Realism, Constructivism, Critical Theory, and Geopolitics in Asia Pacific Region - Essay Example

Student Name: Tutor: Title: Realism, Constructivism, and Critical Theory Course: Introduction Constructivism, realism and critical theory have been used widely within International relation to interpret the security status in the world system. Balance of power has been used to explain the competing interests among states and how consensus is reached between alliances to avoid war. Constructivism recognizes sovereignty of states and the need to achieve national interests. Critical theory seeks to unmask the meaning behind international relation theories applied by dominant states to poor states. Any strategy applied in international relations seeks to satisfy the interests of a region or a state that is powerful while depriving poor states or regions according to critical theory. The Asia Pacific region is an interesting bloc since the 18th century owing to the emergence of powerful states that have seen proliferation of nuclear power. Security issues are of concern with rising number of rogue states like Brunei and North Korea. The interest of United States in Asia has increased due to the rising of China and security threat posed by North Korea. In this essay realism theory has been used as the best theory that explains the security situation in the Asia Pacific region. Both constructivism and critical have also be explained. Constructivism theory Constructivism is the belief that important elements of international relations are socially and historically constructed as opposed to being outcomes of human nature or other features of world politics. This theory emerged in the 1990s after the fall of the Berlin Wall and aftermath of the Cold War. This theory advocated for a practical understanding and cultural understanding to security studies and international relations. Many states seemed to ignore their own national interests hence choosing regional approaches to issues of security. As many national chose collective strategies, this theory began to ask the questions with regard to the very nature of the world’s security (Barkin, 2010, p.14). Constructivists view states as being role players trying to do what is proper to implement in a particular situation. States adheres to norms not for the purposes of utility maximization (getting the maximum value from expenditure) as applied by approaches of rational choice. Rational choice is a framework applied in understanding and modeling economic and social behavior. In this context rationality is interpreted as demanding more than less of a good. It justifies the self-seeking attitude of states. Constructivist focuses on the meanings that are given to materials objects as opposed to the mere existence of the objects themselves. For instance, a nuclear weapon in North Korea and a similar weapon in the United Kingdom mean radically different to the United States. The foundation that reality is social constructed make constructivists to give more role on identity, development, as well as ideational power as opposed to other theoretical paradigms. Norms, ideas, and identity form a list of key factors with regard to constructivist theory. Security can be achieved through community as opposed to power (Glasersfeld, 2013, p.19). Traditional security approach considers territory and sovereignty as the most important concepts that have to be protected in which security founded upon primarily military power. Constructivism is an approach in international relations that revolves around the approach that international relations are constructed socially. Critical theory Critical theory majorly revolves around power relations. Politics and economics are not about justice or production, particularly to those who are not having it. The world is a realm where those have social status and money have their opinions heard than those who appear to be weak and with low status. Critical theory is referred to as a function of socialism and Marxism. It was a challenge to the imperialism of developed nations like Japan, France or Britain in the 19th Century. The theory focuses on empowering those who do not enjoy the imperialism policies outside and within the dominant states. Critical theory questions the perspective of value-free science. Many theories in the world serve a particular master (Tyson, 2012, p.35). Critical theory involves unmasking concept. Modern power masks power relations. Critical theory pursues to research and demonstrate the degree it serves the interests of the powerful as well as justifying their authority. The approach unmasks modern, capitalist economics. International relations is normally unmasked as a game whereby the dominant powers have written rules of trade with the purpose of benefitting themselves. Within international relations there exists a hierarchy from the states who are in charge of controlling most technical plants to those states that are poor, and consequently dependent on wealthy states. The importance of critical theory within international relations is to provide the poor outside and within dominant states with a voice. It gives the poor an avenue through which the powerful and rich nations can be challenged by the poor states (Bronner, 2011, p.106). While capitalism sought to justify the wealthy dominant position, critical theory pursues to challenge the wealthy. One state victory is another state defeat. One region can become rich at the expense of another state. Those who find themselves victimized by the system have a moral right to rebel and resist; this is the perspective of the critical theory. Realist theory Realist theory state that it is human nature to be selfish and greedy. People only care about their personal interests. There is the assumption that the international system is basically anarchic because there is absence of central authority, or an arbitrator (Frankel, 2013, p.18). Consequently states have to protect national security and the interests of the citizens using all means that can be applied. The realist approach on issues of insecurity depends entirely on individual state power as opposed to collective strategies that are applied by the international community. Most common techniques used in this theory are deterrence, and balance of power methods (Mingst, 2008, p.239). Realism presents the world order as being a system of self-interested state actors in anarchy. War is inescapable in a world system where states with self-interests compete for power. The perspective of realists on management of security revolves largely on the balance of powers in the international system. In international relations, balance of power is used to describe system polarity. System polarity refers to the number of states that are powerful and exert power in the international system. Absence of stability in a system that is unbalanced occasions insecurity in the international realm. Ensuring stability among states addresses the interests of each one of them hence preventing the eventuality of a war. Deterrence theory is embraced by both realist and liberal analysts. On their part, realists have the belief that war can be preventing through threatening to apply force. In order to succeed aggressor have to be informed of the potential threat being posed by states on the opposing sides. Being informed of counter-threats can make aggressors not to engage in unlawful activities hence avoiding the possibility of war. War can also be averted by leadership and direct involvement of decision makers who are rational (Sean, 2011, p.54). Realists believe that the decision makers are rational and want to avoid going to war as much as possible. Secondly, decision makers who are rational will not be aggressive towards states with nuclear power. A breakthrough using intervention by rational decision makers is possible if the threat posed by the aggressor is large and significant. Realism theory in the Asia Pacific Region The Asia Pacific region is confronted with serious security issues that can be explained by the realist school of thought with regard to security matters. Realist theory will be used to discuss the security situation in the Asia Pacific region. Regional institutions are not well developed owing to the geographical disadvantage of states in Asia Pacific. Recent developments in Asia Pacific point to the application of realist theory owing to the diverse and competing interests of states in this region (Martin, 2008, p.751). Economic engagements and military power of states in this region is unbalanced and diverse. It is impossible to find a common ground on matters of security in the Asia Pacific region while rogue states like North Korea poses security threats. The Asia Pacific region is characterized by political regime types, and divergent of cultures, shifting balances, historical estrangements, and rapid economic change. Many scholars find the Asia Pacific international relations full of rivalry. It is easy to anticipate prestige contests, security dilemmas, nationalist resentments, territorial disputes, and economic conflicts mounting and saturating the region. Power balancing, projection, military modernization and preservation of military alliances are some of the factors that serve as stark reminder that the application of force by states is still necessary in the contemporary context (Nesadurai, 2009, p.363). This aspect is reinforced by the issue of nuclear proliferation. The three recognized nuclear powers in the post-war world are from the region of Asia-Pacific. Nuclear status vests on states immense prestige although Asia-Pacific nuclear proliferation cannot be used as a valid measurement of the relevant of the region in global politics (Simon, 2008, p.277). The growth of the Asia-Pacific region was basically premised on economic growth highlighted by double-digit growth of the East Asia and South Asia economies and then in India, prompting expectations that the region will be of huge influence in the world. There many issues central in the power politics in the Asia Pacific region. Some of these issues include managing a growing China, security tension on the Korean Peninsula, configuring the architecture of security in the region, and looking into security setbacks in the Southeast and South Asia. The Chinese government has a plan of putting up a new air defense intercept zone which will consists of Senkaku or Diaoyu Islands, sovereignty is disputed by Taiwan, China, and Japan. The Islands disputes are the nexus of clashes and interests for U.S. competitors and partners that will attract the United States as it gets involves deeper in issues of Asia Pacific region (Wortzel, 2014, p.2). Owing to cyber infringements attributed to Chinese People’s Liberation Army, the United States Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and States are coming up with ways of protecting intellectual secrets and property from the computer network operations of PLA. United States, China and Japan might be prompted by uncertainty and insecurity to boost their defenses and inadvertently stir up defensive activities by other major states leading to risk taking and arms racing. In American security presence in East Asia serves the purpose of dampening security dynamics through asking Japan to abandon traditional great power military capacity and nuclear weapons (Jetschke, 2009, p.409). Power balancing and polarity is one perspective of thinking about the Asia-Pacific stability while another is hegemony. Hegemony refers to the imperial dominance in which a state geopolitically subordinates other states through implied power or threat of force (Beyer, 2010, p.17). One state can have the desire to dominate others. The region features several power asymmetries, and any emergence of future political order in the area will one defined by the divergent political capabilities vested in the states in the region. One unique characteristic of the region of Asia Pacific is the absence of multilateral institutions that are well developed. The region is incapable of promoting international institutions. Stability can be achieved through international institutions (Jayasuriya, 2008, p.29). The Asia-Pacific region consists of several abutments and islands that hinder the emergency of single political community or civilization. Asia is geographically scattered. It is a series of islands nations that are unequal; geographically close to antagonize one another but not resulting in any effort to form institutional solutions to some of the problems of order. From the perspectives of realists states live constantly in insecurity and consequently they emphasize on military alliances. The amorphous nature of states in the Asia Pacific region calls for formation of alliances of states that are willing to cooperate and collaborate in order to safe guard their national interests (Severino, 2007, p.410). The threats of hostile states like North Korea have to be dealt with by forming formidable alliances with defensive strategies in case of unprecedented attack. The Asia-Pacific region is growing increasingly unified by several collaboration and integration initiatives led by governments in specific areas like transportation and economics (Kivimäki, 2008, p.439). However, regional institutions have not developed well to be used for creation of regional stability and peace. Each state in this region is competing to exert its soft power. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations has contributed increase in regionalism in the Asia Pacific region. Bilateral trade and regional agreements result into alliances and cooperation that foster transportation and trade. The presence of fifty thousand U.S. troops on the Japanese territory is testimony to the defense ties that exist (McCarthy, 2009, p.163). North Korea has been kept at bay from attacking Japan territory owing to the US presence on its soil. Tokyo and Brussels have close to ten years had several bilateral and strategies to look into security issues and international non-proliferation. ASEAN Regional Forum (ASEAN) has not come up with confidence-building strategies and to counter the violence-prone behavior of members like the North Korea and Myanmar. The pursuit of security and peace without well equipped armed forces is elusive. The positive impact of globalization cannot be relied upon optimistically to result into stability (Sorpong, 2010, p.494). The ASEAN approach involves reaching agreements through consensus, non-binding decisions, and respect for absolute sovereignty. Based on several theoretical evidence and insights, regional pluralistic security communities may be created to boost human and regional security without necessarily jeopardizing national security (Yuan, 2012, p.336). In the Asia Pacific region there have been strategies at state level aimed at building more regional structures and enhancing activities via international trade for the purpose of achieving long-lasting peace and stability. States have to work together for enhancement of regime, national, human and societal security. Issues like whaling that involves Japan and other states have to be resolved through regional agreements. Human rights issues in China have attracted the interest of the international community and pressure toward democracy (Kuik, 2008, p.166). China has been accused of value-free diplomacy that involves implementation of foreign economic and economic policies with no regard to human rights violations or political oppression in countries involved. Conclusion The Asia Pacific region is very important to the geopolitics owing to the rising of military power and economic growth of states. The proliferation of nuclear power in states like North Korea poses a new challenge to the balance of power in the region. Geographical position of individual states has not helped the development of regional institutions in order to promote stability. The unbalanced power, military and economic prowess calls for bargaining among states to form alliances that can avoid the possibility of a war. The competing interests of states in this region are best explained using the realism theory of international relation. Critical theory and constructivism may not effectively explain the Asia-Pacific security issues exhaustively. While constructivism explains socially constructed situations, critical theory seeks to interpret other theories of international relations and intentions of dominant states. There are many challenges that face the region in terms of security issues and cooperation and collaboration among alliances can help in deterring the war. Bilateral trade and regional agreements sustain trade and transportation. References Barkin, S, J., 2010, Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International Relations Theory, Cambridge University Press, London. Beyer, A. C., 2010, Counterterrorism and International Power Relations: The EU, ASEAN and Hegemonic Global Governance, IB Tauris, London. Bronner, S.E., 2011, Critical Theory: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Frankel, B., 2013, Roots of Realism, Routledge, Melbourne. Glasersfeld, E., 2013, radical constructivism, Routledge, New York. Jayasuriya, K. 2008, Regionalizing the State: Political Topography of Regulatory Regionalism, Contemporary Politics 14 (1): 21-35. Jetschke, A. 2009, Institutionalizing ASEAN: Celebrating Europe through Network Governance, Cambridge Review of International Relations 22(3): 407-426. Kivimäki, T., 2008, Power, Interest or Culture: Is there a Paradigm that Explains ASEAN’s Political Best? The Pacific Review 21(4): 431-450. Kuik, C. C. 2008, The Essence of Hedging: Malaysia and Singapore’s Response to a Rising China, Contemporary Southeast Asia 30(2): 159-185. Martin, J.D., 2008, Security and Democracy: The ASEAN Charter and the Dilemmas of Regionalism in South-East Asia, International Affairs 84 (4):735-56. McCarthy, S. 2009, Chartering a New Direction? Burma and the Evolution of Human Rights in ASEAN, Asian Affairs 36 (3):157-75. Mingst, K., 2008, “War and Strife”, In Essentials of International Relations (4th ed.), Norton, New York, 239-243. Nesadurai, H.E.S. 2009, Economic Surveillance as a New Mode of Regional Governance: Contested Knowledge and the Politics of Risk Management in East Asia, Australian Journal of International Affairs 63 (3): 361-375. Sean, K., 2011, Global Security in the Twenty-first Century: The Quest for Power and the Search for Peace, Rowman & Littlefield, London. Severino, R. C., 2007, ASEAN Beyond Forty: Towards Political and Economic Integration, Contemporary Southeast Asia 23(3), 406-423. Simon, S. (2008). ASEAN and Multilateralism: The Long, Bumpy Road to Community, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 30(2), 264-292. Sorpong P., 2010, Peace and Security in the Asia-Pacific: Theory and Practice, Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs 32 (2): 494-496. Tyson, L., 2012, Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide, Routledge, New York. Wortzel, L.M., 2014, The Chinese People’s Liberation Army and Information warfare, United States Army War College Press, Washington D.C. Yuan W.C., 2012, Comment on ‘Looking back to look forward:’ Geopolitics, identity, and engaging China, Eurasian Geography and Economics, 53/3 (2012), 331–37. Read More