone to take charge andexercise decision-making power: high-level diplomacy events, crisis conditions or because itis in the leaders interest or expertise to do so. In these situations the locus of decision-makingtends to move towards the top level of government and away from mid-level officials. As thedecision making group is reduced there are less alternatives or creative problem solving.There is a tendency for political leaders not to focus on the long-termed national interest,toattend to short-term diplomatic and political objectives, in order to carry out their personalagenda. Herman states that political leaders can be motivated by a desire for a certain kind offeedback: seeking acceptance, approval, power, support, status or acclaim.The third chapter analyses Argentine foreign policy in the administrations that precededNestor Kirchner in order to ascertain the changes. It then analyses the changes brought aboutby Kirchner while in office. Kirchner came to power weakened by poor electoralperformance, with the Peronist Party divided, and in the middle of an economic crisis.Fearing a social mobilization such as the one that ousted president De la Rua in2001, hemade use of thepreeminent role he had as president to set the international agenda where,-unlike in the domestic field where the country faced economic recovery and social unrest-he enjoyed more room to maneuver. During the first half of his term Kirchner tried to improverelations with Brazil (through MERCOSUR integration process) to gain strength in dealingwith its international creditors. However, disenchanted by the slow progress and in dire needof financial help, he will turn to an unlikely ally: Chavez. Chavez provided short-termfinancial aid, and oil;which allowed Kirchner to thumb his nose at American policies.Thisenticed the support of the Argentine middle-class, still resentful over the2001economiccrisis that they attributed to the90’s neoliberal decade and ‘carnal relations’ with the US.Antagonizing the US and seeking Venezuela’s aid, Kirchner opted for short-term foreignpolicies: he sacrificed national interest for personal gain and stability. This was rewarded inthe2007elections, which his wife won by a landslide.The fourth chapter analyzes Colombian foreign policy before Santos, and the changes heintroduced once in power. Santos foreign policies were also shaped by domestic constrainsand his ambitions. He arrived in power weakened by the surprising electoral campaign of themoderate Green Party, and by the still powerful ex-President Uribe. The improved internalsecurity situation meant that the electorate was now concerned with other matters such asunemployment, regional relations, corruption, etc. Santos took office during a high-leveldiplomatic, and personal, crisis between Uribe and Chavez. He used this occasion to makeradical changes in the regional agenda, quickly mending ties with Chavez whom he called his‘new best friend’. These changes within the region were aimed not only at gaining thesupport of those tired of the confrontational agenda, but also of those involved ininternational trade. The previous administrations close alignment to the US had affected tradediversification. Commercial ties with neighboring countries, where Colombia had acompetitive advantage in manufactured goods, were compromised. The country was left withthe less advantageous commodities trade with the US. Santos strived to regain internationalconfidence in his country and access to old and new trading partners. This allowed him todesecuritize foreign relations, and differentiate himself from the previous administrationwhich stood accused of corruption and human rights violations. It must be noted that asDefense Minister he was part of that government. Santos has been striving to step out fromunder Uribe’s shadow and gain enough support to be reelected in2014. Thus far he seems tobe succeeding, as he is now the leading candidate.The view of this thesis is that the fear of being ousted from office, coupled with theweak governmental structures of these countries, lead its leaders to use the foreign policy agenda to further their personal ambitions. These countries allow reelection, and the leadersused foreign policy for their electoral needs.