120 likes | 374 Views
8. INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AFTER THE COLD WAR: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES 1. Realist theories of IR (international relations) 2. Institutionalist theories of IR 3. Liberal theories of IR 4. Constructivist theories of IR 5. A ‘culturalist’ theory of IR: The ‘clash of civilizations’
E N D
8. INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AFTER THE COLD WAR: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES 1. Realist theories of IR (international relations) 2. Institutionalist theories of IR 3. Liberal theories of IR 4. Constructivist theories of IR 5. A ‘culturalist’ theory of IR: The ‘clash of civilizations’ * The argument * Critique 6. Debate: Does political Islam pose a dire threat to Southeast Asian stability?
1. REALIST THEORIES OF IR • States are the dominant international actors • International system is anarchic & war endemic; • states cannot trust each other & must therefore • maximize their power • Character & distribution of military power is • decisive for war & peace • Bipolarity, equal power distribution between 2 • blocs & nuclear deterrence made cold war peaceful • None of these conditions present in post-Cold • War world, which will be more war-prone
2. INSTITUTIONALIST THEORIES OF IR • Inter-state conflicts may be attenuated by international • institutions (organizations & norms & rules they establish) • International institutions help: • * to reduce uncertainty (information-exchange) • * states to acquire good reputations • * new, cooperative norms of IR to develop • * states to make credible commitments • They may even change states’ interests and • identities ...
3. LIBERAL THEORIES OF IR • Democratic (or ‘republican’) liberalism • War and peace depend on nature of political system: • democratic states never fight each other because they • (1) are subject to popular control & (2) respect the rights • of other states as they respect individual rights • Wars may & do take place between democratic & • authoritarian states or between authoritarian states • Democratization is the key to promoting peace • in the post-Cold War era
3. LIBERAL THEORIES OF IR (Contd.) • Commercial liberalism • Growing trade & economic interdependence • promotes peaceful international relations • Trade liberalization is the key to achieving • peaceful stable international relations after • the Cold War
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF WAR IN AN ECONOMICALLY INTERWOVEN WORLD ‘The commerce & industry of a people no longer depend on the expansion of its political frontiers … A nation’s political frontiers do not now necessarily coincide … Military power is socially & economically futile, & can have no relation to the prosperity of the people exercising it … It is impossible for one nation to seize by force the wealth or trade of another – to enrich itself by subjugating or imposing its will by force on another … War, even when victorious, can no longer achieve those aims for which peoples strive’ Norman Angell, The Great Illusion, pp. 176-77
4. CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF IR • States (as in realism) are the key international actors • States’ behaviour is determined by identities & ideas • Identities, ideas & ‘interests’ are ‘socially constructed’ & • need not be determined by rational-material considerations • ‘Social construction’ of three I’s takes place in • interaction between states and within states • between elites, political parties & citizens • ‘Socially constructed’ interests are contingent; • they can change, independent of the structure • of the international system
5. THE ‘CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS’ (HUNTINGTON): • ARGUMENT • Post-Cold War conflicts will occur primarily between • civilizations (‘broadest level of cultural identity’) • Inter-civilization conflicts are intensifying, because: • * Cultural differences are ‘real & basic’ • * They become more visible as distances shrink • * Religion is replacing the nation as identity source • * Non-Western cultures are ‘re-indigenizing’ • * Economic regionalism is strengthening • cultural identities
THE ‘BASIC DIFFERENCES’ OF CIVILIZATIONS ‘The people of different civilizations have different views on the relations between God & man, the individual & the group, the citizen & the state, parents & children, husband & wife, as well as differing views of the relative importance of rights & responsibilities, liberty & authority, equality & hierarchy. These differences are the product of centuries. They will not soon disappear.’ Samuel Huntington, ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’ Foreign Affairs 72:3 (Summer 1993), p. 25.
5. ‘CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS’: ARGUMENT (Contd.) • The borders between civilizations are the new flash • points of ‘crisis & bloodshed’ • The Islamic world has particularly ‘bloody borders’ • ‘The West (at height of its power) v. The Rest’, which is • not becoming Western & may try to balance against it • The most immediate threat to the West comes • from a ‘Confucian/Sinic-Islamic connection’ • [In multipolar world, order must be kept by • cooperation between civilizations’ ‘core states’]
5. ‘CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS’: CRITIQUE • Are cultural clashes (rather than conflicts over wealth, re- • sources, political ideologies, etc ) the main cause of wars now? • Do people really identify with ‘civilizations’ (as • opposed to nations)? Are these organized, cohesive? • In conflicts, do states coalesce mainly on civilizational lines? • Are not many major wars or crises ‘intra-civilizational • (Two Koreas, China/Taiwan), many wars not civil wars? • Are other civilizations as resistant to Western • influence as Huntington seems to think? (LKY: • ‘We’re really all on the same path’!)
5. ‘CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS’: CRITIQUE (Contd.) • Civilizations are not real political entities … • States, however, are! They can make decisions, • have armies, money & other resources. The goals • they pursue may have nothing to do with culture & • they may be quite opportunistic in their choice of • coalition partners • Culture (religion) may be exploited to mobilize • support for, legitimize wars that are fought • for quite different reasons …