Analysis | Why understanding history makes for better foreign policy
Good foreign policy must start with a clear understanding of where we are– and how we got here
The Influence of History is a limited spring blog series from the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy. With contributions from ISD director of programs and research, Dr. Kelly McFarland and guest authors, this series will focus on the enduring influence of history on foreign affairs. Read more from ISD on diplomatic history.
Russia’s recent unwarranted and murderous invasion of Ukraine began, in part, with a history lesson. But, this was no ordinary lecture; in an unhinged and ranting televised speech just prior to sending his forces into the sovereign territory of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin gave the world his version of history. While his speech did contain some facts, it was clearly colored by Russia’s– and Putin’s–own personal grievances. The result was an hour of misleading and false claims about Ukraine and the West. Putin’s speech is a prime example of why, if we are to try and understand the ways in which policymakers and others use history, and if we are to try and use it ourselves in a positive fashion in our decision-making, we need to first understand what history is.
Yes, history is facts, numbers, stories, and documents, but it is much more than that. These facts and numbers do not exist in the ether or on the page on their own. Someone must put them there, and choose which ones to use and why. We must keep this in mind when studying history, or watching the news for that matter. In his speech, Putin used certain historical facts, and purposefully excluded others, in order to write his misleading and inaccurate version of events to justify his actions.
As E.H. Carr famously noted, dates, documents, and sources exist in abundance. The historian chooses which of these to use when writing their version of history. As we see in Putin’s case, he used certain facts and sources, and actively chose not to use others, and then peppered these with myths and distortions, to tell a version of history that fits with his worldview, and more importantly, his current geopolitical aims.
When dealing with history, this distortion can come from the author — the historian, policymaker, or leader. — but it can come directly from the source as well. Carr, writing in the early 1960s about a topic he knew well, provides his readers with the example of Gustav Stressemann, who served as German foreign minister until his death in 1929. At that point, his assistant compiled a book of his papers, which was then translated into an abridged English version following World War II. This example is important because his assistant focused on those areas where Stresseman had been most successful, namely in his dealings with the Western countries over debt relief and other issues. When the papers were translated and abridged, the resulting work relied even more heavily on these papers. The problem, as Carr highlights, is that the bulk of Stresseman’s work was actually aimed at the Soviet Union and the East, where he was markedly less successful. Those historians and others working from these edited volumes would have based their research and analysis on a flawed source. We must also keep in mind that the original source of the papers, and the one who wrote up meeting notes and decided which papers to include in the trove, was Stresseman himself, who undoubtedly brought to the endeavor his own version of events.
This example is important because it highlights the ways in which facts and sources are bound up in a multitude of layers. We must understand this when writing and reading history, particularly in the context of foreign affairs. We not only need to interrogate the facts, as the Stresseman example denotes, but we also need to interrogate the author, as Putin’s example illustrates. As noted earlier, the historian or author chooses the facts they use in order to answer certain questions, but also, at times, to tell a specific story they are trying to get across in the present. In this way, the creation of history is tied to current issues, norms, and social factors. We can see the negative aspect of this in Putin’s example and his willingness to use and manipulate history to provide a justification for his actions in Ukraine, to both a domestic and international audience. Muddying the historical waters, only using certain facts to frame the story the way he wants, and leaving out those that would undermine or negate his argument, are key to this process.
Understanding what history is and how it is constructed, for good and ill, translates to a better basic understanding of facts and sources in the present. It provides individuals with critical reading and thinking skills. This is all the more important in our current 24-hour news cycle, with biased cable news media, and rigid partisanship. The ability to think historically provides individuals the ability to step back and think analytically about how today’s political arguments and news are framed, and how certain individuals and groups selectively use the facts and sources that fit their views and back up their arguments. In foreign policy, this type of thinking forces decision-makers to interrogate sources and methods, a critical part of sound policy creation.
Kelly McFarland is a U.S. diplomatic historian and the director of programs and research at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy. Follow him on Twitter @McFarlandKellyM.
Read more from The Influence of History series:
