Empathetic reasoning in diplomatic analysis
Enemies rarely act strategically, but rather according to a potpourri of narratives, historical grievances, and cultural values.
International relations (IR) is a discipline traditionally dominated by frameworks such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism. These paradigms focus on material interests, power dynamics, and ideological structures to explain state behavior. While these approaches provide valuable insights, they often overlook the emotional, cultural, historical, and practice dimensions that influence decision-making. Diplomatic analysis offers a complementary perspective, enriching IR by incorporating an understanding of the motivations, identities, emotions and practices of actors. An essential skill in diplomatic analysis is empathetic reasoning.
Empathetic reasoning involves viewing the actions of states, their leaders, policymakers, and their diplomatic practitioners through the lens of their unique experiences and perspectives. It does not imply agreement or moral judgment but seeks to uncover the deeper motivations shaping behavior. For analysts, this approach provides a framework to interpret actions not only as a series of strategic moves but as a reflection of internal narratives, historical grievances, and cultural values. Understanding these dimensions can significantly enhance explanatory and predictive power.
For instance, Russia’s foreign policy under Vladimir Putin often puzzles observers when assessed purely through a geopolitical lens. Analysts employing empathetic reasoning, however, might contextualize Russian actions within the framework of its post-Soviet identity crisis. The collapse of the Soviet Union, perceived Western encroachment, and a desire to restore national prestige are central to Russia's worldview. By empathizing with these drivers, analysts can produce assessments that go beyond surface-level interpretations, helping policymakers develop strategies that address these underlying dynamics.
A significant strength of empathetic reasoning is its capacity to improve the accuracy of predictions. IR theories reduce state behavior to material incentives or security concerns, leaving gaps in understanding when actions deviate from these expectations. Empathy introduces an additional dimension by considering identity, emotion, and memory. After 9/11, for example, U.S. foreign policy analysts largely overlooked how interventions in the Middle East might be perceived by local populations as neocolonial actions. This misinterpretation hindered efforts to predict and mitigate resistance, illustrating how a lack of empathetic reasoning can lead to strategic blind spots.
Conflict analysis and resolution also benefit from this approach. Analysts applying empathetic reasoning can uncover the emotional and identity-based grievances fueling disputes, which are often obscured in traditional frameworks. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for example, empathetic reasoning could explore how historical traumas, collective memories, and existential fears shape both sides’ policies. This deeper understanding can inform strategies that prioritize reconciliation and trust-building over zero-sum competition.
Empathetic reasoning also enriches the study of diplomatic relationships. Trust and credibility are often central to the success or failure of diplomatic efforts. Analysts using empathetic frameworks can better assess the signals states send to each other and evaluate how these signals are likely to be received. The 2015 Iran nuclear deal, for example, succeeded in part because it addressed Iran’s desire for international respect and recognition while providing assurances that balanced Western concerns about nuclear proliferation. Empathetic reasoning helps explain why this approach initially succeeded and offers insights into why its subsequent deterioration occurred.
Applying empathetic reasoning to foreign policy analysis requires a shift in methodology. Analysts must immerse themselves in the cultural, historical, and emotional contexts of the actors they study. This involves not only gathering data but also interpreting it through the lens of the other’s lived experience. For example, understanding China’s foreign policy necessitates an appreciation of concepts such as “harmony”, “respect”, “network” and “face,” which are deeply embedded in Chinese political culture. Without this empathetic perspective, assessments risk oversimplifying or misinterpreting Chinese actions.
In the same way, empathetic reasoning adds the emotional and psychological factors driving behavior in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, helping to better picture the perceptions of existential threat and need for survival guarantees. Analysts applying empathetic reasoning could suggest alternative approaches that address these concerns, offering pathways beyond punitive measures.
Empathetic reasoning also demands that analysts view dialogue and communication as opportunities for deeper insight rather than mere exchanges of information. By carefully interpreting the language, symbols, and narratives used by states, analysts can gain a clearer understanding of underlying intentions and priorities. This approach is exemplified by the Camp David Accords, where empathy for Egypt’s need to regain Sinai and Israel’s need for security was critical to crafting a durable agreement.
Despite its strengths, empathetic reasoning in foreign policy analysis faces challenges. It requires overcoming institutional biases that favor traditional, power-centric frameworks. Analysts must develop interdisciplinary skills, drawing on cultural studies, psychology, and history to inform their work. Additionally, empathetic reasoning can be difficult to communicate to policymakers, particularly when domestic political pressures demand a more hardline approach. Analysts must articulate how empathy-based insights align with national interests and contribute to long-term security.
Critics might argue that empathetic reasoning risks introducing subjectivity into analysis or could be exploited by adversaries. However, empathy does not mean uncritical acceptance of another’s narrative. Instead, it provides a structured way to explore motivations and assess risks with greater depth. Far from undermining analytical rigor, empathetic reasoning enhances it by addressing dimensions often neglected in conventional approaches.
Historical examples highlight the potential of empathetic reasoning to elevate foreign policy analysis. President Barack Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech acknowledged historical grievances and sought to rebuild trust with the Muslim world. While the broader outcomes were mixed, the speech demonstrated how empathy could shift perceptions and create opportunities for engagement. Similarly, New Zealand’s diplomacy under Jacinda Ardern, which emphasized compassion and cooperation on global issues, illustrated how empathy can enhance a nation’s soft power and international influence.
Incorporating empathetic reasoning into analysis is not a rejection of existing frameworks but a way to complement them. By recognizing the emotional, historical, and cultural dimensions of international relations, analysts can produce richer, more nuanced interpretations of state behavior. In a world increasingly shaped by mistrust and division, empathetic reasoning offers a pathway to deeper understanding and more effective policy solutions. For analysts seeking to navigate the complexities of the 21st century, empathy is not just an ethical consideration—it is a strategic necessity.