So much is being written about on geopolitics and International Relations (IR), as it concerns global events. The war in Ukraine and the ongoing conflict in Iran, have thus occupied both the print and digital media. But amidst all this, one tends to forget the theoretical foundations of IR. This blog is a modest attempt to make amends. While doing so, focus is brought to bear not just on Western theoretical constructs but also on recent attempts by Chinese scholars to put forward their own theories related to IR.
Any Western treatise of IR will per force talk of three main theories of IR, namely, Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism. There are of course others but for the purpose of this blog, we will confine ourselves to these three.
Realism, conceived in the early part of the twentieth century, is a fairly straightforward theory of state-centred international relations, which contends that all states are attempting to enhance their power and that those governments which can efficiently accumulate such strength will prosper, quickly transcending the achievements of comparatively less successful states. According to this theory, a nation’s primary goal ought to be self-preservation, and increasing power has to be a socio-economic and political requisite.
In the present scheme of things, both the US and China seem wedded to this theory of IR, bent as they are on accumulating and enhancing their power. John Mearsheimer has argued that the international relations system requires that states maximize their offensive power to be secure and keep rivals from gaining power at their expense. The problem is this then becomes an exercise at hegemony, making the Thucidydes Trap a possibility, if not a probability. According to ‘offensive realism’, a branch of the realism school, nations are prone to rivalry and conflict because they are self-interested, power-maximizing, and frightened of other states. Furthermore, it contends that nations are obligated to behave in this manner in order to survive in the international system. ‘Defensive realism’, yet another branch of the realism school, argues that states tend to act in favour of a balance of power instead of letting other states develop economically, military strengths, and political power because it is perceived as a threat to their security and interests. It is for readers to judge which branch is subscribed to by either US or China.
Liberalism is centred on the premise that the existing international system is capable of establishing a harmonious global order. Instead of depending on aggressive force, such as military conflict, liberalism encourages global cooperation as a tool of advancing every state’s individual goals. Liberalists think that the negative repercussions of using warfare, such as economic damage and civilian fatalities, considerably outweigh the possible gains. As a result, liberal political leaders normally like to use economic and political power to realize national objectives. In the current, globally connected world, economic techniques such as bilateral trade agreements and international political diplomacy may be more efficient than using force in achieving political objectives. That said, multilateralism and global cooperation is at an all time low in international relations today. So, there are very few takers for this school of thought, at least among the major powers.
Constructivism theory in international affairs is based on the assumption that nations, like humans, exist in a world of our making in which certain concepts, such as social facts, gender roles are created by human activity, as opposed to brute facts, which are developed independently. Its arguments are based on concepts such as discourses, conventions, identities, and social interaction, which are widely used in contemporary conversations about a variety of international matters such as globalization, international human rights, defence policy, and others. Constructivism believes that the structure of the international system cannot be uniformly applied to all state relations as it mainly bases the relations and interactions between countries and their shared understanding as the source of conflict or cooperation. Constructivists view identity as the basis for interests, institutions, and relations between countries. It is conceivable to look at the war in Ukraine through the lens of constructivists.
The Chinese theories of IR mirror, at least to an extent, the Western theories above. The respective three schools are: Yan Xuetong’s moral realism, Zhao Tingyang’s Tianxia system and Qin Yaqing’s relational theory.
Yan Xuetong’s moral realism is realism with a softer edge if you like. According to Yan Xuetong, there are three different ways in which governmental power can be wielded in Chinese political thought – qiang (tyranny), ba (hegemony), and wang (humane authority). Yan argues that the humane authority style of leadership is regarded in Confucian thoughts as the highest and most prized form of government. Moral realism is about humane authority. As Yan Xuetong elaborated, at the core of humane authority thinking is benevolence and righteousness. It is about practicing those virtues and moral values in order to be accepted by others as the world leader. Whether world leaders in general and Chinese leaders in particular, practice this today is arguable.
Since the first publication of The Tianxia System: A Philosophy for the World Institution in 2005, Zhao Tingyang has been promoting the idea of Tianxia as an inclusive global philosophy that transcends the perspective of the nation state so that all must look at all without excluding anyone. According to Zhao Tingyang, political theorists in the West are mainly concerned about life in terms of the individual, community, and nation-state. In contrast, the Chinese tradition looks to the levels of the world (i.e. Tianxia), state, and family. It is argued that the Westphalian world order inevitably leads to conflict in world politics due to it being based on competing national interests. Due to the limitations of Western political theory, with the nation-state as the largest political unit, Zhao suggests that we need to transcend the principle of ‘internationality’ and think about the world from a truly global perspective. Zhao Tingyang then draws from an idealised version of the Tianxia system of the Zhou dynasty (c. 1046–256 bc) as the paradigmatic model and argues that the system would solve world-scale peace problems through its world institution. After all, the Tianxia system is supposed to be an all-inclusive geographical, psychological, and institutional term. It is meant to operate on three levels: (1) the earth, that is, all lands under the sky; (2) a common or public choice made by all peoples in the world, truly representing the general will; and (3) a universal political system for the world. The Chinese scholars may well argue that the Belt and Road initiative, albeit flawed for some, is based on this utopian school of Chinese theory of IR!
Qin Yaqing is one of the main advocates of the need to construct the Chinese theories of IR based on its cultural traditions. It is not surprising that Qin Yaqing explores Chinese cultural and philosophical traditions as sources to develop an IR theory, especially when considering his intellectual background. Most of his earlier work was hugely influenced by constructivism in IR, which sees state behaviours as shaped by cultural factors such as culture, norms, and identity. Since 2015, Qin officially put forward the “relational” theory of IR which theorises the Chinese notion of “relationality” as the core of his theory. His theory involves four basic assumptions: (1) relationality is the basic unit for analysing the social world; (2) rationality is embedded within relationality; (3) relationality determines identity; and (4) relationality generates power. Is it possible to talk of Chinese influence and power in East Asia, based on the Chinese identity of a large number of inhabitants in those countries?
At the end of the day, theories of IR are what they are, namely, theories. They may lead to a better understanding of major events around us, but care must be exercised to ensure not to overinterpret events to suit one’s theoretical bias.
Dr Mohan Kumar is a former Indian Ambassador to France and currently Dean/Professor at O.P. Jindal Global University. Views are personal.
Diplomacy and Geopolitics 