Studying the Middle East through International relations perspective - Week 2-

1. Studying the Middle East through International relations perspective-Week 2-

2. What is in a name ?

4. From Near East to Middle East –1 • Until about 1855 the words “near east” and “far east” did not refer to any particular region. • The Crimean war (1853-56) brought a change in vocabulary with the introduction of terms more familiar to the late 19th century. • The Russian Empire had entered a more aggressive phase, becoming militarily active against the Ottoman Empire and China. • Thereafter, the British Empire began to give specific regional meanings to "the Near East," the Ottoman Empire.

6. From Near East to Middle East –2 • In the early 20th cent. the use of the term Middle East as a region of international affairs apparently began in diplomatic circles of the two prominent sea-powers led by British (T.E.Gordon) and American (A.T.Mahan) quite independently of each other. • The term "Near and Middle East," held the stage for a few years before World War I. It proved to be less acceptable to a colonial point of view that saw the entire region as one. • With the disgrace of "Near East" in diplomatic and military circles, "Middle East" prevailed. They are not generally considered distinct regions as they were at their original definition.

8. NESA’s engagement map

9. Brief History of the Middle East

24. How to study the Middle East ? • The field of international relations offers a variety of theoretical approaches.These include:- Structural realists: The international arena is anarchic, so states seek to promote their own interests.- Neoliberal institutionalists: Institutional arrangements can reduce tension and facilitate cooperation.- English School: There are norms of behaviour and shared conventions which regulate international relations.- Constructivists: Anarchies are multifaceted, and the formation and socialization of states explains their interests and actions.

25. Structural Realism- In an anarchic environment, states give priority to maximizing their individual well-being (i.e. regime security ) - States are assumed to act rationally.- Security dilemmas arise because one state’s attempt to maximise its security can provoke other states  cycle of action and response, including arms races and mistrust.- Balancing & Bandwagoning ( i.e. Arab Cold War in the 1950s-60s) International Relations of the Middle East, 3rd Edition

29. Neoliberal Institutionalists- Focus on co-operation in anarchy, rather than conflict. - Prisoner’s Dilemma - Assurance Games- Role of institutional arrangements that can foster co-operation.- Regional organisations. (i.e.regionalism) International Relations of the Middle East, 3rd Edition

31. International Society & Hierarchy- English School: Societies of states indicate certain rules and practices.- e.g. Sovereignty: no direct interference in internal affairs of other states. But, in the Middle East, where do ideologies like pan-Arabism and Islam fit in?- Historical sociology, drawing on Weber and Marx.- International governance structures. International Relations of the Middle East, 3rd Edition

33. Constructivism- Neorealists and neoliberal institutionalists over-emphasise role of international structures. Anarchy is but one possible outcome. - States are conscious actors. Norms of interaction develop, and change.- Power is more than concrete resources, it is also discursive.- Radical constructivists expose and critique attributed meanings. International Relations of the Middle East, 3rd Edition

35. Post-Structuralism and Post-Modernism - Post-structuralists look to topics overlooked or set aside, to deconstruct discourses. - Knowledge and power are linked, and these linkages must be explored in order to prevent domination. - Post-modernists focus on meta-theory ( or paradigm) and ontology, not epistemology or methodology. International Relations of the Middle East, 3rd Edition

37. Orient-Occident Dichotomy - “The Occident” is his term for the West (England, France, and the United States), and “the Orient” is the term for the romantic and misunderstood Middle East and Far East. -The West has created a dichotomy, between the reality of the East and the romantic notion of the "Orient”. -The Middle East and Asia are viewed with prejudice and racism. They are backward and unaware of their own history and culture. - To fill this void, the West has created a culture, history, and future promise for them. On this framework rests not only the study of the Orient, but also the political imperialism of Europe in the East. (http://www.wmich.edu/dialogues/texts/orientalism.htm)

40. Quantitative Research- Liberal democracies don’t fight each other: what implications for the Middle East?- Militarized Interstate Disputes (MIDs): Threats and tension, but no outbreak of armed combat.- Territorial disputes in the Middle East leading to war and MIDs. International Relations of the Middle East, 3rd Edition

41. Power Transition Theory- All countries have ups and downs in their relative capabilities.- Chance of conflict rises when gap between dominant power and challengers is shrinking. - Conflict can happen where state policies do not reflect power cycle position. - Example: Iran-Iraq relations post-1975. International Relations of the Middle East, 3rd Edition

42. Conclusion- International relations theory is driven by many theoretical debates. Structural realism has been traditionally dominant, but constructivist approaches are increasing. - Middle East specialists have only taken on some of these discussions. - Greater integration of IR approaches and Middle East specialisation has potential to enrich both fields. International Relations of the Middle East, 3rd Edition

43. Thanks