Cities and foreign policy – challenges from below
- 24 hours ago
- 7 min read
Camilla Orjuela | 20 May 2026
The fact that New York’s new mayor, Democrat Zohran Mamdani, would pursue political goals that run counter to Donald Trump’s had already become clear during his election campaign. Trump called Mamdani a “crazy communist”, while Mamdani promised to Trump-proof the city. The mayor has not only opposed the president’s treatment of migrants and introduced higher taxes for the rich – he has also challenged Trump’s foreign policy. Mamdani’s criticism of Israel’s violence against Palestinians is sharp and well-known. In his first days as a mayor, he overturned previous decisions that banned the city from boycotting Israel, and which defined anti-Semitism so broadly that criticism of Israel could also be included – a move that was condemned by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. After the US attack on Venezuela in January 2026, Mamdani called Trump to express his dissatisfaction with what he described as an illegal intervention.
Even though Mamdani is primarily a local politician, he is a foreign policy player as well. New York is the largest city in the United States, presumably the tenth largest economy in the world with a higher GDP than most countries, and the venue for numerous international events. It was to New York that Venezuela’s kidnapped president was brought to stand trial, and thousands of Venezuelan refugees have settled here. In fact, New Yorkers come from all corners of the world, and many maintain strong links to the outside world. The city’s importance and global profile make it possible–sometimes even inevitable–for its mayor to act on international issues.
Large cities have challenged national leaders elsewhere too. In Turkey, opposition politician Ekrem İmamoğlu was elected to lead Istanbul in 2019 – a drawback for President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. However, Turkey has a strong central government and Erdoğan was able to curtail Istanbul’s autonomy and cut off state funding to the city. To be able to run the municipality, İmamoğlu instead focused on making international contacts. He turned to the EU and the West for financial and political support and presented himself internationally as an alternative representative of Turkey. His participation in and speech at the 2022 Munich Security Conference openly challenged Turkey’s official foreign policy line.
In Hungary, Budapest has protested the government’s foreign policy. Victor Orbán’s rapprochement with China and his decision to build a Chinese university in the capital at the expense of Hungarian taxpayers led to loud protests in 2021. As a sign of disagreement, a local mayor renamed the streets adjacent to the still unfinished university. They were called Free Hong Kong Road, Road of Uyghur Martyrs and Dalai Lama Road – to the dismay of China’s Foreign Ministry.
Conducting foreign policy is traditionally reserved for the national level. But cities and their mayors getting involved is not a new phenomenon. In the 1980s, during the Cold War, the peace movement grew massively, and people took to the streets in large numbers to protest nuclear weapons. Several cities banned the production, stationing and transport of nuclear weapons in their areas. Manchester was the first to become a nuclear-free zone in 1980, and eight years later an estimated 3,800 cities around the world had declared themselves nuclear-free. Others opposed apartheid by boycotting South Africa or became sanctuary cities for migrants.
Scholars use the terms paradiplomacy (from parallel diplomacy) or city diplomacy to talk about the foreign relations of cities. They have noted that international contacts are not only handled by the national foreign ministry and its diplomats, but that a wide range of other actors are also involved – including cities. Cities are important global powers and engage in a multitude of international networks and initiatives to pursue issues they see as urgent. Through groups like United Cities and Local Governments, C40 and Eurocities, municipalities get together, learn from each other – and wield influence globally. For instance, when national leaders fail to act on the climate crisis, cities have taken the lead with innovations, decisive policies and advocacy.
When the international engagements of cities are in line with national policy, their involvement tends not to be controversial. One example is the many twinning arrangements that were established after the Second World War to contribute to reconstruction and peaceful relations. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, partnerships were established between Western and Eastern Europe to support democratization in the former communist states. Collaboration with cities in the global South was also initiated, often financed through development cooperation funds. Today, city twinning is sometimes done mostly for fun – like the twinning of Boring in the US and Dull in the UK – but we have also seen numerous initiatives to support cities in Ukraine after Russia’s full-scale invasion.
In other instances, city collaborations may contradict national policies. When the US intervened militarily to fight against communism in Central America in the 1980s, many American cities twinned with cities in Nicaragua and El Salvador to provide humanitarian aid and protest a national foreign policy that they found reprehensible. In recent years, several cities in Hungary have cooperated closely with Ukrainian cities, despite a tense relationship between the countries at the national level.
In Sweden, municipalities have long tested the limits of what they can and cannot do when it comes to foreign affairs. In 1939, the municipal council of Västervik decided to finance the purchase of air-defence to protect the town against potential attacks. However, after an appeal, the decision was declared invalid by the Administrative Court on the grounds that municipalities should not conduct foreign policy. Similarly, in 1990, the decision by the port city of Helsingborg to refuse to receive ships that could not guarantee that they did not carry nuclear weapons was overturned.
Although it can be inferred from Swedish law that municipalities should not be involved in foreign policy, there is no clear definition of what counts as foreign policy. This is instead decided in court. Municipal members can appeal municipal decisions, after which an administrative court examines their legality. The national government, on its part, cannot overturn municipal decisions that it considers inappropriate. As a result of this arrangement, outcomes may vary. When the municipal councils in Norrköping and Södertälje wanted to erect monuments to the victims of the genocide of Christian minorities in the Ottoman Empire in 1915, their decisions were overturned by the court. In Örebro, in contrast, no one appealed and a monument could be built on municipal land.
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, several Swedish municipalities have decided not to procure goods and services from Russian companies. This is in line with both EU sanctions and Sweden’s condemnation of Russia’ aggression. Despite this, several rulings make clear that municipalities are not allowed to let political considerations guide their procurements. However, there are other ways that municipalities can make foreign policy statements. In Stockholm, the City Planning Committee decided that part of a park adjacent to the Russian embassy would be named Fria Ukrainas plats (Free Ukraine’s Place). Many municipalities also raised the Ukrainian flag as an act of solidarity after the invasion. However, that the Israeli flag was flown outside some municipal buildings after Hamas’ large-scale attack on civilians in October 2023 was more controversial in light of Israel’s violence against Palestinians and the deep divisions that prevail in Sweden in relation to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Even though cities are not supposed to deal with foreign policy matters, they inevitably maintain numerous foreign connections. Municipalities cooperate internationally on infrastructure investments or to offer services in border areas. They market themselves globally to attract investors and tourists and depend on foreign companies for employment opportunities. Ambassadors, military ships and other foreign guests are politely received by municipal representatives according to established diplomatic procedures. Moreover, instability in the world has put security issues high on the agenda for municipalities, which have an important role in the country’s total defence. When foreign powers attempt to gather intelligence, unduly influence political developments or suppress critics in their diasporas, this too can become a concern for municipalities. One pertinent example comes from Västerås, where the municipality permitted the construction of a Russian Orthodox church in close proximity to the city’s airport. What was an ordinary building permit matter developed into a security scandal after suspicions arose that the church was used for Russian intelligence activities. Similar cases elsewhere show that both municipalities and current legislation are ill-equipped to handle new security challenges.
Municipalities can thus contribute to development, peace and democracy through their international activities – or they can end up undermining the country’s security. An important argument against municipal foreign policy is precisely that it risks coming into conflict with national interests. If cities send their own signals through street names, boycotts or controversial collaborations, it can be difficult to maintain a clear line internationally. Sometimes such signalling can also lead to polarization between groups locally. At the same time, there are arguments in support of municipal involvement in foreign affairs. One is that international issues are too important to be handled solely by an elite in the government and foreign ministry, and that municipalities, through their proximity to citizens, can contribute to the democratization of foreign policy. For civil society organizations, turning to their own municipality can be a step towards influencing public opinion and pushing for greater change. The fact that municipalities are responsible for the well-being of their residents in the event of war or crisis also means that it is in their interest to ensure that national and international authorities act to reduce rather than increase risks.
Legislation and political culture surrounding municipal foreign policy vary across the world. A study of Chicago’s City Council showed an increase in foreign policy decisions in recent years, with statements on Gaza, India, Iraq, Iran and Ukraine. While municipalities are not allowed to make foreign policy statements in Sweden, it is more common in Norway, where 86 municipalities have declared their support for the UN Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Several cities, including Oslo, also prohibit purchases from suppliers that contribute to maintaining illegal occupations. In the United States, Mamdani called the 2026 US and Israeli attacks on Iran “an illegal war of aggression” and vowed to protect New York’s Iranian population. Discussions about whether cities’ foreign policy engagements are a source of hope or something that creates chaos are likely to continue.
Keywords: #ForeignPolicy #Paradiplomacy #Municipality #Sweden #Cities
Camilla Orjuela is a professor of peace and development research at the University of Gothenburg. She is currently conducting research on municipalities and foreign policy. A Swedish version of this text was published by Utrikesmagasinet.
Comments