What makes a good foreign policy analyst?
What makes a good foreign policy analyst?
Can you really understand North Korea without speaking Korean? Can you understand the realities of politics without studying international relations?
There are plenty of debates on the importance of language to fully understand South and North Korea’s interaction with the outside world. As discussed previously, it’s a debate that derives from the split between area studies and international relations. The former emphasized the importance of a state’s history, culture (language), and society, in order to understand how decisions are made. The latter emphasized the importance of the international order, power, and the nature of states to understand how decisions are made.
The debate passed down through the generations and ended up with polarized tribes awash with social media vitriol. However, in the midst of these debates, people often forget the other qualities that contribute to good analysis. Here are just a few to bring up the next time someone says you don’t speak Korean well enough, or you didn’t study enough international relations.
In-country experience
In-country experience refers to first hand exposure to South or North Korea through living, working, or extended travel. When it comes to understanding the complexities of foreign policy, especially in a region as dynamic as East Asia, on-the-ground experience is important. For foreign policy analysts focusing on the Koreas, spending time in the country offers unique insights that go far beyond what can be gleaned from books, reports, or remote analysis. But as with any approach, in-country experience has both strengths and weaknesses.
In-country experience builds valuable connections with locals—whether it’s academics at Seoul National University, journalists at Joongang Daily, or civil servants at the Ministry of Unification. These relationships are critical for gathering insights and perspectives that don’t make the international media. It overcomes the greatest weakness of fly-in-fly-out think-tankers with their “great friends” in Seoul who often only hear what their cosmopolitan hosts want them to hear.
On the other hand, analysts can rely too much on personal experiences. An analyst who spends their time in North Korea may come away with a perspective heavily influenced by the need to conform to expectations of those that provided access. This can result in analysis that doesn’t fully capture the reality behind surface events or purposefully misleads.
Government experience
Government experience significantly strengthens analytical capability by providing practical insights into how policies are developed, implemented, and negotiated. Analysts with government backgrounds have firsthand knowledge of the inner workings of political decision-making, from navigating bureaucratic processes to understanding the role of various stakeholders, including diplomats, lawmakers, and military leaders. This experience allows them to assess foreign policies not only from a theoretical standpoint but also in terms of real-world feasibility.
Such experience equips analysts with a nuanced understanding of the constraints and pressures that shape foreign policy decisions, such as domestic political dynamics, international relationships, and security concerns. They gain insight into the complexities of balancing national interests with global responsibilities, enabling them to provide more grounded and strategic analyses.
If there are negatives to holding government experience, it’d have to be the revolving door syndrome - all former government employees are connected to sources within government; are sometimes reliant on them for consultancy contracts; and sometimes hold a distant hope of returning to government when their party returns. This means they’re usually unwilling to overly criticize, hesitant to be too radical, and fearful of disrupting the status quo.
Creativity
Foreign policy analysts need creativity. Creativity enables them to think beyond conventional approaches and offer fresh, innovative solutions to complex global issues. In a field where policies can become rigid or repetitive, creative thinking allows analysts to identify new opportunities, anticipate unexpected challenges, and approach problems with greater flexibility.
A creative foreign policy analyst is adept at considering alternative perspectives and imagining how various scenarios could unfold, allowing for more comprehensive and nuanced analysis. They can craft policy recommendations that break from tradition while still being grounded in practical realities, offering governments new ways to navigate diplomacy, conflict resolution, or international trade. By envisioning unconventional partnerships, or employing novel negotiation strategies, creative analysts can help to foster more adaptive, resilient foreign policies.
Creativity is also vital when addressing unforeseen crises or global shifts, such as technological advancements or environmental challenges. It allows analysts to foresee the ripple effects of these changes and devise policies that proactively address future risks. Reliance on international relations theories or models, or relying on past practices, are the short-cuts for academics and practitioners, respectively. But when faced with situations that don’t fit models or past practices, without creativity, they’re lost.
Empathy
Good foreign policy analysts also need empathy. Empathy enhances an analyst’s ability to understand the perspectives and motivations of different countries, cultures, and leaders. By stepping into the shoes of others, analysts can better anticipate reactions, foresee potential conflicts, and identify areas for diplomatic cooperation. Empathy allows them to recognize the human impact of policy decisions, ensuring that recommendations are not only strategic but also considerate of global humanitarian concerns. In a field driven by relationships and negotiation, empathy strengthens an analyst’s ability to craft policies that balance national interests with mutual understanding and respect for diverse viewpoints. Although, the risk of over reliance on empathy leads to the all too risky scenario of “the target thinks just like me” - something we see all too often in the context of North Korea.
Next time you hear the debate…
So, next time you see a debate between “language first” and “international relations first” types with their opinions twisted in a knot of social media polarization, add some salt to their open wounds.
Tell them a good foreign policy analyst combines a deep knowledge of international relations and language enough to debate a taxi driver on the exigencies of independent nuclear armament. But to wind them up a little, tell them they need more.
Tell them they also need in-country experience, government experience, creativity and empathy. In fact, throw in any other skill you already hold - maybe something about quantitative analysis or the magic of mathematics and statistics? Tell them that this is essential to assess complex geopolitical issues, anticipate global trends, and offer practical, innovative solutions, they need all this - and then add one more.
Tell them it all ain’t worth shit if they can’t communicate. An analyst ultimately needs strong communication skills, including cultural awareness and sensitivity, in order to cultivate support for their position, to influence co-workers and superiors, and to convey their insights effectively to policymakers and decision-makers.
