1 November 2020, NIICE Commentary 6413
Anuttama Banerji
International Relations is a theoretical discipline. Andrew Linklater and Scott Burchill have argued that two of the seminal texts in the field, E.H. Carr’s The Twenty Years Crisis and Hans J. Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations were works of theory in three central ways. These two seminal texts “developed a broad framework of analysis which distilled the essence of international politics from disparate; each sought to provide future analysts with the theoretical tools for understanding general patterns underlying seemingly unique episodes; and each reflected on the forms of political action which were most appropriate in the realm. Both Morgenthau and Carr wanted to correct the deep misunderstandings related to the subject that the struggle for power could be tamed by international law and the idea that the pursuit of self-interest could be replaced by the shared objective of promoting security for all.” Thus, the discipline of International Relations has always been a contested one.
Defensive realists like Kenneth Waltz have attempted to define structure, stating how different entities in the structures when differently juxtaposed and combined produce different structures. He argues that structure is not necessarily observable but is an abstract notion. Political structure is not necessarily seen but its imprint and influence are felt. “Structure” according to Waltz is defined on the basis of elements like ordering principle and distribution of capabilities. These are not unit level attributes and he refers to the diffusion of capabilities. Structure as we know, is not seen but it exists.
Offensive realism encourages states to look for opportunities to maximize their power vis-à-vis other states. In an anarchical system, all the states possess offensive military capabilities and survival becomes the primary goal of the international states. States fear each other and are always suspicious of each other. States, especially great powers think and act offensively towards each other, with fear, self-help and power maximization being the end result. Power maximization ends only when a state becomes a hegemony in the international system. Liberal IR theory looks at state society relations which have a fundamental impact on state behaviour in world politics. According to liberalism, the fundamental actors in international politics are individuals and private groups, who are rational and risk averse and who organise exchange and collective action. Liberal theory rests on a “bottom up view” of politics where states represent some subset of domestic society whose interests define state preferences and act purposively in world politics. The state is a representative institution and not an actor. The configuration of independent state preferences determines state behavior. There are different variants in liberalism which include Ideational Liberalism that focusses on identity, commercial liberalism with its thrust on economic exchange and republic liberalism with its focus on domestic representation.
Finally, Wendt’s constructivism rests on the premise that “Anarchy is what states make of it” i.e. states can either make conflict or cooperation out of anarchy. Wendt doesn’t deny the reality of anarchy but he disagrees with the implication of anarchy. He argues that the way in which realists derive self-help and competitive power politics from anarchy is problematic because self-help and competitive power politics do not causally flow from anarchy. In addition to the three elements of Waltz, he introduces a fourth element, intersubjective structure of identity and interest’ which allows the shift from behavior to cognition. However, every theory looks at the international system through the state centric prism where human emotions, ideas and memories hardly find a mention. Theories explain and it is the explanatory power of theories that give them the edge. Objectivity is desired and a theory claims to do that.
But mainstream theories of international relations have existing limitations and this is where Chinese IR Theory can step in and provide an alternative. There are fundamental differences between Chinese IR Theory and mainstream theories that need to be pointed out. In western political theory, the biggest political unit is the ‘country’ or the ‘nation state’, whereas in Chinese IR theory, it is the framework of “world society”. States have been seen as subordinate units inside the framework of the world society that are regarded as necessary and the highest political unit. Similarly, western IR gives importance to rationality while Chinese IR gives more credence to relationality. In Chinese IR theory, individuals are not the basic unit. The way of thinking embedded in Chinese society is based upon groups i.e. family, the country and the world.
Chinese IR theory takes into account traditional thought and Confucian ideas of “Tienxia”(天下) which roughly translates as “All under Heaven”. It is found in major Chinese texts and at first it means the “earth” or the “whole world under heaven”. It also means “hearts of all peoples” minxin i.e. the general will of the people. Tienxia consists of both the home and the people. An emperor in Chinese philosophy does not enjoy his empire unless he has the support of the people. Tinexia is also the “world institution” a utopia of the world as one family. Tienxia is closely related to the idea of ‘Son of Heaven” (Tianzi). The Son of heaven is entitled to enjoy the reign of the world only if he has the support of his people i.e. what he does is more important than who he is.
Chinese IR Theory is useful because theories such as processual construction and relationality emphasize on the idea of “sociality” as a key factor in IR Theory. It takes relationality at the core and social ontology and social evolution make up the theoretical orientation of processual constructivism. Process plays a key role in social life and it constitutes “relations in motion”. Process and agents are symbiotic and inter constructive as they both involved in the process of socialization. For instance, Yin and Yang complement each other. Process makes interactions possible and the interaction constructs intersubjectivity. It is, thus, clear that mainstream IR does not focus on the individual but the state alone. Chinese IR provides an alternative understanding of the world because it looks at the collective identity of individuals and not just the state. Process nurtures collective emotion, a role that is widely neglected by mainstream constructivism in particular and Western social theory. Processual construction constructs and maintains “emotional convergence”. China, in recent years, has changed its outlook towards the world and Chinese IR theory is used as a tool to justify this change. Chinese society gives importance to ‘relational orientation’.
Moral Realism is another important component of Chinese IR theory. We all know that anarchy is the basis of the international system and security dilemmas are inevitable and foreign policy aims to incorporate national interests in the traditional scenario – but with the inclusion of moral realism as a tool of foreign policy- conflict and competition can co-exist like two sides of the same coin. China has transformed itself from a country that followed the keeping low strategy (KLS) during the early 1990s under Deng Xiaoping to a new policy of Striving for Achievement (SFA) in recent times under the larger rubric of moral realism. Moral Realism has, in recent times, emerged as a favorable alternative for the Chinese. It is a policy that enables states to pursue their own development, security and well-being and a new type of power relations (gongying) which is win-win for all, has become an important aspect of Xi’s strategy.
The components of SFA include strategic credibility that includes making more allies and friends to build a good image. It is the lowest end of international morality. China is trying to build an international image where it is seen as friend to all and not a foe. Since the emergence of moral realism as a standpoint of Chinese Foreign Policy, China has gained more power and strength. It has gained more allies in the neighborhood and has attempted to adopt a strategy to ensure that tensions with major superpowers like the United States do not escalate.
While it will not be incorrect to suggest that Chinese IR policy can be seen as closely linked to the China’s history and culture, it is a possible alternative today to resolve conflicts and disputes that have remained unresolved for long periods. Relations between individuals, possibly political leaders, can help resolve ‘protracted social conflicts’ – especially when traditional means of conflict resolution have remained unresolved. Because of the importance attached to “hierarchization” Chinese IR theory definitely stands out. The hierarchization begins at the level of the individual and extends to the family, society, country and the world. In the western conception of IR, there is equality in the world in general but inherent contradictions among states do exist as certain states are stronger than the others. Inequality exists in tacit ways in world institutions. The concept of ‘seeing the world as a family’ is similar to the Indian belief of “Vasudheva Kutumbakam” i.e. ‘the world is family.’ This is a fact that could be researched further.
However, like all novel concepts, Chinese IR continues to be highly patriarchal and the absence of women in Chinese IR discourse is a major flaw that practitioners of Chinese IR need to address. Similarly, a cautious approach is needed while we look at the different theories at our disposal and opening the black box alone will not resolve the problem and a complementary approach of bringing western and non-western theories together might resolve existing issues concerning the world.
