Amidst the mammoth article inventories of think tanks and geopolitical institutes, one can quickly find writings tackling almost any global issue. The most constructive of these proposals offer tangible strategies with which governments may pursue a variety of foreign policy objectives and it is here where the most cunning, successful strategists apply one of the most effective tools in foreign policy: history. With an ever-growing arsenal of foreign policy recommendations, it is sensible to analyse the role of history in foreign policy and, consequently, to direct geopolitical strategists towards this most advantageous of tactics.
Almost all the contemporary political questions mentioned in this article can be characterised as global and geopolitical, rather than local and small-scale. Nevertheless, it is appropriate – and arguably necessary – to dedicate a brief section to the recognition of history’s relevance in providing local governments with the adequate platform from which to launch their geopolitical missions. The two most basic and quotidian manifestations of applied history are found in its functions as both the guardrail of governance and the stimulus for state strategies. Starting with the former, applied history encourages moderation, continuity, and predictability in politics which, in turn, generates stability and trust both at home and abroad. This is called ‘precedent’ or ‘tradition’ and forms a grossly undervalued pillar of good governance. If a political system is predictable, it can engender confidence. No matter what policy a strategist has in mind, working from a platform of international trust provides an immediate boost in the policymaking arena.
The second manifestation of history, as a source of policy inspiration, is far more well-known. Any esteemed strategist would seek to analyse the experiences endured by those who came before him. This aspect of historical utility is easily recognisable in the endless aphorisms paraphrasing George Santayana’s “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. Nevertheless, away from these overused adages, the practice of learning from history remains a key factor in prudent policymaking. The world-renowned United States Institute of Peace (USIP) regularly provides evidence of this policy template in action. In Ukraine, for example, the USIP has aimed to fulfil its aims “to prevent, mitigate, and resolve violent conflict” by clarifying Russian ambitions in the country using historical trends and employing these to establish areas of potential multilateral cooperation. Evidently, by registering the past, the strategist may find policy templates to build on or may predict the possible consequences of his actions and adapt to these accordingly.
Shifting now to the more global applications of history, one must recognise the subject’s centrality in understanding a government’s motivations. Geopolitical analysts heavily engage the material and statistical aspects of global politics when drafting their outlooks. Egypt’s resource dispute with Ethiopia, for instance, can be measured in cubic metres of Nile water rather than by an intangible notion of ‘anti-Ethiopian sentiment’ in Cairo. Nevertheless, one of the greatest driving forces behind national politics – whether domestic or foreign – is the immaterial sense of ‘national identity’. Each state in the international system possesses its own identity that guides its interests and its preconceptions of other states. The Cold War, for example, split the world between two ideologies which greatly influenced the identity of its contemporary states while also helping define modern-day diplomatic friendships or suspicions. Today’s Russians, for instance, enjoy visa-free access to Cuba’s pearly-white beaches and tropical rum bars despite only 1.28% of Cuba’s 2018 exports going to Russia. Around a tenth of Cuba’s exports that same year were destined for Spain and around a fifth of its imports were sourced from Spain, making Madrid its largest and second largest trading partner respectively . Nevertheless, Spaniards do not boast visa-free privileges in Cuba and must instead apply for a tourist card. Russian holidaymakers, therefore, partly have Soviet diplomacy to thank for Cuban favouritism. Clearly, the application of history is necessary to begin comprehending the intangible concept of ‘national identity’ which weighs so heavily on geopolitical behaviours. Should the Spanish want to join the Russians at the latter’s tropical getaway, employing history to pander to Cuban identity would be a good place to start.
This leads neatly on to the final, most skilful use of history: the manipulation of public opinion. As history constructs national identities which, in turn, impact state policies, history can also be used to sculpt public opinion to suit strategic policy. No diplomatic meeting is complete without references to the ‘shared histories’ of those present. A common language or a past alliance may not have instigated two states’ rapprochement but it certainly serves as a justification and a lubricant for the prosecution of their policy choices. In South East Asia, for example, the notion of a unifying cultural identity between Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia, – the so-called ‘Maphilindo’ superstate – was efficiently marshalled into modern-day ASEAN which has facilitated regional cooperation and trade. A pillar of successful strategy, after all, is international cooperation and this is best achieved with the tactical application of history. Napoleon allegedly stated that “history is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon”, a statement which underlines the subjectivity and malleability of historical knowledge – a malleability which the cunning policymaker can bend to serve his interests. To the pragmatic strategist, a good knowledge of statistics can construct a policy, while a good knowledge of history can sell it.
Whether it is the configuration of a stable political system or the justification of a geopolitical strategy, history greatly strengthens the policies of those strategists wise enough to use it. There could be no better recommendation to the geopolitician than to examine the paths charted by others so he may best employ the tools at his disposal and most adequately avoid the repetition of past mistakes. In a world where pragmatism is King, the most successful strategies will be those built on utility and shielded by history.