Understanding divergence between public discourse and security practice in pivotal middle powers: The cases of Australia, Turkey and Mexico

Abstract

Why do public discourses within middle powers often contrast with their foreign and security policy practice? In this thesis, I argue these differences occur because the content of certain debates can harm the national interest. As a result, security and foreign policy elites seek to reorder discourses in order to ameliorate security threats. I make this argument using a framework based on neoclassical realism. Neoclassical realism posits that structural forces guide international politics over the long-term, but that domestic forces can restrain or accelerate security responses in the short-term. I use this approach to frame a typology that demonstrates how elites promote or demote specific discourses, depending on the issue at hand. I analyse cases that are not typically grouped together as middle powers: Australia, Turkey and Mexico. I argue these ‘pivotal’ middle powers are useful cases because they sit at the centre of important security competitions and are reliant on both low threat perceptions and highly pragmatic foreign and security policy. This account fills a gap in the current middle power literature, which suggests that the foreign and security policies of middle powers have their genesis in ideational factors. Within each case I demonstrate how elites respond in three different ways, depending on the security narrative at hand. These are: (1) deflection, where contentious issues are removed from domestic debates because they threaten the ability of elites to make pragmatic foreign and security policy and security decisions; (2) dilution, where rogue and populist voice gain traction, resulting in their messages being taken on by the centre in order ameliorate problematic narratives; and (3) inflation, where benign issues are promoted as these provide ‘safe’ are of political competition without the risking of interfering in core security concerns. This contribution finds these pivotal middle powers, over the long-term, behave as expected under a pragmatic, realist reading. But, in the shorter term I find that domestic debates concerned with foreign and security policy are often volatile, meaning elites seek to control them so they do not interference with higher order foreign and security policy. Show more