A lecture delivered at Oneness Asia Leaders Summit 2017

1. A Realistic Foreign Policy for Voters
- National Security Division,
Oneness Asia Leaders Summit 2017
October 8, 2017 @Fukuoka Growth Next
Toru OGA, Ph.D.
Faculty of Law, Kyushu University

2. 自己紹介Toru OGA
- Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Kyushu University, (2008-)
- Ph.D. in Ideology and Discourse Analysis (University of Essex,
2005)
- Assistant Professor, Graduate School of International Cooperation,
Kobe University (2007)
Visiting Researches
- University of Oxford (2009)
- University of Cambridge (2010)
- Columbia University (2016-2017)
Email: toga@law.kyushu-u.ac.jp
Twitter: @toruoga0916
http://toruoga.net/
1
１

3. Today’s Theme
• Foreign Policy and Public Opinions
in terms of security
• Professionals vs General public (Public
opinions)
• Policy making vs diplomatic negotiation
• National Interests vs Principles and
Moralities
• What is a realistic foreign policy?
(neither militarist nor right-wing foreign
policy)
2

4. Question 1
Which should be respected in
democratic society?
A) A majority of voters those who
don’t have expert knowledge.
B) A small number of scientists and
experts with specialized skills
and experiences.
3

5. Which should be respected in
democratic society?
-National Security issue
A) A majority of voters those
who don’t have expert
knowledge.
B) A small number of security
and foreign policy experts.
4Question 2

6. Question 3
• There are countries like A, B, C, D, E, F, and X.
• All the countries maintained liberal democratic politics.
• One day, populist and dictatorship regime emerged in the
country X.
• Country X built-up large military forces, and started to
invade the countries C and D.
• What Should country A do in responding to X?
5
A
B X
F
E
C D

7. • What Should country A do in responding
to X?
- Balancing
Making an alliance among A, B, E, and F to deter
and confront against X
(war might be avoidable)
- Bandwagoning
Becoming affiliated with X
(war might be avoidable)
6

8. Case 1: Munich Agreement (1938) 7
• Nazi Germany claimed annexation
of portions of Czechoslovakia along
the country's borders inhabited by
German speakers ("Sudetenland“).
• After negotiation, the agreement
was signed among the major
powers of Europe (the Soviet Union
and U.S. did not participate).
• It is widely regarded as a failed act
of appeasement toward Germany.

9. Case 2: Vietnam War (1955-1975) 8
• The Gulf of Tonkin incident
(1964)
• U.S. claimed that North
Vietnamese Navy attacked the
U.S. Navy (controversial)
• Afterwards, U.S. had been
engaging more directly in the
Vietnam War.

10. • A Lesson from Munich
U.S. did not intervene
→ war was expanded and led to a long-standing struggle
• A Lesson from Vietnam
U.S. did intervene
→ war was expanded and led to a long-standing struggle
9

11. Case 3: Cuban Missile Crisis (1962)
• The Soviet decided to place nuclear
missiles in Cuba in order to deter a
future invasion.
• Soviet missiles would be placed just
90 miles from Florida.
• The U.S. Air Force confirmed the
missile preparations and facilities by
clear photographic evidence.
10

12. U.S. options for action
• Do nothing
• Diplomacy
• Secret approach
• Invasion
• Air strike
• Blockade
11Case 3: Cuban Missile Crisis (1962)

13. Variation of Strategies
Internal Balancing External Balancing
Hard Balancing Cuba Iraq
Soft Balancing Iran North Korea
12

14. 13
Military Diplomacy
Coercion Reassurance
Means Use of Forces threat / deter promise /
guarantee
Objectives Maintain / change
Status Quo
Maintain / change
Status Quo
Maintain / change
Status Quo
Variation of Strategies

15. Be back to same dilemma…
Which should be respected?
Public Opinion
A majority of voters those who don’t have expert
knowledge.
Expert Opinion
A small number of security and foreign policy experts.
14

16. Dilemma
• Public opinion is sometimes very sensitive,
naïve and emotional.
• Expert opinion is sometimes difficult to
control in democratic process.
15

17. Fourteen Points (1918)
• Outlined speech delivered to the
Congress by U.S. President
Woodrow Wilson.
• The First point argued that “open
covenants of peace, openly arrived
at, after which there shall be no
private international understandings
of any kind but diplomacy shall
proceed always frankly and in the
public view.”
• New Diplomacy against Old
Diplomacy
16

18. Harold Nicholson (1886-1968)
• Diplomacy (1939)
• A distinction between Policy and
Negotiation in diplomacy.
• Policy is determined by democratic
process, but negotiation is
proceeded by diplomats.
• Diplomatic Negotiation is not a part
of democratic control.
• Ineffectiveness of New Diplomacy
17

19. Hans Morgenthau (1904-1980)
• Politics among Nations (1948)
• A distinction between results of
diplomacy and its processes.
• Emphasizing national interests and
compromises in negotiation, rather
than persisting in principles.
• Open diplomacy and public
opinion sometimes reduce
flexibility of negotiation.
• Military is a mean of diplomacy
rather than its master.
• The Government is initiator of
public opinion rather than its slave.
18

20. George Kenan (1904-2005)
• Negative aspects of “legalistic-
moralistic approach”.
• Public opinion is in reality
represented by small number of
politicians, commentators and media
companies rather than a majority of
voters.
• International affairs is not a problem
of morality.
• Right Motives and Wrong
Consequences
19

21. Jack Snyder (1951-)
Myths of Security through Expansion
Cult and ideology of offensive
• Offensive advantage
• Power Shift
• Paper Tiger enemies
• Bandwagons
• Big Stick Diplomacy
• Falling Dominos
• El Dorado and Manifest Destiny
• No tradeoff
20

22. Conclusion
• Professionals vs General public (Public opinions)
• Policy making vs diplomatic negotiation
• National Interests vs Principles and Moralities
• Realists does not deny democratic politics. They urge
Public debates about national interests
21