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.

 

Video link to Kenneth Waltz's ideas of structural realism

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.

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

Wikipedia: Spartly Islands

BBC News: Q&A: South China Sea Dispute

Theories of International Relations

China's New Assertiveness in the South China Sea

Classical Realism Interpretation of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Island Dispute

Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands Dispute

 

Mutual mistrust between Japan and China

Before we engage into the Seknaku/Diaoyu islands dispute, it is important to facilitate our understanding of the mutual mistrust between Japan and China.

Beijing's mistrust towards Tokyo comes from the recent Japanese militarialism as it has only been half a century since the Second World War. The horrific brutality of the Japanese still live in the hearts of the Chinese.

Japan fears China of their nuclear capabilities and Beijing's close relationship with the North Koreans. The unpredictable nature of North Korea as well as the possession of nuclear heads of China drives Japan to view China as a serious threat to the regional and global security. 

Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute

Geo-strategic argument

There are three main geo-strategic arguments that can be made of the islands.

1. Oil and gas reserves
2. Fishing rights
3. Trade routes

Both Japan and China are in competition for oil and gas reserves to increase their economy. However, there is no clear report as to the exact amount of the gas and oil reserves of the islands. Furthermore, Japan and China has cheaper access to oil and gas from other sources such as Africa. The potential economic gain from the fishery and trading of the area is also very minimal for both Japan and China.
However, I argue against this approach of analysis as the potential economic gain of the two states are minimal.

Symbolic argument

Perhaps the more convincing argument of the island dispute is the symbolic argument.  The islands are bounded up with constructing national identity and pride.
This is not a new idea of the classical realists. Hobbes, one of the fathers of classical realism, argue that the states are motivated by competition, diffidence, and glory.

Yahuda's research found that the Chinese public voice for their officials to take higher national pride and expect for their government to claim Diaoyu as a part of China.

From a classical realist approach, it is important to note the stativism aspect of the theory. Despite the social protests of the Chinese public, they are ultimately relying on their government for the resolution over the islands dispute.

 Legal argument

Both parties of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute argue for the legitimacy over their claims.

Japan argues that the islands were left inhibited and that there is evidence of Chinese control. Furthermore, they argue that the islands were administered by the Japanese government since 1972 and that the islands were ceded to Japan under the 1995 treaty with the United Nations.

China disregards the Japanese claims and argues that the islands were considered as part of the Chinese territory according to the map made in the 1300s in the Ming era.

The problem with this argument is of course that both sides are legitimizing their claims by legal arguments. This is perfectly understandable by the classical realists as they believe that the international political arena is under anarchy. Anarchy does not necessarily refer to total chaos. In this context of the islands' dispute, anarchy can be better understood as the absence of an overarching authority. As Hobbes argues that anarchy can be understood as the absence of both rulers and rules of international politics.

Self-Help

Self-help is another key theoretical element of classical realism. The name of the term explains itself. Classical realists argue that due to the anarchical nature of international politics and the mutual mistrust between states, states are ultimately reliant to defend their state and national interests with their own power.
Although the United States is arguably one of the strongest states in the world, they have no official position in the islands' dispute. However, because of their military treaty between Japan, they must intervene if a war was to break out between Japan and China.

Despite the treaty, classical realists doubts that the United States' will launch a military intervention over the islands' dispute due to the close economic relationship between China and the United States.
This is best seen in the recent Ukrainian conflict. Although there is a military treaty between Britain and Ukraine, Britain did not launch a military intervention because it did not reflect their national interests.  

Though the exact military capabilities of China is unknown due to their secrecy, the expansion of their military force is no secret as seen by the picture of their newly constructed nuclear-head submarine. 

 

Abe, in response has recently declared a spacial navy unit dedicated solely to the Senkaku islands dispute.

Conclusion

Classical realists argue that the conflict of the islands will result in war. Through this approach, a war is considered as the expression of human nature's worst aspects in the struggle for power (Burchill, et al.). Judging by the recent responses of the two states, I would argue that a war is to break out in the near future as there seems to be no signs or evidence suggesting that they want a peaceful resolution.