This interview is part of a series of interviews with academics and practitioners at an early stage of their career. The interviews discuss current research and projects, as well as advice for other early career scholars.
Constanza Jorquera is an International Relations Specialist and Foreign Affairs Analyst whose work focuses on East Asian geopolitics, Chinese and Korean foreign policy, gender and international relations, and feminist foreign policy. She holds a PhD in American Studies and both a BA and MA in International Studies from the University of Santiago, Chile. She currently serves as a professor of international relations at the University of Santiago, the University of Chile, Diego Portales University, and Alberto Hurtado University. Beyond academia, she is a Counselor on the Council of Foreign Policy at the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Vice President of the Permanent Forum of Foreign Policy in Chile. Her publications can be accessed here.
What (or who) prompted the most significant shifts in your thinking or encouraged you to pursue your area of research?
My journey in international studies began at my university (USACH), the first institution in Chile to offer this program at the undergraduate level. This initial spark ignited my passion for understanding the power dynamics in the international system, leading me to delve into the geopolitical and cultural dimensions of East Asia, particularly China and Korea. As a professor of international relations since 2016, I educate young people who will become future decision-makers in foreign policy. This responsibility inspires me to build synergies within multidisciplinary networks of academics, policymakers, decision-makers, diplomats, and civil society actors.
Drawing on your article on China’s geopolitical imagination with Chinese characteristics (2023), how do civilizational concepts such as Tianxia and Confucian legacies concretely influence Beijing’s current Indo-Pacific strategy?
These systems of ideas, including Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism, and Chinese Legalism, have influenced China’s approach to governance, ethics, and international relations. Western standards should not be applied to analyze and evaluate China, and this principle applies even to our understanding, as international relations scholars, of key theoretical and normative foundations, such as the Westphalian international system.
Tianxia, as an ideal type of theoretical and philosophical construction, offers elements that can be applied virtuously to address the asymmetries between China and other countries through the articulation of systematized, inclusive global networks. It is clearly visible that China’s foreign policy has been consistent with the Confucian perspective of mutual benefit, respect, and reciprocal relations based on virtue. This perspective emphasizes the importance of harmony and the pursuit of the common good in international relations, which is in stark contrast to the competitive and individualistic nature of Western policy practices.
To achieve the medium and long-term strategic objectives of Chinese-style modernization, which include economic prosperity, technological advancement, and international influence, the country needs to achieve a harmonious and secure ecosystem.
In your study, China’s Indo-Pacific Challenge (2021), you analyze Beijing’s response to the Indo-Pacific framing. Over the next 2–3 years, which indicators will be most telling in determining whether China can reshape—rather than resist—the Indo-Pacific order?
Initiatives such as AUKUS, Quad, and the Free and Open Indo-Pacific were created to balance against China, with the US playing a central role in promoting the strategic competition under the umbrella of shared interests. These initiatives, which involve key regional powers, are designed to counter China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific region. The other powers are under pressure from the Trump administration to show a more active commitment to their own interests vis-à-vis China, coupled with the uncertainty and mistrust generated by decisions such as tariffs. I don’t see these initiatives as a priority for the Trump administration, and it is increasingly losing influence and strategic vision, which is a setback compared to the efforts of the Obama and Biden administrations, which failed in their goal of making the US the pivot of Asia.
For its part, Chinese foreign policy has always been pragmatic, and in an increasingly polarized global scenario, it will be put to the test. China must take advantage of the lack of a comprehensive economic framework in the region and approach to the CCPTPP, strengthen and expand the BRICS+, RCEP, and the BRI, actively involve and engage India in cooperative agreements, and offer an incentive structure from the financial to innovation and mutual confidence-building measures at the military level with countries seeking to diversify their relations as leverage with US capabilities becomes more evident.
Your research on K-Diplomacy and the reach of Hallyu in Mexico, Peru, and Chile (2018) highlights South Korea’s soft-power impact in Latin America. What broader lessons does this case offer for designing effective Asia-Pacific soft-power strategies?
Korea is constrained by the division of the peninsula and its unique security dilemma, and at the same time, the country has become a pole of attraction and expulsion for cultural artifacts, marking a shift in how we conceive of soft power from Western powers. South Korea’s soft-power strategy, often referred to as ‘K-Diplomacy,’ leverages its cultural exports, particularly the global popularity of Korean pop culture, or ‘Hallyu,’ to enhance its international influence. This strategy encompasses cultural diplomacy, nation branding, foreign policy strategy, and the creative industries.
In relation to Latin America, my case study reveals a rapprochement between societies with dissimilar political, economic, and social trajectories, where culture is increasingly utilized to foster greater mutual understanding and development. However, Korea reminds us that soft power has become a conflation of concepts that confuses attractiveness with power and popularity with influence, as a general appreciation of culture does not necessarily translate into real power. Its soft power cannot necessarily influence its neighbors, thereby easing crucial geopolitical tensions, such as those between the United States and China.
Considering a weakened international liberal order and the retreat of progressive agendas globally, what is your outlook for the future of feminist foreign policy in the near term?
Our understanding of feminist foreign policy remains confined mainly to institutional spheres, with limited connection to civil society. In many instances, it lacks clear indicators to monitor its progress, and a shared understanding of definitions is not only desirable but also essential for effective management.
Therefore, it is critical to act on two fronts. First, feminist foreign policy can only be viable within a strong and legitimate multilateral system. Consequently, international actors must focus on three areas: 1) normative incidence, 2) operational commitment, and 3) multilateral innovation, with solid measures that ensure financing, transparency, and accountability, identifying common challenges and opportunities for collaboration in the form of networks and alliances between governments and civil society actors. It is essential to monitor and report based on annual action plans and frameworks/agendas that institutionalize, through legal and administrative instruments, the ‘anchoring’ of feminist foreign policies beyond changes in administration.
Secondly, we must raise awareness about why global events should matter to us, and about gender imbalances, including through the portrayal of women in public spaces, and to address the institutional culture and underlying sexism in spaces of power and decision-making. Embedding a gender perspective in our foreign policies is crucial for achieving sustainable, inclusive development and resilient societies.
What are you currently working on?
After completing my doctoral thesis last year on the international relations and foreign policy thinking of Korea and Chile, I have been revising it and delving deeper into central aspects that I find interesting, considering that both countries are entering a new political cycle at the domestic level. Both intellectual communities share concerns about autonomy in their relationships with significant powers and the need for foreign policies that can adapt to global challenges. This reflects a distinctive feature of internationalist thought in both countries, and my goal is to publish my findings and generate new analytical questions about the evolution and challenges of international studies in both countries.
Following my participation in the Philosophy Summer School at Beijing Normal University, I am resuming my research on Chinese thought in international relations. This research has sparked a deep interest in what Chinese philosophy, in conjunction with contemporary contributions to international relations theory in China, offers for global leadership. Researching the three countries is a significant undertaking, but I am excited to undertake it.
What is the most important advice you could give to other early-career or young scholars?
Our role as academics is to be facilitators and mediators, providing students with a toolbox that they learn to use, intervene in, and create their own tools and strategies to understand an increasingly uncertain and complex world.
My advice is not to be afraid of this toolbox. This means questioning everything, always maintaining curiosity, and being tenacious in developing your own voice that distinguishes you from the rest. In this global scenario that seems to push us toward fragmentation, distrust, and fear, it is essential to connect with others, form collaborative support networks, dare to “leave our comfort zone,” and experience the world with our own eyes, with confidence, openness, and passion.
That’s why it’s so important to stay grounded by leaning on our loved ones, taking care of our physical and mental health, enjoying our personal interests, and treasuring our free time. And when things get tough, put your situation and your surroundings into perspective, remembering why you chose a particular path, that you shouldn’t solve everything immediately, and that each person has their own time.
Further Reading on E-International Relations
