Description
The concept of hedging has become prominent in discussions about foreign policy strategies of major countries in the Global South. However, the term has been used loosely in academic and policy circles, and its meaning is often ambiguous. This paper aims to clarify the practice of hedging through an empirical examination of Brazil and Mexico’s foreign policy responses to shifting great power dynamics. We will investigate the concrete foreign policy tools and approaches employed by these governments, with a view to understand whether and how they hedge against perceived excessive influence from the United States and China. Drawing on primary sources, especially tweets, public speeches, and government documents, our analysis explores whether and how Brazil and Mexico engage in hedging, and what hedging means in practice. Our main hypothesis is that, while rhetorical commitments to multilateralism, multi-alignment, and strategic autonomy are common, specific foreign policy tools and approaches vary significantly. These differences are shaped by a range of domestic and systemic factors, suggesting there is need for more nuanced, context-specific understandings of hedging. We move beyond the general notion of hedging and explore the nuances of how hedging is operationalized, including motivations, challenges, and perceived trade-offs involved.
