Put simply, Constructivism provides a bridge between Realism and Liberalism. It attempts to answer the questions left unanswered by both of these theories. Constructivism does this by introducing the aspect of identity and social interactions in relations. Since, Constructivism developed as a critique to Realists and Liberals; it is opportune to revisit Realism and Liberalism briefly before delving any deeper into the Constructivist thought.
The realist and liberal thought structures
present a diametrically opposite view of human nature. Evidently, this contrast
in their outlook is also reflected in the interpretation of International
Relations.
For realists, all human actions are designed
to further their personal gain. All humankind being self-regarding, there is
little concern in their minds for their fellow human beings. In the words of
Thomas Hobbes, it is war of all against all. Realists argue; human mind seeks
conflict. It looks at relations in terms of relative gains. A gain for anybody
else is essentially a loss for a realist.
The interpretation of International Relations
from the lens of realism is similar to that discussed above. In IR, States take
place of individual human beings and act in order to maximize their influence.
The minimum a state seeks is survival at all costs and at maximum global
hegemony. All actions are rooted in enhancing the power and resources at the
disposal of a state.
On the other hand, we have liberals. They view
human nature as being essentially cooperative. John Locke argues; humans
cooperate with each other because they understand the fact that it is with
mutual cooperation the personal best can be attained. Humans are inherently
kind and have a special regard for their fellows. Liberals believe that there
exists a realization in human mind which recognizes the ups of cooperation and
downs if acted otherwise.
The existence of global bodies such as The
United Nations is the epitome of such cooperation. Apparently, the liberal
argument does hold water when it comes to keeping conflict among states at bay
to an extent. Liberal Institutionalism leads the way in extending cooperation. International
Institutions, since they are formed with the will and vote of the states party
to it, states are very likely to abide by the common framework of rules agreed
upon by them. Also, not only do Global Institutions enhance cooperation but
also increase trust between member states by providing them a platform to share
information and concerns which yet again presents an opportunity to resolve the
issues that may otherwise develop into a full-blown conflict.
As mentioned earlier, Constructivism takes
cues from both Liberalism and Realism yet critiques them both while explaining
International Relations. Taking into consideration the famous example of a stag
hunt, a realist will argue that it is always beneficial for an individual to
defect and pursue his/her own personal gain abandoning the common goal
maximizing personal benefit. On the other hand, Liberals say that it is with
cooperation that the best for all can be achieved thereby introducing the
proposition of penalizing the deserters in order to incentivize cooperation. In
other words, the realist idea is to defect as soon as possible and the liberal
idea is to cooperate no matter what the circumstances are.
However, Constructivists present a new and
interesting proposal of looking at the composition of the group hunting for the
stag. Constructivism says that if the group hunting for the stag is a family or
a party of friends, the likelihood of cooperation increases manifold. Whereas,
if the group shares a history of animosity among its members or there is no
common bond to inspire cooperation, the propensity to defect goes up.
Constructivists underline the ignorance of
this very significant factor that does not find mention in the analyses of
realists or those of liberals. Furthering the constructivist argument,
Alexander Wendt highlights yet another key point. “Neorealists and neoliberals
may disagree about the extent to which states are motivated by the relative
versus absolute gains, but both groups take the self-interested state as the
starting point for theory.” In doing so, Wendt provides an insight into the
materialist outlook of Liberal and Realist theories. Furthermore, he blames
them for not giving due impetus to the questions of identity and interest
formation which makes them unimportant for the students of International
Relations.
In a telling example, Alexander Wendt differentiates
between relations among friends and those among enemies. The crux of which can
be understood in the differential significance of the Indian nuclear arsenal
for Pakistan and Bhutan. The distinction is obvious since Pakistan is at best
not a friend of India whereas with Bhutan, India shares a friendly relationship.
The “war on Terror” was officially declared by
President George Bush Jr. following 9/11 which brought in a fundamental change
in the way West dealt with the Middle East in the past. Soon after the attack,
it was clear that Osama Bin-Laden’s Al-Qaeda was the terrorist organization
behind the deadly attack. Following the attack, in a formal speech to congress,
President Bush stated "Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every
government that supports them."
Based in Iraq, Al-Qaeda derives legitimacy
from the extremist interpretations of Salafi-Jihadist tradition of Sunni Islam.
Given the role of history and demography of Middle East’s polity at large and
Iraq’s in particular, Constructivism provides suitable tools to analyze the
“War on Terror”.
Iraq in August 1990 was ruled by President
Saddam Hussein. President Hussein was a Sunni by birth but secular in his
outlook. Regardless, his secular approach did not save the Shiite majority in
Iraq from being brutally oppressed by President Hussein’s policies. While the
outbreak of the first Gulf war in the Kuwaiti territory can be zeroed down to the
realist idea of material gains that were supposed to come out from the
occupation of Rumaila oil fields located on the common border of Southern Iraq
and Western Kuwait. Realism presents limited explanation to the events
surrounding the “War on Terror”.
Saddam Hussein went on to compare Iraq’s
occupation of Kuwait with the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories
which indicate the historical dimension of the conflict. He also attempted to
invoke the ‘holy war’ on behalf of the Muslim world against the infidels trying
to give it a religious flavor. Regardless, none of this saved Iraq from an
outright condemnation from around the world which was also joined by a majority
of Arab league states.
Following the united assault from more than 30
countries mandated by the United Nations against Iraq’s armed forces and complete
destruction of the latter’s air-force along with industrial facilities which
later resulted into a complete annihilation of Iraq’s ground troops. President
Saddam surrendered vacating the occupied Kuwaiti territory.
The war was assumed to have been won but
unanticipated complications of Iraq’s polity started coming to the fore
thereafter. The war was followed by strict sanctions regime which led to
precarious economic conditions in Iraq. The Shiite majority in Iraq and the
Kurdish populations in the Northern parts of Iraq were on the brink of
rebellion. However, the unrests were stalled by brutal state action. Tens of
thousands were killed and the population terrorized in order to contain the
mass protests.
On 11 Sep,2001 US faced the most deadly attack
on its soil. Following which President Jr. declared a “war on terror”. He went
to say that, you are either with us or with the terrorists. Soon after British
and US air-forces started a joint operation and bombarded Taliban led government
in Afghanistan. For the battle hardened army of Mujahideens in Afghanistan it
was yet another war against the Godless enemy. To them, they were confident
about their victory after having brought the soviets which were only second to
USA.
The use of terms such as “crusade” by
President Bush Jr. in his addresses concerning the “war on terror” was loaded
with historically significant connotations that went well beyond just the conflict
at hand. It was also the time when Harvard historian Samuel P. Huntington’s
work “Clash of civilizations” was discussed most actively. Huntington had
presented the Christian and the Muslim world as being diametrically opposite in
thought and structure. The events concerning the “war on terror” found more and
more resonance by each passing day.
Apparently, the “war on terror” took shapes
different than what even President Bush Jr. had in his mind. Of the many
discourses that took shape was the “Axis of Evil” that comprised of Iran, Iraq
and North Korea.
The bombardment of Afghanistan resulted into
the fall of one Taliban outpost after another. Meanwhile, US intelligence
detected the development of weapons of Mass Destruction including those of
chemical and biological warfare. With a reason suitable enough, US invaded Iraq
and captured Saddam Hussein in 2003 who later executed for crimes against
humanity in 2006.
The expulsion of Saddam Hussein by an external
force fuelled the Sunni Salafi-Jihadists who intended on highlighting the split
between Shiite and Sunni population. The blasts in one of the holiest Shiite
shrines masterminded by Zarqawi led to the strife between the two communities.
Later, the spillovers from the Syrian civil war magnified the violence in Iraq.
In essence, one may come to the conclusion
that the “war on terror” fuelled more terrorism and unrest in the Middle East.
The element regarding the involvement of external powers meddling with the
internal problems of sovereign Middle Eastern states is at the base of all grievances.
The events that unfolded following US making an entry to the region speak for
the limited understanding about the region’s complexities on the part of
western powers.
The US’s “war on Terror” did not take into
consideration the existing divide and cultural sensitivities in the Iraqi
society. The blasts in the Al-Askari Shrine at one of the holiest places of
worship for Shiites were carried out to further the cause of extremists that
wanted to tear the Iraqi society apart. The blasts did result into Shiite-Sunni
split becoming deeper making the desire of the extremists US was claiming to
fight in the region, succeed.
The “war on Terror” was waged to eliminate
Terrorism from the face of Earth. However, this was not the only change it
brought in. It brought in a completely new era of interaction and identity for
the people of Middle East and the followers of Islam world over. The hatred for
USA in the region that ensued following US raids was not because the people in
Iraq or for that matter Afghanistan supported terrorists. The hatred against
the US was because of its insensitivity for what it termed as “collateral
damage”. The loss of lives and property that was followed by the trauma of
aerial bombings was immense.
Comments