Class 2 Comtemporary International Affairs

Throwback to the last class.

Some conflicts in Africa share some characteristics : the geographical incoherence, the ethnic
divisions, failure of States.
West Africa has been the area that has been more exposed to overpopulation, increasing
urban dynamics, environmental degradation, new kind of wars. Many of the conflicts that
happen there share similarities (ethnic group and state failure).

East Asia

As in Africa, some regions were forced to integrate. The Perry expedition tried to open Japan
with “powder-diplomacy”.

In Asia, we find tensions regarding the economic prosperity of some East-Asian countries.
The nature of conflicts are very different there than in Africa. In Africa, conflicts are rooted in
economic malaise, in East Asia there are rooted in Economic prosperity.

Different school of thoughts:

-Realism (Bismarck, Kissinger : doers / Morgenthau (book : Politics among nations),

Thucydides, Waltz : thinkers)
States are self-interested and compete for power and security. Any country in a position of
power will do the same things. States behave similarly regardless of their type of
government.
“The powerful do what they can, the weak suffer what they should”, Thucydides.
This means that the weak are rule takers. If you don’t obey the international rules, you are
going to suffer. From a moral point of view, this is awful. Some Easter thinkers say that the
Westphalia model doesn’t work because its premise is that formally all countries are equal,
but, in fact, there is a unofficial hierarchy.
Book : Surpassing realism, by Gilbert.

-Liberalism (Bill Clinton, Emmanuel Kant).

There are other instruments than states for peace, and other values. Integrating states into
dynamics of world trade can strengthen peace : the Kantian peace. The most important
finding of the liberals is that the democracies do not fight each-other. The problem is that
transitions to democracy can be very violent, and that it is a true that states survive only
through military power.

-Constructivism
Some of the world order rules are constructed informally, as norms, identities, cultures,
values…
So, international politics is shaped by persuasive ideas, collective values, culture and social
indentities.
Back to Asia:

Balancing
Deterrence (Dissuasion)
Engagement (bringing the other to communicate, create a system)
Hegemony vs anarchy (In East Asia, countries are more used about the idea of hierarchy,
recognizing one country as the more powerful)
Power Transition (that is the problem that can cause violence).
(We might be in the doors of a power transition in East Asia, but it is too early to tell)

“Ripe for rivalry”

-Europe’s past becoming Asia’s future (pre-Wesphalian model)
-Rise of China will alter the Eastern Asia equilibrium (that can create conflict).
-Lack of stability enhancing mechanism (such as NATO), so we expect the creation of NATO-
like organizations (with more power than ASEAN).

China rising : different strategies:

-Enhanced engagement : liberalism solution, putting China into the system, and, indeed,
China has been doing it for the last decades, and, moreover, it has thrived in the system,
doing very well, so China would be a new player of the liberal western order.

-Reassurance : liberal solution (“Sunshine policy”: the US with North Korea, especially in the
90’s): take steps of showing confidence, nice gestures, that will build trust between parties

-Grand bargain/spheres of influence : realist solution, from Kissinger, increasing the

presence, deploying troups, to show that you are not backing up, without confronting the
other state. Maritime interest for the US vs China territorial interest.
-Balancing (Friedberg) : offshore balancing, you should pull out to not be obligated to
participate in a conflict you don’t have any interest with. If one country pulls out, the other
countries will balance. If US pulls out, the countries that rely on it as Korea and Japan will
balance it. Inshore balancing : increasing its own capabilities, empowering Asian countries
other than China. India has tried to counterbalance China.

-Containment: realism (Mearsheimer) : build a NATO-like organization between China’s

neighbourghs, Slow economic growth, abandon Taiwan, restrict China’s access to critical
technologies, and putting pressure on its regime, delegitimizing it with soft-power.

What liberals get wrong :

-Overly benign of Beijin’s motivations and intentions.
-the notion that the regime wants nothing more than to be accepted as a full-fledged
member of the prevailing American-led order isn’t a certitude.
-China’s leaders are likely to interpret gestures of restraint as a defeat.
What realists get wrong :
-China’s leaders are unlikely to accept a sphere-of-influence based on the current
distribution of power, even if it is in some respects an improvement in the status quo.
-The idea that China’s leader may leave the maritime control to the US and only keep
continental power is not very likely.
-Backing away from Taiwan could be awful.
-Divide and conquer

What realists realists, the hardliners get wrong:

-The relationship between the US and China remains mixed, containing important areas of
actual potential cooperation, as well as intensifying competition.
-Abandoning attemps at engagement would create the self-fufilling prophecy that critics of
balancing
-Bismarck : “preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death”.

Conclusion:
So far, a strategy that combnes continued attempts of engagement with expanded and
intensified balancing.

David Kang is a Korean thinker that think that Asia’s future is not Europe’s past, because he
believes in hierarchy. He thinks that Asia has a long lasting tradition of hierarchical systems,
and much more stability than Europe. He says that there are not only anarchies or
hegemonies, but that hierarchy can be a good 3rd option. Maybe us westerners only think on
Westphalian terms and other parts of the world do not. In south America, the states seem to
accept the superiority of Brazil. SO, David Kang think that other countries will not challenge
China but accept its superiority. So far, India has made some attempts balancing China. The
horse of its position is that there is a tradition in Asia of kowtowing, recognizing and
accepting the presence of a superpower. Also, again, he distances itself from the
Westphalian system, as the Westphalian model is nominally equal but de facto unequal. In
Asia, the contrary happens : in opposition to the Westphalian system, in Asia, countries
know and admit that countries are not equal. Asia is used to China power. It was the
superior centre and its ruler had duties toward all other rulers as its inferiors. Chinese
tendency for peaceful management of its relations with neighbors.
The hierarchic system is based on:
-Bandwagoning by the lesser states
-it generates stability in good times, but maybe instability in bad times
-Material power is important but other factors matter
-little interference by central power in the affairs of the lesser.

All this arguments may explain the role of Japan that realists can’t explain.
-Realists have predicted that Japan would arm itself.
-they have all the characteristics of a superpower.
-In recent times, US do not pay much attention about Japan.
-But, It has no: it has no need to, and it has no intention of challenging China.