國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
claim a whole or at least partial sovereignty of the South China Sea13.
Indeed, China has had countless territorial disputes with other nations in its history. Looking back to the ancient China, it has never been lack of foreign enemies since it has quite long boundary with other countries. We can see there are restless wars between Han Dynasty and Xiongnu, Sui, Tang Dynasties and Tujue (the Turkic people), Song, Ming Dynasties and Mongolian, Qing Dynasty and Burmese, and so forth.
Though sometimes the foreign enemies take initiative to invade in, China also launches wars when it has the capability14.
Is China an aggressive one as the realists and other states concern?
We need much room to clarify it.
2.2 Realism and the China Threat
It has been a long time that academics and policy makers analyze
13 Ibid., pp. 11-19. Since the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) issued in 1956, it has reminded the importance of the ocean territory of the countries neighboring the ocean. Due to the South China Sea’s important strategic location, it’s critical sea lanes, and moreover, it was believed there were prolific oil and gas under-neath; Southeast countries neighboring it all tried to claim the sovereignty by pre-occupying the isle because of the inclination of international law which has inclination of realism. In 1974 and 1988, China and Vietnam had military confrontations at the Paracel Islands and Johnson South Reef, after that, China controlled over all of the Paracel Islands and six reefs of the Spratly Islands.
14 Fang-Tin Zhou, (2011), Equilibrium Analysis of the Tributary System, The Chinese Journal of International Politics, Vol. 4, pp. 147-178.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
political behaviors and make decisions through paradigms15. Realism is one of the most important and influential approaches to understand and figure out the states as political actors in international-system arena and it dominated the study of IR in the United States during the Cold War16.
Realism is a school of thought that explains international relations in terms of power. It is different from idealism, which considers human nature is basically good, and the driven powers of international events are morality, international law and organizations. According to idealism, all the states in the international system could be seen as a community, and members under this community could overcome common problems together17. In contrary, the realists consider the international system as anarchy for there is not a central authority to make the order arranged.
According to the realists, the most important actors—states—in the international system chase their own interests rationally. When conflicts happen among these countries, the actors can only rely on their own power and combat against each other to protect the interests and security.
15 Thomas S. Kuhn proposes the conception, “paradigm”, in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962. Paradigm, which refers to a set of common methodology, theories, explanations or models accepted in a certain epistemic community. Kuhn applied it to scientific field first, the scholars of international relationship borrowed it afterward.
Thomas Kuhn, (1989), The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16Joshua S. Goldstein, (2004), International Relations. Pearson Education. p. 71.
17 Ibid. p.71.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
In this condition, states chase and struggle for powers, and they do their best to maximize it, which guarantees their survival and development in the international system18.
Representatives from realism school like Thomas Hobbes, who advocates that there is a “free-for-all” situation when a centralized government is absent. Actors seek their own interests under this situation, which he names it “state of nature” or “state of war.”19
In contemporary, Hans J. Morgenthau argues that international politics is based on power and states always struggle for it. According to Morgenthau, by maintaining, expanding and exerting their power, states compete for the interests and make sure their survival in international system20. We can see the example of realism in World War II and the Cold War. In these periods, states tried to maximize their power which also brought about frictions, conflicts and wars. Under this atmosphere, it is hard to find cooperations between countries that hold hostility toward each other.
18 Robert Jervis, (1978), “Cooperation under The Security Dilemma,” World Politics, pp. 167-170.
19 Goldstein, Supra note 17, p. 72
20 “Power” here to maintain states’ interests including military force using. Bih-Jaw, Lin, (2010), Paradigm Development in International Relations, The Journal of International Relations, vol. 29, p.17；Hans J. Morgenthau, (1985), Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, p. 4;
Cheng-Kun Ma, (2008), China’s Security Strategy and Military Development. Taipei:
Jolihi Publishing, pp. 21-29,
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
By the end of the Cold War, neo-realism arose and tried to give some revisions to realism. At that time, the system was still seen as an anarchy, yet a lot of international regimes and organizations begun to emerge.
States were still chasing power, however, the access to it and even the definition of the power diversified.21
The neo-realists try to provide theories in a scientific way and even add economic dimensions into them. It is different from the conventional approach of the realism, since the realists usually do their researches in a pure historical analysis.
Kenneth Waltz is one of the representatives of the neo-realists22. His The Theory of International Politics was published in 1979, which is seen as a pioneer of neo-realism. He tries to make international relationship research social-scientific when the realism faces a changing environment of the international system and seems unable to reflect the realities23. Despite of different research approaches, both realism and neo-realism argue that power struggle is the critical essence of
21 Cheng-Tian Kuo, (1996), International Regime and International Organization.
Taipei: Shih-Ying Publishing, pp. 1-7; B. J, Lin, Supra note 21, p.30.
22 B. J. Lin, Supra note 21, p. 30.
23 Since the Vietnam War, the rapprochement between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, Normalization of U.S.-China relations, and the integration of the Europe, etc. at that time, these events had never been anticipated through the traditional IR theorem before. Therefore, the IR scholars had consensus there should be a revision for the traditional IR theorem, and to make it social-scientific is one of the possible ways. B.
J. Lin, Supra note 21, p. 28.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
international interactions24.
However, neither the realists nor neo-realists have expected the end of the Cold War. The theoretical lapse discredited the realism for a short while until the September 11 attack was launched in 2001, which brought the credit back to the realism camp25.
Mearsheimer’s The Tragedy of Great Power Politics was one of the representative works at the time26. Inheriting the principle of Hobbesian realism, Mearsheimer argues that the anarchy of international system makes states scramble for power and try to maximize it to make sure survival. He thinks that the international politics also means the great power politics, and power distribution decides the interactions between countries. According to Mearsheimer, the great power’s ultimate goal is
24 Kenneth Waltz, (1979), Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
25 Goldstein points out only after the September 11 attack in 2001, “the appearance of the common enemy—international terrorists” brought temporarily the great powers back together, though the Iraq War in 2003 incurred power-balance between them again. B. J. Lin also claims that in the early post cold war era, people had over-expected for the peace, though they also discovered maintaining it was more difficult soon after. And just like Morgenthau mentioned before, power struggle would be the key element of international system. Goldstein, Supra note 17, p. 94; B.
J, Lin, Supra note 21, p.30; Morgenthau, Supra note 21, p. 4; The Economist
(2001): “No, Realists Can Be Optimists Too,” via:
http://www.economist.com/node/806126 latest retrieved on December 28, 2012.
26 B. J, Lin, Supra note 21, p.30.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
to be the regional hegemony so that to ensure their security, the great powers never stop their ambitions to be a global hegemony. In other words, great powers will maximize their power as possible as they can, hence there would be endless security dilemma among them27. The IR scholars agree that The Tragedy of Great Power Politics is one of the most important works after Waltz’s The Theory of International Politics in realism28 .
In his conclusion, Mearsheimer points out that since China’s strength is growing, it will adopt its own “Monroe Doctrine” and challenge the status of the United States in Asia. Therefore, a fierce security competition between China and the U.S. is doomed and inevitable29.
From E. H. Carr to Mearsheimer, realism emphasizes on seizure and operation of power in the international system. And wars and conflicts are always the main theme of international politics. That is why China threat theory concerns the IR scholars and the policy makers.
It is hard to estimate how much Mearsheimer and the suggestions from realism perspective are related with the foreign policy made by the United States since September 11 attack. Although some consistency appear between realism—especially the offensive realism which
27 Ibid..
28 Sean M. Lynn-Jones, (2002), “Book Review on the Tragedy of Great Power Politics,” International Affairs.
29 John J. Mearsheimer, (2001), The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York:
Norton.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Mearsheimer proposes—and the foreign policies of George W. Bush administration30.
In March 2006, Bush visited India for the nuclear deal and a strategic partnership has been confirmed between them. This visit was seen as a part of containment policy against China31. At the same time, the Secretary of State, Rice traveled to Australia for the U.S.-Japan-Australia Trilateral Dialogue, she also appealed for more awareness to China’s military expansion, and she warned that China could be a threat to peace of the Asia-Pacific region32.
There is a consistency between realism and the U.S. policy toward China at the time. On one hand, the realists put heavy emphasis on power struggle; on the other hand, the United States is afraid of its influence will be tempered by a rising China. As the realists assert, the international system is dynamic, none of the state will be satisfied with their capability
30 John J. Mearsheimer, (2003), The Tragedy of Great Power Politic (Yi-Wei. Wang and Xiao-Song. Tang, Trans. ), III. Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin Press.
31 CNN International (March 01, 2006): “Bush Visit to India Centers on Nuclear
Pact,” via:
http://articles.cnn.com/2006-03-01/world/bush.india_1_civilian-nuclear-agreement-un ited-states-and-india-nuclear-deal?_s=PM:WORLD latest retrieved on December 28, 2012.
32 Voice of America (15 March 2006): “Rice in Sydney for U.S.-Japan-Australia Security Talks,” via:
http://www.51voa.com/voa_standard_english/VOA_Standard_5247.html latest retrieved on December 28, 2012; China Times (March 17, 2006): “Rice Visits Australia: US-Japan-Australia Security Dialogue”.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
and status in the system. To survive, every state will do their best to maximize their power and be the only great power (which also known as hegemony) in the region33.
The Chinese leaderships have denied several times for the accusation of their intention to be hegemony in Asia. Not only the U.S., but also other Asian countries—especially those who have maritime sovereignty disputes with China, all worry about this intention. They are afraid a rising China will damage their interests.
On the other hand, the Chinese leaders reaffirm in many occasions that China will be a “great power of responsibility,” which is aiming at having a healthy relationship with its neighbor states and so to realize a common prosperity in Asia. As the General Secretary of the China Communist Party, Jiang Zemin once mentioned, “The history has always repeated like this, it depends on the principles of the state’s domestic and foreign policies that have been obeyed but not only the state’s capability when we consider if it is a threat. China focuses on social modernization in its domestic constructions, and firmly advocates an independent and peaceful foreign policy. We will never change these principles when making decisions. And we will struggle for the world and region’s peace as we usually do.34” Additionally, Jiang also pointed that, “a new world war would be impracticable in the foreseeable future. To strive for a
33 Robert Gilpin, Supra note 2; Mearsheimer, Supra note 26.
34 Zemin Jiang,(2002), Jiang Ze Min Lun You Zhong Guo Te Se She Hui Zhu Yi.
Beijing: Zhong Yang Wen Xien Press, p. 531.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
longer period of international peace and an appropriate environment (for development) is more practical.35”
Do the realists take China wrong? Since China clarifies itself repeatedly to its neighboring states in the international society, there seems a contradictory between the rising power’s declaration and the conjecture from the outside.
35 Zemin Jiang,(2002), Quan Mian Jian She Xiao Kang She Hui, KaiChuangZhong Guo Te Se She Hui Zhu Yi Shi Ye Xin Ju. Shanghai: Remin Publishing, p. 19. Also see http://www.china.com.cn/chinese/2002/Nov/233867.htm.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter 3. Constructivism
3.1 From Realism to Constructivism
There is a long-time competition in the international relation academia. Since the twentieth century, the realism and the liberalism have been the mainstream of IR study and policy making circles alternately.
Between the two World Wars, the liberalism led the international society with a collective security thinking, the League of Nations (LON) was one of the most famous examples. Yet after 1939, E. H. Carr’s The Twenty Year’s Crisis gave it a heavy blow, and the World War II soon broke out. After World War II, realism led by Hans Morgenthau argues that the state’s desire for power is instinctive, and this instinct is the source of wars and conflicts in the international society. According to realism, a state would strive its best to maximize its relative power and seek hegemony as its ultimate goal.
When it comes to 1970s, a series of new changes such as the end of Vietnam War and the oil crises happened and challenged the basic assumptions of the realism1. In 1977, Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye’s book—Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition —was
1 Ya-qing Qin, (2001),“Social Construction of International Politics:
Alexander Wendt and the Constructivist Approach to International Relations,” Americas & Europe Quarterly, pp. 231-264.
‧
published. In this book, Keohane and Nye try to overturn some conventional assumptions in IR study such as state-centrism and the emphasis on military power. They assert that the realism always views the states as the only important actors in the international society, yet this makes them ignore other critical actors such as sub-state organizations or non-state organizations. Furthermore, Keohane and Nye also argue that the realists has paid too much attention on military power which makes them turn a blind eye to the processes of interactions among actors2. After Keohane and Nye’s work, the door to neo-liberalism has opened.
Neo-liberalism started its exalting decades since 1989 and reached a peak after the end of the Cold War3.
In spite of the competition in 1970 to 1990 between the two main paradigms—the realism and the liberalism—were always the highlight of the IR study, there were still other schools keeping skepticism on them.
These schools are such as Normative theory, Feminist theory, Critical
2 Robert Keohane & Joseph Nye, (1977), Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown.
3 As mentioned in Chapter 1, the end of the Cold War pounded the realism which led mainly by Kenneth Waltz, who advocats the bi-polar system consistently. Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and The Last Man declares the ultimate triumph of liberalism, which means a more opened economy and less constraint from government. Globalization and global governance study were thriving, supranational organizations like European Union (EU), Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) were in stable progress. Cooperation among international society seemed so possible. Bih-Jaw Lin, (2010), “Paradigm Development in International Relations,” The Journal of International Relations, vol.
29, pp.39-41.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
theory, Historical theory and Post-modernism—Robert Keohane called them together the “Reflexive theories”. Differing from the mainstream theories4, fundamental points of the reflectivists are stressed on the role of the ideas, the discourse right, the mutual constructions of structure and actors, and non-material power and so forth. The reflexive theories have differences with the mainstream theories basically on ontology and epistemology5.
However, critiques from the reflectivism did not get too much attention from the mainstream, and the differences between them made the dialogue difficult. In most of the IR researches, realism and liberalism still played the leading role.
At the same time, high convergences appeared between the realism and idealism, which have been called the “neo-neo system”. The convergence made the IR study increasingly go into a dull trend6. The plight of the dialogue between the rationalistic theories and the reflexive theories, as well as the increasing convergence within the mainstream paradigms, all of these gave a way to social constructivism’s development.
4 Robert Keohane called the neo-realism, neo-liberalism and World-System theory the “rationalistic theories”. Robert Keohane, (1989), International Institutions and State Power. Boulder: Westview. pp. 158-179; Qin, Supra note 1, pp. 118-119.
5 Qin, Supra note 1, pp. 118-119.
6 Steve Smith, Ken Booth & Maryasia Zalewski eds, (1996), International Relations Theory: Positivism and Beyond . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.
149-185; Qin, Supra note 1,p. 125.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學