International Relations Theory: Focus on Rise of China as Superpower
...conflict and cooperation in world politics. Nye and Brown indicate that the system of IR is anarchy (3, 45). Anarchy is defined as the absence of any ruler and is associated to the world because the actors or states similar in nature, although dissimilar in their capabilities, conduct relations of some form with each other (Brown 45-6). Nye asserts simply, that the territorial system of states conducts politics in the absence of a common ruler. States are propelled to protect their sovereignty and interests in this “self-help” system because no higher entity exists that will perform this task for them (Brown 46, Nye 3). Thomas Hobbes described this system in his famous work Leviathan as a “state of nature (Kozak).” This is the point on the theoretical path of IR that realism and liberalism diverge, as each theory makes different assumptions on the harshness of this “state of nature” is in the world (Nye 4). Realist theory has a more pessimistic view of Hobbes’s state of nature because it characterizes the most significant actors in world politics, states, as actors that pursue their interests above all else in terms of the amount of power or influence they possess (Brown 32). Cooperation occurs when the interests of the state will benefit. Realist theory seems to portray the more animalistic side of human nature as Brown writes, “States never sacrifice themselves; they are essentially egoists (33).” In comparison liberals emphasize the presence of a “global society” that functions in addition to states and contributes to the context for states (Nye 5). Liberals differ from realists in their dismissal of the realist tendency to view the world system as purely anarchical (Nye 5). More optimistically, liberals use the examples of the United Nations or transnational trade to portray a more cohesive international society instead of constant conflict and insecurity that are overemphasized in the realist theories (Nye 5). Certainly if states were constantly in fear for their own security and ever distrusting of other states then attempts at creating international institutions and precedents seem very much out of place from the realist perspective. States would not have attempted to create international institutions such as the United Nations or precedents like International Law if these same states were not at least somewhat willing or desirous of forging a sense of trust within world politics. In the 1920’s, American interest was to weaken the government of the Soviet Union, yet in 1921 the U.S. chose to act based on moral principle rather than state interest by providing massive relief to the famine devastated S.U. (Craig 275). This action contradicts the realist view that states only act self-interestedly. Constructivist approaches allow theorists to analyze why and how changes occurred in states and individuals ideas that caused the inclusion of ethics in perceptions of accepted norms in world politics (Craig 275). Joseph Nye maintains the view that any sense of global community and therefore the existence of an international society remains weak; a view that undermines that of liberal theorists (4-5). National identities remain strong in the contemporary world and constructivists seek to figure out how senses of identities change and influence actors; in turn contributing to the level of cooperation or conflict in world politics. Hedley Bull defines a society of states or international society as existing when: “a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values, form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions (13).” Based on present and recently past international situations that reflect a clash of common interests and values between states, the liberalist assumption of the existence of an international society is premature though not impossible as realist views would suggest. In this light, one can appreciate the liberalist approach in realizing the fact that some aspects of an international society do exist and that the realist state of constant insecurity and distrust is not always the most important motivation behind state action. Realizations from both sides of the IR theoretical debate should be taken into consideration. Therefore constructivism is the best equipped to examine the strengths within realism and liberalism claims. Constructivists remind academics of IR that the concepts on which so much significance is placed, in attempt to give meaning to human lives and human theories are “socially constructed” or created and therefore are subject to the possibility of change through time and are not a “permanent reality (Nye 7).” Constructivism gives IR theorists the freedom to not only consider the strengths of both liberalism and realism but also focus on how our senses of reality have become what they are. To gain a more complete picture of the political world constructivist focus on how and why both continuities and changes in relation to identities, international governance, norms, national interests, and culture have occurred (Nye 7). In the past, the state of China isolated itself from the rest of humanity (Gee A3). Journalist Marcus Gee notes how in this past China was “secure in its cultural superiority, disdainful of Western ideas and science, it welcomed foreigners only as supplicants (A3).” However, now, many sources point to the rising Chinese empire that “looks outward instead of in” and increasing its status through 25 years of economic growth (Gee A3). The constructivist approach attempts to examine why and how such changes in China’s economy, attitudes and culture have occurred. This is a crucial examination if theorists are to come up with a realistic prediction of what the rise of a new superpower will imply for conflict and cooperation in world politics. Joseph Nye marks the significance of a relatively new term that has grown since the introduction of nuclear weapons into the world. The concept “double death” implies the possibility of total human destruction if one nuclear war were to occur. Constructivist theory allows scholars to find out how this added dimension to war effects present norms, attitudes and ideas that actors and individuals feel. If in the realist perspective, the toppling of U.S. hegemony implies conflict on the international level then this conflict in itself presents the possibility that the human race will cease to exist. Therefore, international cooperation or agreements between actors to respect their disagreements (agree to disagree) will have to be wrought out by actors on all levels in world politics. According to the U.S. example, the world hegemonic state sets the tone for how they feel every state should deal with conflict and cooperation. The U.S. has avidly pushed for the prevalence of democracy as the best system that both states should adopt and systems of international politics should strive towards. However, this U.S. push has been implicated in the eyes of its citizens an...