The British-Afghanistan War - Dissertation Example

Literature Review A Constructivist Analysis of the British-Afghanistan War Inter wars remain existent and the biggest peril to humanity’s survival. These hostilities are commonly explained with regards to a need for strategic or economic advantage or as a way of circumventing strategic or economic failures: conflicts for domination or security, imperialist wars, or ‘wars of greed’ (Reus-Smit 1999). This literature review will provide an overview of the works of pertinent authors about the constructivist analysis of war. This particular task will guide the discussion on the constructivist approach to understanding the decision of Britain to go to war in Afghanistan. Constructivism, according to Maja Zehfuss (2002) emphasises that the interactions between political units are unnatural but administered by rules and identities which consequently are altered by interactions. Hence interstate wars cannot be solely elucidated by the material or physical environment such as the power or the geopolitical position of a state. Illustrations have to consider the identities of states which provide meaning to this material or physical environment. This particular work will be used in this study to explain the historical underpinning of the international political relations between Britain and Afghanistan. By exploring the evolving rules and identities of the Britain-Afghan relationship the constructivist analysis of the present conflict between the two nations will be placed in a larger historical context. Moreover, as argued by Christian Reus-Smit (1999), constructivists also assert that state identities are constructed and altered through interactions and relations. The stigmatisation of a player (Britain, Afghanistan) easily aggravates the state identities’ radicalisation process, which consequently can set off conflicts. In contrast to human rationality’s materialistic ideas, more constructivist-oriented investigations explain war as the pursuit for recognition. Molly Cochran (1999) maintained that recognition implies the need to obtain the affirmation of an identity and an esteemed personality by others. These arguments enable us to raise new concerns about the root of wars. What is the part of rules and identity in the roots of conflicts? Does global conflict emerge as an outcome of exclusion? For instance, the British war against Afghanistan. British decision-makers were glued to a romanticise figure of their nation as a ‘protector of liberty and free will,’ and by itself, they were susceptible to provocations. The sheer presence of the Afghan state represented a defiance of recognition of Britain’s hegemony. Only a triumphant war, a movement to ‘surprise and amaze’, could restore tBritain’s image and Britain’s image of itself. Noted by some and discarded or even considered as threatening by others, constructivism has gained substantial importance in International Relations. According to Michael Doyle and colleagues (1997), while opinions on the significance and reliability of constructivism vary extensively, it appears all but unlikely not to have a judgment. As a result, it is essential to provide an evaluation that integrates the premises of constructivism in detail. Nonetheless, there is deliberation not merely about whether constructivism is favourable for us but as well as, given the academic richness of work classified constructivist, about its form and character in the first place. Doyle’s arguments will be used in this study as a guide in analysing the decision of Britain to declare war against Afghanistan in a well-founded constructivist model. Specifically, this work will be used to frame the argument about the appropriateness and inappropriateness of the constructivist model in explaining the current Britain-Afghan war. Crawford’s book puts emphasis on the work of three major academics, namely, Alexander Wendt, Nicholas Onuf, and Friedrich Kratochwil, which are associated to the transition of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) towards employing the military apparatus in the global sphere in the aftermath of the Cold War. This will enable the present study to provide an analysis that is of significance to professionals in the field, but is at the same time obtainable to individuals with merely a short-lived knowledge with the issue under consideration. Fundamentally, Wendt (2006) suggested two central principles of constructivism: (1) that the constitution of human relationship is established largely by collective insights rather than physical or material factors and (2) that the concerns and identities of conscious actors are built by these collective insights rather than determined by nature. Wendt does not openly categorise himself as a constructivists but presents historical periods where the actors’ decision making appears in line with the psychological concepts he suggests. Wendt’s two central principles of constructivism will be integrated in the study. The psychological explanation of Britain’s decision to go to war in Afghanistan will be considered. Similarly, Cynthia Weber (2005) offers numerous historical narratives that maintain different features of constructivism. It is more challenging to distinguish how constructivism could create accurate forecasts about the future. Constructivist approach does not forecast which individuals will be appointed in positions to influence national policy, nor does it forecast which insights will particularly be common, nor does it forecast among whom the insights will be given. In the point of view of constructivism, for instance, the future rise of China could be interpreted as another rising threat resembling that of the Soviet Union or another emerging economy relying on potential contingencies, which consequently influences the forecasts concerning future behaviour of other states. Griffiths and O’callaghan (2002), on the other hand, presents a number of cases where constructivism creates more accurate forecasts in the spiral framework, states imagine the most unpleasant and view arms development by other states as more threatening than they actually are. Furthermore, states fail to acknowledge that their benevolent arms development is viewed as threatening by others. According to Neumann and Waever (1997), these false beliefs steer the security problem and have a tendency to make hostility a self-fulfilling prophecy. Moreover, Neumann & Waever (1997) explains how prospect theory can be related to International Theory. Prospect theory argues that individuals are risk disinclined for advantages and risk unbiased for losses. If this particular theory is valid, then differences in state behaviour can be forecasted more precisely knowing whether an advantage or a failure is at risk. The works of Weber, Griffiths and O’callaghan, and Neumann and Waever, will be used in this study as main references for the discussion about the possible implications of Britain’s decision to go to war in Afghanistan on their national policy and security priorities. In this study the researcher will carry out a number of introductory tasks. Primarily, disciplinary limitations (Mcsweeney 1999), external forces (Boucher 1998), and never-ending disagreements as roots of confusion (Rengger 2000) in understanding war through the constructivist lens will be discussed. The study will demonstrate that the ways constructivist scholars classify models and risk out perspectives for deliberation have compelled them to undervalue constructivism as another option to explain interstate wars. Ultimately, and possibly most significant, the study will analyse several concepts that intellectuals commonly use but hardly ever pay adequate attention to, and that readers uneducated in the academic languages of social sciences and philosophy will find completely confusing. The objective of this literature review and the study as a whole is not to pronounce on the status of the field, to analyse all causes of confusion, or to offer opinion on every debate. The objective, instead, is to demonstrate that constructivism can accurately explain the roots of war, such as that of the British-Afghanistan hostilities. References Albert, M., Jacobson, D. & Lapid, Y. (2001). Identities, Borders, Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Boucher, D. (1998). Political Theories of International Relations: From Thucydides to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cochran, M. (1999). Normative Theory in International Relations: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Crawford, R. M. (2000). Idealism and Realism in International Relations: Beyond the Discipline. London: Routledge. Doyle, M. W. & Ikenberry, G.J. (1997). New Thinking in International Relations Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Friedrichs, J. (2004). European Approaches to International Relations Theory: A House with Many Mansions. New York: Routledge. Griffiths, M. (2002). International Relations: The Key Concepts. London: Routledge. Guzzini, S. & Ocallaghan, T. (eds.). (2006). Constructivism in International Relations: Wendt and his critics. New York: Routledge. Kubálková, V., Onuf, N., & Kowert, P. (1998). International Relations in a Constructed World. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Mcsweeney, B. (1999). Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Neumann, I. B. & Waever, O. (1997). The Future of International Relations: Master in the Making? London: Routledge. Rengger, N. (2000). International Relations, Political Theory, and the Problem of Order: Beyond International Relations Theory? London: Routledge. Reus-Smit, C. (1999). The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity, and Institutional Rationality in International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Weber, C. (2005). International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge. Zehfuss, M. (2002). Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Read More