Week 08 Possibilities of Warm Peace in IR

Week 08: Possibilities of “Warm” Peace in IR Focus: two other prominent IR theories that have emerged as critical alternatives to neo-realism (1) liberalism (2) (social) constructivism more optimistic about IR: “Genuine” or “warm” peace based on mutual interstate trust is possible despite conditions of anarchy not “cold peace” based on military means (= realists’ view)

Week 7: Peace in IR Questions: n How do these 2 theories – liberalism and social constructivism – criticize, build on, or go beyond neorealism? similarities between liberalism & SC n How do the two theories differ from each other? differences between liberalism & SC

neo-realism (or structural realism): Brief Review n n n one variant of realist theory dominant IR theory (esp. during Cold War) interstate wars & conflicts – inherent to IR & inevitable because of anarchy = absence of central authority in IR that can effectively restrain power-maximizing states = perennial structural defect of IR

Brief Review: Neo-realism International Politics STATE Sadam Hussein Structural feature (defect) ? STATE Kim Jong -il ? ANARCHY (= no central Authority) The world is full of power-maximizing “rogue” (? ) states and their politicians Hitler ? ? STATE Bush

Neo-Realism (structural realism) “Wars occur because there is nothing to prevent them” (Waltz). If you are not militarily prepared, your country would be wiped out. § bleak, pessimistic § Wars could break out anytime § Your country could be invaded anytime If any state appears friendly, don’t let it fool you. It could be an act of deception. Don’t be naïve. Always be suspicious of other countries’ intentions.

Neo-realism: Policy Prescriptions n Military build-up must be any country’s No. 1 priority “a hierarchy of issues” Military build-up takes precedence n The state is the most important actor in IR Nobody else can build up armed forces Nobody else can fight wars All other actors (e. g. , NGOs) – subordinate to the state n The state must be self-reliant military self-help

Do states have to fight all the time? Is peace impossible to attain under anarchy? n Possible, but only thru military means … (1) military deterrence e. g. , nuclear war between US & USSR during Cold War (2) military balance of power thru (temporary) alliances, pacts, etc. e. g. , Nixon & Mao burying ideological differences to counterbalance common enemy – USSR

But … n n only “cold” temporary peace not genuine & permanent fragile & instrumental foundation - based on mutual mistrust - on political expediency or strategic marriage of convenience - inherently uncertain - could be shattered anytime e. g. , Mutual Non-Aggression Pact between Germany-USSR (1939) violated by Hitler (1941) Stalin Look at what happened to us. A treaty was a piece of scrap paper for Hitler. Stay on your toes all the time!

Liberalism & Constructivism: Empirical Basis for Criticism n neo-realism – too pessimistic n tends to generalize from a limited number of cases in the past n Some parts of the world don’t fit realism n It is simply unthinkable for these countries to go to war with each other n clear misfits between reality and theoretical expectations of neorealism Look at US and Canada. Look also at Germany and other European countries at present.

Theoretical Expectations of neo-realism If realism is true, there should be a security dilemma or a never. This is the expectation ending arms race between US & that we can logically Canada draw from the neorealist argument. n Canada should interpret US arms build-up as a security threat, and vice versa n n But not the case. Why not? Neo-realism cannot account for this n Because Canada does NOT see US friendship. Many as a (potential) enemy, and vice Canadians may hate versa Bush, but America, as They are “genuine” friends a country, is Canada’s true friend. n The same for Germany & other European countries

The quality of peace is different from the realists’ idea n “warm” or “positive” peace n Not based on military deterrence or balance of military power not instrumental calculation or expediency n based on mutual trust & strong norms of peace Fundamental changes have taken place in the nature of the world n The world is NOT exactly or forever the dog -eat-dog world that realism makes it out to be n Germany is not what it was until 1945. Countries can change.

We don’t attack anybody, simply because we don’t want to. German Chancellor Angela Merkel Liberals & constructivists’ view Deep commitment to “positive” peace I want to attack them, but I can’t. They have nuclear weapons, and so do we. Both of us could end up being dead. Kim Jong Ill Realists’ view: “negative peace” How has this come about? How do liberalism & constructivism explain this?

Liberalism u associated with Democratic Party in US u Dove: opposite of hawk prefer negotiation, conciliation, compromise to direct armed confrontation or military brinksmanship (= “hard power” = last resort) Jimmy Carter advisor Joseph Nye Robert Keohane Bill Clinton

Basic ideas of liberalism n more positive, optimistic view of IR but naïve idealists (unlike W. Wilson) We are not pessimists, unlike realists. n believes in constant progress – human beings’ abilities to make progress, despite adverse conditions n The world is not a perfect place to live in… n But we are capable of making it better n learn lessons from the past, never make the same mistakes again, so that we can make the present and the future better Along the way, we may make mistakes, but we learn from those mistakes.

Liberalism Starts from the same pessimistic premise as realism n accepts anarchy as the never-changing structure or defect of IR agree with neo-realism on this point n n Still, “warm” peace could emerge despite this condition, because … n Human nature is different - More faith in human progress - Not all politicians are “bad” to the core - may be power-maximizing, but not at others’ expense - If bad now, they can get better later

John Locke (1632 -1704) n “father of liberalism” n Two Treatises of Government (1689) n “State of Nature” - The state has yet to emerge - Nobody has any authority over anybody - People are free & equal But … n NOT “a state of war” n Not all humans are bad … more faith in good human nature n But … a few bad apples could damage social order

Locke (continued) So, people agree to create the central state (in domestic setting) = necessary evil = necessary to hedge against the possibility that a few bad apples might undermine social order n But we can’t create such authority in IR! A necessary (second best) alternative: n Just in case, each state should spend money on military BUT … no need to be top priority n Most politicians don’t want wars – peace-loving n

n willing to cooperate for peace make it possible to expend less money on defense spending than realism advocates I want you to know that we will be your friends forever, OK? That goes without saying. You are our GREAT neighbor. Obama Stephen Harper, Canadian PM Let’s spend more of our state resources on social welfare and education!

Germany We have learned a lesson from the past. We are determined not to make the same mistake. If uttered & honored repeatedly create credible commitments win trust of other countries She is serious & sincere. I trust her. We are now real friends. Let bygones be bygones.

Japan-US PRC politicians We have become a peaceful nation now. We forever renounce any kind of offensive war. We don’t buy it. . . Japan might become a military power again. Realist interpretation of IR Japanese PM I believe you. Japan has won our trust. Obama

But more and more countries, including formerly aggressor countries, have come to be sincerely committed to establishing and maintaining peace. Robert Keohane We don’t have to repeat “the same damned things over and over again!” We can be more hopeful.

“International Society” n Despite anarchy in IR, “a society of states” (= “international society”) has emerged n Not just a collection of different states Hedley Bull n But a community of states that share “certain common interests and common values” (= norms of peace) and voluntarily “agree to be bound (1932 – 85 ) by a common set of rules” n A more positive view of United Nations: For all its imperfections, UN has become an important institutional linchpin of peace and order in IR Most states now agree voluntarily to adhere to UN rules UN has become a de facto world government

Complex Interdependence n n Attributed to Joseph Nye & Robert Keohane = complex, multiple, and dense mutually beneficial transnational ties that have developed between states and societies n Better reflects the reality of IR than the simplistic picture of realism Complex interdependence gives politicians every incentive NOT to cause war n Not to disrupt the existing ties that benefit both countries n Complex interdependence has made wars a remote possibility n The more dense the ties, the more probability of peaceful coexistence among states n

Country A Country B State military university Local company university NGO MNC Local company MNC Football club

Democratic Peace Theory n n Michael Doyle Democracies never fight with each other US may go to war against Iraq, but not against Canada, England, France, and other democracies … n Complex interdependence is most pronounced in democracies Democracies allow everyone & every group to exist & communicate freely n Citizens in democracies are better informed on why wars happened in the past n n More countries – democratic since the 1970 s (Fukuyama & Huntington) (week 03) If so, there should be more peace (or fewer wars) in the world. Is that the case?

Realism in Relative Decline n still influential, but far less so, since the end of Cold War (1991) n Advocates of liberalism – make powerful claims against realism (although they still accept anarchy as structural defect of IR) = “strong liberals” (e. g. , Nye, Keohane) n Realism is too obsolete to reflect the reality in IR n Realism has ceased to provide a viable theoretical foundation on which any country’s defense policy should be formulated

Challenges of “Strong Liberals” to Realism I came up with the concept of soft power. n The state – NOT the main actor any longer n Non-state actors – MNCs, NGOs, activists, etc. – equally or more important (Week 09). n Military build-up & self-help – not top priorities of the state any longer n Use of military means (“hard power”) in attaining “cold peace” – obsolete n The states – more reliant on “soft power” Both state actors and non-state actors in a given country must acquire non-military means to persuade and attract (NOT coerce) other (potentially) belligerent countries to want peace

Example of “Soft Power”: Higher Education n One source of “soft power” for the US n US universities produce most Nobel Prize winners for economics & in natural sciences n China (world’s most populous) – no winner I want China to produce just as many Nobel Prize winners. I want China to become like the US. I’m envious. n The Chinese government sends more Chinese students to study in US contributes to more “complex interdependence” n spends more public monies on education at home, instead of spending them on military defense n US attracts China into desiring what US wants (= peace) thru non -military means

(Social) Constructivism n Alexander Wendt: “Anarchy is what states make of it” (1992) seminal critique of neo-realism n reaches the same conclusion as liberalism n = Peace can emerge despite conditions of anarchy Wendt I wrote my paper to support the argument of liberalism. n but the reason – different from liberalism not because of human beings’ ability to progress n But because anarchy doesn’t have an inherently negative meaning

Wendt (continued) n argument from a social constructivist perspective n There is NO absolute or objective “truth” (beyond basic facts) Everything else is socially constructed n How is it socially constructed? through process of social interaction n same for the meaning of “anarchy” in IR

Elaboration: Social Constructivism Yoshinori Nishizaki Who am I? n lecturer in PS at NUS, specialist on Thailand n Japanese n a fan of Barcelona FC & Messi = basic, objectively true, indisputable FACTs n BUT, beyond these facts, I didn’t have any inherent subjective “meaning” for you – positive or negative – before the semester Any cognitive meaning you assign to me now has been constructed through social processes or social interactions Wendt: apply the same logic to “anarchy” in IR

LKY We’re tired. We’ve been working too hard. We’ll be on holiday leave for the next one year. We will suspend ALL government functions during this period. That’s terrible. Come back quick! Anarchy means different things to different people, depending on the nature/extent of prior social interactions An old man who has experienced racial conflicts before and interact little with members of other racial no inherent groups meaning There will be ANARCHY in Spore! Nothing will change. No racial conflicts! Younger generation who speak English and interact extensively with other races

ANARCHY = a fact Our country is their (potential) enemy. USSR We should beef up our military. Same here. Negative state US identity President Negative state interests Same here. Negative result: Unstable world full of tension/wars Neo-realism’s view • Structure (= anarchy) automatically determines states’ identity & interests • “exogenously given” • All states have the same identity & interests all the time • The “same damned thing” again & again The world is forever conflictual

Wendt’s criticism Why should that be the case all the time and everywhere? n accepts that there is anarchy in IR There is no central authority in IR = an indisputable fact agrees with realism & liberalism n But this fact “does not predict whether any two states will be friends or foes” n States’ identity & interests do not arise logically from the anarchical structure of the world n Neo-realism is based on the undemonstrated assumption that anarchy inherently has a negative meaning for every state across time and space

Wendt (continued) n “Anarchy” has no universal, fixed, negative meaning n Its meaning – positive or negative – is social constructed n through processes of inter-subjective (= interpersonal) social interaction amongst state politicians We cannot assume state identity & interests a priori = before social interaction begins

A new republic is born in SEA: n S’pore PM has never met new president n What is the state identity of Spore in relation to this republic? “Are we their friend or foe? ” n What kind of state interests does Spore have? “Should we strengthen our military? ” n You have neither, prior to interaction (= a priori) n “Anarchy” has neither a positive nor negative meaning at this point

The meaning of anarchy n depends on specific nature of interaction n First impression is crucial n If new leader assume hostile posture & repeated over time Spore will acquire a negative meaning of anarchy “Nobody can restrain their aggressive behavior” n shapes Spore’s state identity & interests negatively “We are their potential enemy” (= identity) “Better watch out, and beef up our military” (= interests)

n If new Republic sends a positive signal and sustains it over time n Spore reciprocates likewise over time mutual trust n positive self-perpetuating cycle n anarchy ceases to have negative meaning for Spore n One or two negative incidents will not be enough to change your identity & interests e. g. , n Security dilemma fails to occur between Germany & US n Because Germany has succeeded in constructing a new positive meaning for US in postwar period, despite anarchy n Germany is not an “enemy” any more n US has no reason to feel threatened n Germany & US have acquired new state identities & interests

ANARCHY = a fact Different meanings of anarchy created Hostile interaction Friendly interaction State identity We’re their friend military self-help State interests Use of soft power We’re their foe Unstable world full of tension = realists’ scenario Peaceful world Different meanings of other states Different selfidentities acquired Different interests acquired Different results = constructivists’ scenario

As far as US and Canada (or Germany) are concerned, they don’t have to possess arms any longer. Wendt If all the countries in the world succeed in constructing a positive meaning of anarchy towards each other, we won’t have to possess arms. Kiss good-bye to armed forces! We can then spend our resources on other things – education and social welfare.

Neo-realists’ Skepticism and Wendt’s Rejoinder: Possibility & Probability We may be playing with fire. Who knows what might happen in 50 years? Germany might become an evil again. It would be prudent to act on the worstcase possibility. Mearsheimer Hard-core realist But that probability is low. Human beings normally act on probabilities, rather than possibilities Wendt And we base our calculation of probabilities on prior social interactions. Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that Germany or Japan might go to war with US again. But that probability is very low. The US can therefore readjust its priorities.

Upshot: Social Constructivism n ideational or cognitive basis of IR ignored or underestimated by neo-realism: structural basis of IR (= anarchy) Cause for (cautious) optimism: n We can change the world by changing the nature of human interaction/practice n Human interactions can change the way politicians think about the (anarchical) world n We can then eliminate wars forever n We will have (warm) peace = same conclusion as liberalism n “If US and USSR decide that they are not enemies, the Cold War is over!” (Wendt)

How is constructivism different from liberalism? (1) How much is assumed about human nature Liberalism: - emphasis on generally positive human nature - interaction among “good” humans better world Wendt: - emphasis on social interaction without assuming anything about human nature - Many human beings are “good, ” and just as many can be “bad” - how the interaction among these people construct the world in both good & bad ways

(2) Perspective on “anarchy” Liberalism: n concede to neo-realism that anarchy always has a negative meaning n agree that all states are always constrained by anarchy n Just in case rogue states might appear, states must build up military forces converge with neo-realism better to act on worst-case scenario n Still, we can attain peace despite the constraints of anarchy, because human beings are basically rational & progressive

Constructivism (Wendt) n agree with liberalism & realism that there is no central authority in IR (= a fact) BUT … n deny or dispute the inherently negative meaning of “anarchy” Hence the title of n Peace can emerge if and when states Wendt’s paper: don’t assign a negative meaning to Anarchy is what anarchy n if and when states don’t think of anarchy states make of it! as a bad thing n Peace (as well as warfare) is a matter of interpretations or cognitive perceptions

Questions n Alexander Wendt argues, “If US and USSR decide that they are not enemies, the Cold War is over. ” Discuss if or how this statement can be applied to the relationship between the US and the Islamic World at present. Is it true that “if US and the Islamic World decide that they are not enemies, the conflicts will be over. ” n Are you convinced by Wendt’s social constructivist argument? What do you think are the weaknesses of his argument? n According to Wendt, EU has developed “a new European identity of cooperation and friendship. ”. ” What does Britain’s exit mean for IR? n How come Malaysia or Indonesia have not attacked Spore? Is it because there is “warm” peace between the two countries, as proponents of liberalism and SC would argue? Or is it because of the military deterrence effects, as realist scholars would argue?

Tip on your essay: How you should construct your argument n Suppose you chose the Q: “How likely will China and Japan go to war over the Senkanku islands disputes? What kind of assessment would you offer? Discuss by drawing on IR theories. ” n introductory paragraph(s) (one or two): put the question in a proper context, or state the significance of the Q e. g. , “(mention brief history)… Given the anarchical structure of the world, realists fear that the two counties will likely go to war. But is it really the case? ” Keep this part to a minimum

Then make a thesis statement somewhere in the intro n This is ESSENTIAL – Every paper must have one n Let the reader (= your tutor) know what your argument will be in the rest of your paper Make your stand clear at the outset Give a sense of direction – where’s your destination? n “In this paper, I argue (contend) that contrary to what realists fear, the likelihood of warfare between the two countries is very low. ” n Then elaborate a bit (in 1 or 2 sentences) on the contents of your argument. “The empirical basis for my argument is the growing complex interdependence between Japan and China. Given this condition, wars would be unlikely. I will support my case by drawing on the ideas of Nye and Keohane. ”

Don’t conflate the statement on the organization of your paper with your thesis statement. n “This paper consists of three parts. In the first part, I will talk about the main arguments of realism. ” n “In the second part, I will elaborate on theory of Nye and Keohane. ” n “In the third part, I will give examples of complex interdependence between Japan and China. ” n This is NOT a thesis statement! It says nothing about your argument n You can talk about the organization of your paper, but it is NOT a substitute for thesis statement

Main body of your paper n have leeway to proceed in any way n elaborate on your argument: - clarify & elaborate on theoretical basis for your argument - support it with appropriate empirical examples e. g. , The concept of “complex interdependence”, developed by two eminent scholars of liberalism, Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane, illuminates my argument. According to these scholars, if and when any two countries have developed dense transnational ties, state politicians will see it in their best interests not to go to war. … Go on elaborate on theory by drawing on the assigned readings, etc.

n Give some empirical examples or evidence of “complex interdependence to support your argument or make it persuasive e. g. , the number of Japanese students studying in China and Chinese students in Japan extent of Japan’s investments in post-Mao China amount of Chinese exports to Japan public statements by politicians in both countries “Japanese PM has affirmed his commitment to a peaceful solution by saying …” your personal anecdotes/observation (if any) “At my home university, there at least 100 students from China…”

Then… n Toward the end of your paper (after you have elaborated on your argument): n Address & refute potential counter-argument(s) a good & essential way to strengthen your argument: n Anticipate potential counter-argument(s) What would my critics say about my argument? How would they react to my argument? n Otherwise, your argument would be one-sided and lack persuasiveness

How? n First, state what the counter-argument(s) might be, by using a few paragraphs (or more), depending on the number and nature of the counter-argument(s) e. g. , “My critics would argue from a realist perspective that I am offering a naively optimistic assessment. They would argue that the top brass in the Chinese Communist Party, who experienced and fought against Japanese colonial rule, still view Japan as a military aggressor and interpret IR in military terms. … Go on to elaborate a bit more by drawing on the realist theory and the history of Japan-China relationship, etc

Then refute the counter-argument(s) n point out its weaknesses and demonstrate that your argument is better e. g. , “This counter-argument, however, has a few shortcomings. First, it assumes that the viewpoints or mentalities of Chinese leaders have not changed over the decades. It is true that these leaders once held views that can be construed as those of realism, but in the post-Mao period, they have come to display more “pacifist” views that more closely resemble those of liberalism. For example, Chinese Premier recently said … ( Give one or two illustrative examples) n Reaffirm your main argument in the conclusion: “I therefore maintain that the likelihood of war is low, if not nil. ”

End … Feel free to ask me or your tutor any question!