Historical Memory in the Context of U.S. Foreign Policy: The Case of the Presidency of Joseph Biden

Modern day politicians often refer to historical memory in order to construct and/or adjust foreign policy. The analysis of historical memory as one of the tools for constructing foreign policy narratives is attracting increasing scientific interest in the study of international relations. Under conditions of deep socio-political split in the USA and fragmentation of American identity, representatives of the Democratic administration actively turn to historical memory, trying to explain the changing international realities and justify the implemented foreign policy course. The article attempts to identify the key historical narratives of the Biden Administration and analyze how their use influences the foreign policy of the U.S. at the present stage. To achieve this goal, the authors used the method of narrative interpretation to conduct a qualitative analysis of a broad source base (speeches, interviews, press conferences of key representatives of the U.S. executive branch). As a result, a number of foreign policy narratives with the most characteristic historical subjects for the current administration were identified. It has been established that U.S. leaders address historical memory as part of discourses on the promotion of liberal democracy in the world; the limits of “hard power” and the fight against international terrorism; human rights and freedoms; relations with Russia; and the defense of a liberal world order. It is determined that historical narratives are often used by the United States to legitimize its unilateral and discriminatory foreign policy actions. The authors conclude that for the current administration the construction of foreign policy narratives through selective reference to the subjects of American historical memory becomes one of the key tools of adaptation to the development of international multipolarity, mobilization of its resources and consolidation of allies to defend the “free world” from “illiberal” opponents.

1. Баранов, А.В. Влияние исторической памяти на формирование внешней политики Исламской Республики Иран // История и историческая память. – 2010. – №1. – С. 51–63. Baranov, Alexey. V. “Vliyanie istoricheskoj pamyati na formirovanie vneshnej politiki Islamskoj Respubliki Iran.” Istoriya i istoricheskaya pamyat’, no. 1 (2010): 51–63 [In Russian].

2. Бафоев, Ф.М. Историческая память в мировой политике. Роль ООН и других международных организаций // Актуальные проблемы гуманитарных и естественных наук. – 2017. – №1–4. – С. 1–4. Bafoyev, Feruz M. “Istoricheskaya pamyat' v mirovoj politike. Rol' OON i drugih mezhdunarodnyh organizacij.” Aktual’nye problemy gumanitarnyh i estestvennyh nauk, no. 1–4. (2017): 1–4 [In Russian].

3. Буневич, Д.С. Историческая политика как интеллектуальный ресурс внешней политики Республики Польша в 2000-е годы // Интеллигенция и мир. –2016. – №2. – С. 123–133. Bunevich, Dmitriy. S. “Istoricheskaya politika kak intellektual'nyj resurs vneshnej politiki Respubliki Pol'sha v 2000-e gody.” Intelligenciya i mir, no. 2 (2016): 123–133 [In Russian].

4. Кузьмин, К.Е. Проблема исторической памяти в современных китайско-японских отношениях // Известия Лаборатории древних технологий. – 2021. – №2. – С. 238–248. Kuzmin, Kirill. E. “Problema istoricheskoj pamyati v sovremennyh kitajsko-yaponskih otnosheniyah.” Izvestiya Laboratorii drevnih tekhnologij, no. 2 (2021): 238–248 [In Russian].

5. Савельева, И.М., Полетаев А.В. Социальные представления о прошлом: типы и механизмы формирования. – М.: НИУ ВШЭ, 2004. Savelyeva, Irina. M., and Andrew V. Poletaev. Social’nye predstavleniya o proshlom: tipy i mekhanizmy formirovaniya. Moscow: HSE, 2004 [In Russian].

6. Цыганков, А.П. Гулливер на распутье: американская стратегия и смена миропорядка // Международная аналитика. – 2020. – Том 11. – №2. – С. 28–44. https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2020-11-2-28-44

7. Tsygankov, Andrew. P. “Gulliver at the Crossroads: American Strategy and the Change of the World Order.” Journal of International Analytics 11, no. 2 (2020): 28–44 [In Russian].

8. Bachleitner, Kathrin. “Diplomacy with Memory: How the Past is Employed for Future Foreign Policy.” Foreign Policy Analysis 15, no. 4 (2019): 492–508. https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/ory013

9. Barthes, Roland, and Lionel Duisit. “An Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative.” New Literary History 6, no. 2 (1975): 237–272.

10. Beamish, Thomas, Molotch, Harvey, and Richard Flacks. “Who Supports the Troops? Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the Making of Collective Memory.” Social Problems Journal 42, no. 3 (1995): 346–352. https://doi.org/10.2307/3096852

11. Becker, Douglas. “Historical Memory and Public Diplomacy: The Case of Russia.” In Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, 301–305. New York: Routledge, 2020.

12. Bell, Duncan. Memory, Trauma and World Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230627482

13. Bially Mattern, Janice. Ordering International Politics: Identity, Crisis and Representational Force. New York: Routledge, 2005. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203998014

14. Cadier, David, and Kacper Szulecki. “Populism, Historical Discourse and Foreign Policy: The Case of Poland’s Law and Justice Government.” International Politics 57, (2020): 990–1011. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-020-00252-6

15. Gaddis, John Lewis. We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Herman, David. “Cognitive Narratology.” In The Living Handbook of Narratology, edited by John Pier, Wolf Schmid, and Jörg Schönert. Hamburg, Germany: Hamburg University, 2013.

16. Klymenko, Lina. “Forging Ukrainian National Identity through Remembrance of World War II.” National Identities 22, no. 2 (2019): 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/14608944.2019.1590810

17. Klymenko, Lina. “The Role of Historical Narratives in Ukraine’s Policy towards the EU and Russia.” International Politics 57, no. 6 (2020): 973–989. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-020-00231-x

18. Klymenko, Lina, and Marco Siddi. “Exploring the Link between Historical Memory and Foreign Policy: An Introduction.” International Politics 57, no. 6 (2020): 945–953. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-020-00269-x

19. Krebs, Ronald. “How Dominant Narratives Rise and Fall: Military Conflict, Politics, and the Cold War Consensus.” International Organization 69, no. 4 (2015): 809–845. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818315000181

20. Lebow, Richard Ned, Wulf Kansteiner, and Claudio Fogu. The Politics of Memory in Postwar Europe. Duke University Press, 2006. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11cw204

21. Muller, Jan-Werner. Memory and Power in Postwar Europe Studies in the Presence of the Past. Cambridge University Press, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491580

22. Patterson, Molly, and Kristen R. Monroe. “Narrative in Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 1, no. 1 (1998): 315–331. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.1.1.315

23. Polkinghorne, Donald Elmer. “Narrative Configuration in Qualitative Analysis.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 8, no. 1 (1995): 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839950080103

24. Qiu, Jin. “The Politics of History and Historical Memory in China-Japan Relations.” Journal of Chinese Political Science 11, (2006): 25–53 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02877032

25. Rosenberg, Emily. S. A Date Which Will Live: Pearl Harbor in American Memory. Duke University Press, 2003. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11vc87q

26. Subotić, Jelena. “Stories States Tell: Identity, Narrative, and Human Rights in the Balkans.” Slavic Review 72, no. 2 (2013): 306–326. https://doi.org/10.5612/slavicreview.72.2.0306

27. Sverdrup-Thygeson, Bjornar. “The Chinese Story: Historical Narratives as a Tool in China’s Africa Policy.” International Politics 54, (2017): 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-017-0014-3

28. Von Eschen, Penny M. “Memory and the Study of U.S. Foreign Relations.” In Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations, edited by Frank Costigliola, and Michael J. Hogan, 3rd ed., 304–316. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107286207.019

29. Wagenaar, Hendrik. Meaning in Action: Interpretation and Dialogue in Policy Analysis. London: Routledge, 2011. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315702476

30. Wertheim, Stephen. “The Price of Primacy: Why America Shouldn’t Dominate the World.” Foreign Affairs 99, (2020): 19–29.

31. Wood, Peter. W. 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project. New York: Encounter Books, 2020.

32. Zheng, Wang. Memory Politics, Identity and Conflict. Historical Memory as a Variable. Palgrave Macmillan Cham, 2018.

33. Zheng, Wang. Never Forget National Humiliation: Historical Memory in Chinese Politics and Foreign Relations. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012.