Sunday 27 April 2014

Structural Realist Approach Towards the Ukraine Crisis

Structural Realism
  
Structural realism emerged in the 1960s and 70 largely as a result of the influence of Kenneth Waltz. Waltz built the idea of the Structural realism based on the principles of the classical realism's fundamental principles of the three 'S'.
  1. Statism: States as the primary actors in international politics
  2. Survival: The single most important goal of all states.
  3. Self-Help: The anarchic nature (lack of overarching authority) of international politics and the mistrust between states results in states relying on their own for their survival.

However, Unlike the classical realism it puts the emphasis in the pessimistic human nature as the central element of international politics. structural realists such as Waltz stresses the constraining impact of the structure of the international system. In addition, Waltz argues that the differences between states in the anarchic international politics are of capability, not function.He argues that no matter how 'just' or 'good' a state is in its domestic politics, all states in the anarchic international politics behave in the same or similar ways due to the systematic pressures. Furthermore, structural realism stresses the regional importance of international politics rather than perceiving international politics as a whole.


 

The Ukraine crisis has been one of the 'hottest' issues of the intentional politics. This blog looks to examine the crisis by the use of Waltz's structural realism.

Background knowledge of Ukraine and Crimea 

The divisions of ethnic groups within Ukraine goes back much further than the recent events. The country has been torn apart by the east and the west based on the cultural and linguistic differences since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Russian is widely spoken in the eastern and southern parts of Ukraine, including the Crimean peninsula. In the Western parts of Ukraine, where it is close to Europe, Ukrainian is used as the main language.

The differences in language also shaped the ethnic identity of the Crimeans. According to the 2001 Ukraine census, unlike most Ukrainians who identified themselves as Ukrainians, over a majority of the residents of Crimea identified themselves as ethnic Russians.


  As the overwhelming majority of the population of Crimea identifies themselves as Russians and uses Russian as their main language, Moscow legitimizes its claims over Crimea as Putin argues that Russia "needs to protect the rights of Russian speaking minorities".

Why is Crimea so important to Russia? 

Besides the protection of the Russians in Crimea, the peninsular is strategically important  for the Russian navy.  The Black Sea Fleet has been based on the peninsular since it was founded by Prince Potemkin in 1783. The fleet's strategic position helped Russia defeat Georgia in the South Ossetia war in 2008, and remains crucial to Russain security interests in the region. Since the independence of Ukraine, a leasing agreement has drawn up to allow the fleet to continue operating in the peninsula. In 2010, the lease was extended to 2042 in exchange for Russia's supply and discount of natural gas.

The second significance of the peninsular are the ports. Most of the Russian ports are inoperable during winter as the seas around the port freezes. The ports of Crimea remain operable throughout the winter as the climates around the Black Sea is much warmer. Thus, the ports of the region is important for Russia's economic gains as it offers an all-year-round naval trade route. 

Possible resolutions to the crisis

It is extremely difficult to predict the outcome of the crisis due to its complexity. The media fears the outbreak of a war, and emphasizes the diplomacy option. However, I seek to dismiss the possibility of a war as well as rejecting the diplomacy option by the use of the structural realist approach.

The military option

Around 40.000 Russian troops remain around the Ukrainian boarder. Putin's speeches have made headlines day after day in the media. Putin stresses that the Russia will not back down from the crisis at all costs and that the Russian troops are ready for war if it was to break out. However, the outbreak of a war seems highly unlikely by the structural realist perspective.Though states behave accordingly to their own national interests, the international political system with its invisible code of conduct restricts certain actions of states such as war.

The diplomacy option

The obvious route for increasing diplomatic pressure through the UN security council is unavailable in the Crimea crisis as Russia is a permanent member and can veto any proposed action. Other organs of the UN such as the General Assembly, could pass non-binding resolutions, but Russia could simply ignore them. A structural realist would reject the diplomacy option. Structural realists does not believe in diplomacy based treaties as they reject the idea of an overarching authority such as the UN. Structural realists believe states as the primary actors in international politics. Unlike domestic politics where the law over-arches over the people, structural realists argue that no such overarching authority exists in international politics.

Sunday 6 April 2014

Structural Realist Approch to the China's Spartly Island Dispute




Structural Realism


Structural realism emerged in the 1960s and 70s. It shares much of the concepts with the classical realism. Both Realisms agree with the three ‘S’s.
  1. Statism: States as the primary actors in international politics
  2. Survival: The single most important goal of all states.
  3. Self-Help: The anarchic nature (lack of overarching authority) of international politics and the mistrust between states results in states relying on their own for their survival.
However, structural realists argue that the behavior of states in international politics can be analyzed not only because of the pessimistic human nature but also the system itself. They argue that the system encourages or discourages certain behaviors and actions of states in international politics.

This blog looks to analyze the Spartly Islands dispute in the South China Sea by the use of the structural realism approach.

Spartly Islands Dispute 

China currently has over 20 ongoing territorial disputes ranging from the long historical dispute between the mainland and Taiwan to the recent symbolic dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands conflict with Japan. However, Beijing’s interests in the Spartly Island dispute differ from the other territorial disputes as the islands have a significant economic value.

Economic Values of the Spartly Islands

 

According to the Chinese reports, 18 metric tones of Oil is estimated to lie beneath the islands. To understand the 18 metric tones in a more understandable measurement, it is enough to fuel the Chinese economy for the next 50 years.





 
The islands offer a large fishing reserve.Fishing industry in China is a large part of their economic sector as they account for 8% of the world's entire catch.




 
The islands are also one of the busiest naval commercial shipping lanes in the world. In 2010, more than half of the super-tank cargo ships as well as a quarter of the world’s traded crude oil passed through the islands.




The economic value of the islands is estimated to worth more than a trillion dollars.Brunei, China, Malaysia, Philippines and Vietnam are trying to legitimize their claims of the ownership over the trillion dollar islands.


Possible Resolutions

Three Possible Resolutions and Three Structural Realist Objections.


An international debate in the United Nations (UN) to judge the legitimacy of all parties’ claims can be a possible resolution. However, a structural realist would argue that the UN is a forum to discuss the national interests of their own state. Because China has a higher military and economic capabilities compared with the other South Asian states, a debate in the UN is likely to reflect the voices of the Chinese claims (More capabilities) over the other states(Less capabilities). A structural realist would add that the international politics does not operate on a moral code, and that the capacity of states as the determining factor. 


The second possible resolution is to share the economic benefits between the states. However, structural realists reject the notion of collective progression as the states focus on their own short-term gains. In the current neo-liberal capitalist international system, economic wealth is one of the most important factors in determining a state’s strength. The South Asian states (regarded as either developing or less-developed) would not back down from their claims of ownership as the economic benefits from the islands are crucial for their state survival in the current neo-liberal capitalist system. China on the other hand, is regarded as one of the strongest (economic and military capabilities) states in the world.Despite their current strength, they crave for more strength and capabilities.. This behavior can be analyzed by an offensive realist approach, as they argue that the states should become as strong as they can to become the hegemon of the region without worrying about offending other states. 


The third possible resolution is an outbreak of war. China has a far greater military capability compared with the other South Asian States. However, a structural realist would argue that there is an invisible hand or an invisible code of conduct in international politics. Though states behave accordingly to their own national interests, this invisible code of conduct restricts certain actions and behaviors of states. Despite the greater military capabilities of China, the Spartly Island dispute is unlikely to result in war due to pressure from the invisible international political code of conduct.

 Conclusion

We cannot be sure of the outcome over the Spartly Islands dispute, nor be sure of when the dispute will end. However, we can be sure that no state will back away from their claims of ownership over the trillion dollar islands. An economic value that would ensure the survival of South Asia states in the neo-liberal capitalist system or ensure China as the regional hegemon.

References