Success and failure in foreign policy: Comparing Bob Hawke and Kevin Rudd's regional order-building initiatives

Remarkably little is known about what factors drive success or failure in foreign policy. In part, this is because there is little fundamental agreement on what constitutes success or failure in this domain in the first place. This article engages with these shortcomings by comparing two similar regional order-building initiatives overseen by Australian leaders: Bob Hawke's establishment of APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) in 1989, which is routinely celebrated as a success, and Kevin Rudd's Asia Pacific Community (APC) project, launched in 2008 and generally considered a failure. Despite their respective reputations, the reasons for the contrary outcomes in these cases are not as straightforward as might be assumed. Factors cited as chief reasons for the successful establishment of APEC—the creative middle power diplomacy embraced by Hawke's government and the diplomatic skill of envoy Richard Woolcott—were also present in the APC case. Meanwhile, the reasons typically offered for the failure of the APC initiative—that it had not been properly thought through when announced and hence surprised regional partners—are similarly true of the APEC example. Juxtaposing these cases reveals the highly contingent nature of success and failure in foreign policy while also calling attention to the influence of leadership, timing, and strategic narrative in determining these outcomes. Points for practitioners: Foreign policy, as a domain of public policy domain, is distinguished by three mutually reinforcing qualities: the extreme dominance of the executive and especially the leader; its low salience; and low domestic political contestation. These ‘special’ characteristics of foreign policy amplify the challenges of assessing success and failure in this domain. When making foreign policy, states and their leaders seek to exert influence outside their domestic jurisdiction, beyond where they enjoy exclusive decision-making authority. This elevates the degree of complexity and contingency potentially involved in achieving and attributing foreign policy ‘success’. Leadership, timing, and the ability to develop strategic narratives are especially important in determining foreign policy success and failure.