By Araya Kebede Araya*
On Building New IR Theories explaining interactions within a region
Since the advent of the post-Cold War period, the field of international relations has witnessed the opportunity to build up new IR theories as a way to explain political interaction embedded in and constructed among states within the context of specific regions.[1]
Several authors argue in different ways why a certain theory or thinking can work in one region. For example, while Ross propagates geography as a special feature that explains why China but not Russia and Japan can be a great power in the East Asian region and even beyond but within Asia; Robert Uriu excellently articulates, how export-led economy can (as much as Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) does) brings peace in the East Asia region. In what follows, these two – geography and export-led, Brantley Womack’s Asymmetry, and David Kang’s Hierarchy are discussed in a way to attempt the essay question.
Let’s begin with the theory of Asymmetry of Brantley Womack. In his article entitled Asymmetry theory and China’s concept of Multipolarity, Womack wrote that contrary to Western theories of realism and neo-realism, more powerful countries usually cannot impose their will on less powerful countries. There is instead a relatively stable matrix of international relationships in which exchanges may not be equal, but they are usually negotiated on the basis of autonomy of both sides. (P.10) Stronger powers have opportunities and responsibilities for leadership in these matrices, but if they dominate the international order for the sake of their narrow interests, they will put at risk their long-term prominence. As we will see it in the immediately second paragraph, this is what is exactly happening with China’s relations with smaller, weaker countries. It is also in sharp contrast with what Realism dictates that weaker states will try to ally and balance the larger one. Asymmetry theory says not necessarily so.
However, in every asymmetric situation the stronger state needs to be confident of the deference of the weaker state. By deference he does not mean that the weaker state obeys the stronger, but that the weaker state acts in accordance with the reality of the disparity between them. (Id. P.11) On the other side, the weaker state needs to be confident that the stronger state respects its autonomy. In a normal, peaceful relationship, autonomy and deference can coexist.
This theory effectively explains the relationship between China and Southeast Asia region. As he demonstrates in another article, this theory predicts different results from what Structural Realists do in explaining the relationship between China and Southeast Asian countries. The larger power, here China, has a particular responsibility for leadership because the smaller powers are at risk and therefore the larger power has their full attention. China has some advantages in its role of regional leadership because of its imperial tradition, its own status as a victim of larger powers, its retreat from revolutionary politics, and its reform era emphasis on peaceful economic cooperation. As a result, China’s increasing prominence in regional trade, investment and tourism is treated by Southeast Asia as a challenge of how to engage China rather than of how to protect itself from China. (pp. 529, 531)
I think that this asymmetrical relationship is also being reflected in the multifaceted relationship between China and African countries. In fact, Womack claims the current order of nations in the world—as asymmetric as their capacities may be—is in reality quite stable. (p.11) Asymmetrical relationship, however, has to be managed in terms of minimizing potentially hot issues and controlling the escalation of misperceptions (which is amongst the normal consequences of asymmetry) for the ultimate purpose of maximizing mutual benefits.
A reading by David Kang sees a Chinese centered peaceful hierarchical East Asia as a result of, though not necessarily exclusive to, culture and norm. (P.183) Yes, hierarchy explains East Asia that is unthinkable in other regions during this period, at least, as far as there is no study conducted on the score. He said a hierarchic view would predict that the Asian states see China’s central place in the regional system as inevitable, and have strategies for adjusting to China without provoking it. In addition, China will act within bounds that are acceptable to the other Asian nations. While making his point, he has discussed each and every China’s neighbors with Beijing’s relations with sufficient detail.
This scenario has important implications, in addition to the region per se, to world politics. For example, it predicts U.S. – China relations. Based on the above explanation, U.S. will not try to form a balancing coalition against the rising China as otherwise it would be counterproductive to itself. Contrary to what many scholars would predict, he said, Asian nations may not prefer the U.S. to China if they are forced to choose one.
In this connection, if the U.S. pulls out, he conditioned (Ibid), a hierarchical view would predict that China would take a greater role in organizing the system, and Vietnam, Japan, and Korea adjust, with order preserved. Unlike what the other school of thought, Realism, predicts; the U.S. withdrawal is not nearly so destabilizing for Japan in a hierarchic system. He has explained his statements in his optimistic article. In effect, he concludes that Japan may not rearm following U.S. withdrawal as the former has nothing to fear about China as both know and respect each other’s place.
According to Robert Ross, geography can be a determinant factor in order for a certain country to be a great power or, at least, a regional power. In some regions, there may not be a regional power as almost all the countries in that region are of similar feature. But in some others, he argues geography has a big impact in determining so. He thoroughly discusses in his article how China and the US but neither Russian nor Japan (could have been candidates of the region) can be in the pole of regional power. And it is all about geography i.e., evolving strategic capabilities like natural and demographic resources to sustain economic development and strategic autonomy with many implications like export led market. (pp. 4 (83) ff)
How about the export-led development that results in creating peaceful region? Robert Uriu (pp.150-3) contends that the special Asian oriented export-led peace can exclusively explain the existence of prolonged peace amongst the neighbors. It seems persuasive enough to say export-led economies effectively maintain peace for the sake of their international or regional trade and not necessarily because they are democratic regimes. The point is that Asia may include a fair number of countries that are not democratic, but almost all of its countries, including most of those that are not democratic, rely heavily on trade amongst each other. Therefore, although we cannot explain the region’s peace with DPT, we can safely employ the export-led one since Asian nations became more and more focused on exports. The segments of their economy connected to the world economy became powerful constituencies favoring peaceful foreign policies. He suggests that all of this tremendous focus on exports (and international economic exchange more broadly) has turned Asia and particularly East Asia into a “zone of amity” although North Korea, which exports almost nothing and has no economic stake in getting along with its neighbors, is there. (Id. P.156)
In sum, taking the above theories and other possible equivalents it is reasonable to conclude that the field of international relations has the opportunity to build up new IR theories as a way to explain political interaction embedded in and constructed among states within the context of specific regions.
======
Araya Kebede Araya, LL B., MA, LL. M (PROLAW)
Lecturer in Law, Mekelle University, College of Law and Governance
Ethiopia, Mekelle - Adi Haqi Campus
Cell phone: +39 3896872473 (Rome, Italy), +251 923 771883 (Ethiopia)
E-mail: araya57k@gmail.com, aaraya@luc.edu
======
[1] The question for the essay has been framed by my instructor and adviser Dr Ham, an instructor in Jilin University, Institute of International Studies.
No comments:
Post a Comment