Connect with us

Diplomacy

International Relations Theories and Security

Published

on

Authors: Fatima Ahmed and Areeja Syed

The post-cold war world has experienced many changes, not only in practical terms but also in theoretical sphere. One of the significant paradigm shift that took place was in the traditional meaning of security. The traditional meaning of security is state centric, it means that the territory of the state needs to be protected against any hostile attack. It can also be seen as protection from external threats.  On the other hand, non-traditional security is human centric. It means that the people of a state should be protected from hunger, disease, poverty and natural disasters(Yousaf, 2017).In 1994, UNDP HDR presented a report according to which seven things were added to the concept of security, these are personal, environmental, economic, political, community health and food security(Tsai, 2009). The state should protect its people from these internal threats.(Yousaf, 2017).

The theories of International relations defines security differently. Realism that still dominates the field of IR through its new version As Realist perceives the nature of human as selfish and egoistic which will incline more towards immorality. They argue that as the nature of human is selfish, same is the case with the states, They also act selfishly by looking in to just their own national interests and have nothing to do with other’s interest. If war is in their national interest they will go for war, and if co-operation is in their interest, they will cooperate with the other state. Neorealism, the branch of realism claims that there is no change in the world after the end of cold war, power is still the main entity in international relations and this power structure is due to the anarchical structure of international system and they still question the int. structure that it is still anarchic and there is constant competition among the states. The Realists and neorealist are not willing to come out of the traditional concept of state centric security. They stick to the narrow definition of security which refers to the protection of the country against external aggression(Lasan). On the other hand, Neoliberals agrees with neorealism on many points e.g. both believe that states are the main actors in the world, both views them as rational actors and considers the international system anarchic. Neoliberals do not approach the concept of security directly; rather they say that international security can be maintained through strengthening the institutions, international law, democratization and political integration. Marxism is another mainstream theory of IR. According to them, the definition of security is determined by the structure of global capitalism (ibid).

Constructivist school of thought gained popularity after the end of cold war. It addressed the issue of identity, security and material issues in the contemporary world. Constructivists do not consider security as an objective reality. They view security as being constructed and re-constructed through inter subjective human understanding. There focus shifts from materials to ideas. For constructivist, the concept of security is broad as they say that nothing is true or false, it’s the perception of the observer how he/she sees that particular point.(perception) As Alexander Wendt said that anarchy is what states make of it, the same can be said about security(Sorensen, 2013).

Along with constructivists, The Copenhagen school of thought is important to mention, it is built on the writing of Barry Buzan. In 1983, Barry Buzan, highlighted that the concept of security includes military, economic, social and environmental security. So this school of thought extends the concept of security beyond military aspects(Lasan). This school of thought talks about securitization. It conceptualizes security as a process of social construction of threat which includes securitizing actors who will declare that a particular threat is present which needs to be handled, this situation will be presented to the audience and if they accept it, the actors will have legitimacy to act against that threat. This is how an issue is securitized. This is an interesting way of defining security (Sulovic, 2010).

There is another significant lens to view security .i.e. through critical theory. Their focus is on how the institutions and relations evolved and how they can be altered. This theory shifts the focus from state to the individual. It envisions the freedom and liberty of the individuals(Lasan).When the focus is shifted to individuals, we have feminist theories. There are four strands of feminist theories, all lay emphasize on the fact that the current security studies has been fashioned and put into practice by male and females has been excluded from it. If women are included in defining security, the World could be more peaceful (ibid).

From Feminist theory, we move towards the post-modern security studies. This approach, like the critical studies, shifts the focus of security from state to non-state actors, from individuals to ethnic and cultural groups, regional blocs, NGOs including MNCs. This theory intends to bring alternative reality to that of realist reality for a more peaceful world (Lasan).

Conclusion

The subject matter of International Relations is still evolving. The concept of security is one example of it. It is a contested concept. With the change in the geopolitical environment, contemporary theories have given their definition of security which moves away from the traditional state-centric concept of security. Contemporary IR theories have given unconventional definitions of security which is a major development in the studies of IR. This has generated debates within the IR community which will ultimately affect the policy makers across the world in the days to come but eventually there is a need to have that security where all the people and states across the world feel sheltered and safe. furthermore the concepts like ‘positive peace’ by johan galtung and ‘stable peace’ by Kenneth Boulding which are the newest emerging trends of security needs to spread rapidly in order to make this world a peaceful and safe place for all.

Fatima Ahmed is pursuing M.phil in International Relations from Comsats University Islamabad.

Continue Reading
Comments

Diplomacy

Cutting Distances with a Cricket Stump

Published

on

Sports are the common threads that bind people and countries together. The interlocking rings of the Olympics rings symbolize the coming together of all nations. The former US President Nixon successfully used “ping-pong diplomacy” to open the US-China relationship leading the US to lift embargo against China on June 10, 1971. Cricket has been used in a similar manner to bring together the people of different countries, especially South Asians. Sport in South Asia is a significant part of culture. For South Asians, it is not only a sport but part of their collective identity. Some legends of Cricket in South Asia like Imran Khan, Sachin Tendulkar, Waseem Akram, Sunil Gavaskar, Kumar Sangakkara, Shahid Afridi, Shakaib Al Hasan, Shoaib Akhtar and Virat Kohli are the household names. Though, Pakistan is known as the manufacturer of the official FIFA World Cup ball, football is not popular in Pakistan. Pakistan has remained world champions in Squash, Hockey, Cricket, Snookers, Kabaddi and many other individual events of athletics, yet cricket is the most sought-after sport in Pakistan despite bottlenecks like terrorism and COVID-19.

While the overall sports spectrum went down, Pakistani cricket maintained its presence in cricketing world. Since last few years, Pakistani cricket team has been able to revive and reinvent itself internationally. I remember one of the slogans during Independence Cup 2017 in Lahore that said “It is not Pakistan vs. World, it is Pakistan vs. Terrorism”. In Pakistan, cricket is also a measure of national strength. Pakistan’s cricket teams take part in domestic competitions such as the Quaid-e-Azam Trophy, the Patron’s Trophy, ABN-AMRO Twenty-20 Cup, and the ABN-AMRO Champions Trophy. In 2015, Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) organized a franchise based T20 cricket league known as the Pakistan Super League (PSL). The two seasons of PSL, 2020 and 2021 are held entirely by PCB. Additionally, Mr. Imran Khan, incumbent Prime Minister of Pakistan has conceived the new basic structure of the game in country.

Pakistan-World Champion

Pakistan has won international cricket events, which include the 1992 Cricket World Cup, the 2009 ICC World Twenty20 and the 2017 ICC Champions Trophy besides finishing as runner-up in the 1999 Cricket World Cup and the 2007 ICC World Twenty20. Women’s cricket is also very popular, with KiranBaluch holding the current record of the highest score in a women’s test match with her innings of 242. Mr. Imran Khan has the honour of leading Pakistan national cricket team which won the 1992 Cricket World Cup. In 2010, he was also inducted into International Cricket Council’s Hall of Fame.

Hitting Balls not Borders

In South Asia, cricket and politics are interwoven. Wars have been fought and conflicts have been de-escalated alongside the bat hitting ball. The history of India-Pakistan relations did not inspire confidence in rebuilding relations through non-political means. However, the cricket matches between them are loaded with deeper political and diplomatic meaning.

From 1947 to 1965 only three test series were played between India and Pakistan. The 1965 and 1971 wars led to complete stoppage of cricket exchanges between two countries and there was a very little window to use cricket as a tool to maintain goodwill. After a gap of 17 years, cricket was resumed between them in 1978. The first instance of cricket diplomacy was in 1987 when General Zia-Ul-Haq visited India to attend a test match in Jaipur, and the resulting diplomatic dialogue cooled relations. In 2004, Prime Minister of India, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, went to Pakistan to attend the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit. He also allowed Indian cricket team to visit Pakistan to play and advised the cricketers to not only win the matches, but also the hearts of Pakistani public. Over the next three years, the two countries played each other three times. Cricket diplomacy again emerged when then-Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart, Yousuf Raza Gilani, met each other for the World Cup 2011 semifinal between India and Pakistan. Peace talks started again and Pakistan toured India in December 2012 for a T20 and three One Day Internationals (ODIs). The efficacy of cricket diplomacy in Indo-Pak relations can also be gauged from the fact that it brought both states to the negotiating table to manage the issue of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K).

All for One and One for All

Any major international sporting event like a World Cup gives one a sense of belonging to a larger global community. Sportsmen have always been successful goodwill ambassadors for any country and have admirers across borders. Fans’ love for cricket break all barriers that is why the peacekeepers see cricket as a tool to bind people together. Despite tensions, Pakistani fans recently celebrated India’s historic win over Australia. Nelson Mandela also believed that “Sport can create hope where once there was only despair. It is more powerful than government in breaking down racial barriers.”In short, a link between international cricket’s revival and national resilience need to be established. Restarting international cricket in South Asia would enhance the opportunity to establish aspired will of peace and prosperity.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Can diplomats be proactive online without becoming “wolf-warrior”?

Published

on

Photo: camilo jimenez/Unsplash

With the increasingly important digital world, traditional, offline tools and approaches are becoming less and less sufficient and effective in shaping the public conversation, influencing the global or national public opinion, and obtaining trust.

As a part of reform that veers towards revolution in a domain well known for its adherence to norms, today’s diplomacy is also experiencing functional changes in terms of what strategic communications means in the digital environment. As we are witnessing lately, the emerging diplomatic virtual presence has become a significant part of public diplomacy and policy.

Today, the undeniable power of social media lies in its fundamental role of linking the public and political sphere as part of a worldwide conversation. It is notable that the general reason behind its effectiveness and the steep rise of adoption lie in the power of this environment of building strong brands and credibility. This certainly is today’s Zeitgeist and involves the systematic cultivation of the attempt to influence the public opinion with every single action and to boost social legitimacy, in a more and more interconnected world that seeks to turn individual gestures and actions into symbols.

However, does this fully explain why social media is becoming an emerging playground for sarcasm and open battlefield for a digital war of accusations and threats? 

One of founders of today’s Twiplomacy phenomenon is the former US president, Donald Trump, who proved to be, for better or worse, one of the most vigorous and captivating presences on social media among world leaders.  What is striking in this is the gradual increase in the adoption of the new diplomatic style, known as the Wolf-warrior approach, which gained prominence in the context of the COVID-19 crisis and Chinese presence in the social media. This approach, which originated from a Chinese patriotic movie, in which the main mission of the warrior is fighting back foreigners, is characterized by a more aggressive and assertive style of conducting foreign policy.

It is argued by some that this approach is not being adopted in order to display authoritarian tendencies and to project but rather it is more often adopted by Chinese diplomats as a defense response to the repeated attacks and accusations. It seemed to be the straw that broke the camel’s back. Drastic times call for drastic measures?

Either way, the US-China digital war leads to questioning the adequate behavioral approaches to addressing the continuous global power competition and diplomatic tensions. Assertive and offensive or proactive? What makes a wolf-warrior and where do we draw the line?

When credibility and national identity are under threat, assertive approaches seem to come in handy when defending one’s stance and strengthening confidence. We know it very well from the Chinese ancient wisdom: project strength when you are weak. This general principle applies to political stances and authority in advancing agendas, as well as preserving independence in hegemonic environments. However, when increased assertiveness is taken down the wrong road, the world ends up being divided into conflicting blocs. While proactiveness is certainly the adequate modus operandi to overcome such blockages and prevent escalating disputes from bouncing back, the line is certainly crossed when it reaches bullying and propaganda levels.

What is the smart and well-balanced dose of actions when interests and sovereignty come first? Assertiveness or smart power? 

Proactiveness and high reliance on social media can also be channeled into advancing one’s objectives and consolidating strategic gains through smart use of power or through soft power. One of the best examples of this strategy is India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who’s presence on Twitter proves that, most of the time, the tone defines the effectiveness of the message and that balance is to be preferred to unhinged assertiveness. In the end, the art of persuasion is not limited to the right choice of words and actions here and now but also includes the challenging task of building trust in the long run. 

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

China-India Vaccine Diplomacy – Will Pakistan Learn From Neighbors?

Published

on

Modern infectious diseases and viruses have stimulated anew war and conflict along with poverty, counterurbanization (deurbanization), and climate change that need freshassessment in international relation arena. International cooperation for objective of infectiousdisease control goes back to atleast the 14th century, and to the later date of 1851, when Europe held its first International Sanitary Conference for multilateral cooperation to prevent the spread of cholera and yellow fever. Beginning in 2000, vaccine became cohesive as key tools in helping developing countries to achieve MDGs. In 2007, foreign ministers from seven countries issued the landmark “Oslo Ministerial Declaration” that formally linked health to foreign policy. Yet,in the past, there have been very few moments, as CoVID19, that assimilated such a huge number and variety of the world’s state actors at diplomatic front. The coronavirus vaccine – one of the world’s most in-demand commodities – has become a new currency for “Vaccine Diplomacy”. Vaccine diplomacy is not only the use of vaccine to increase diplomatic relationship and influence other countries but also, from a strategic perspective, vaccine access opens the door to expand long-term health security provisions.

China, one of the first countries to make a diplomatic vaccine push, promised to help developed and developing countries.Since the start of the pandemic, China used medical supplies to pursue foreign policy gains, sent masks and protective equipment to hard-hit territories,at present distributing vaccine.The vaccine diplomacy is a expansion of China’s endeavors to frame itself as the solution to the pandemic. Since the early days of the CoVID19 outbreak, China’s President Xi Jinping has focused on publicizing Chinese efforts  to supply medical aid worldwide. China’s planeloads of CoVID19 donations including hospital gowns, nasal swabs, and surgical masks etc. – were regardedoptimistically, especially in developing countries. In addition, Chinese government sent experts to support medical personnel across the continent.Correspondingly, the Serum Institute of India, one of the world’s largest vaccine producers,produced Covishield, developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca. India’s Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar said it plans to supply CoVID19 vaccine to 49 countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. So far, the country has been distributed 22.9 million doses under its “Vaccine Maitri” (Vaccine Friendship)initiative. Mr. Jaishankar also announced a gift of 2 lakh vaccine doses for about 90,000 U.N. peacekeepers serving in numerous hotspots around the world.

The vaccine race has become a new domain for China-India strategic competition. China’s whole state apparatus is behind the drive and Beijing sprang into action “Health Silk Road” through the cooperation channels of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Moritz Rudolf (German Institute for International and Security Affairs) says, “Health was one of the many subtopics of the BRI. With the pandemic, it has become the main focus”. On the other hand, C. Raja Mohan, (Director, Institute of South Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore) said, “There is no way India can match China on a lot of issues, but in this particular case, because of India’s pharmaceutical infrastructure, India is in a good position”.In reality, both countries arecontemplating vaccine diplomacy as a matter of national pride and soft-power projection.

In Pakistan, the power of vaccine diplomacy has been underexplored despite the successful facts that included promoting peace between the Cold War powers of the 1950s and 1960s.The historical and modern-day track records of vaccine diplomacy are impressive. But, it has not yet led to an overarching framework for its expanded role in foreign policy of Pakistan. At the moment, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination, and National Command and Operation Center should establish vaccine diplomacy framework and play an imperative role in promoting international health agreements between Pakistan and governments throughout the world. Vaccine diplomacy will not only enhance Pakistan’s reputation in international arena but also blunt the propaganda of anti-Pakistan forces within boarder and abroad. Consequently, vaccine diplomacy activities should integrated into the foreign policy of Pakistan.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

International Law3 hours ago

Why states undermined their sovereignty by signing NPT?

Nuclear weapons are known as brawny and cataclysmic weapons. The source of the energy of such weapons is fission and...

Environment6 hours ago

Duck conservation takes flight in Jamaica

On January 20, 2021, the day of the inauguration of American president Joe Biden, two ducks named “Joe” and “Kamala”...

Finance7 hours ago

Estonia provides good support to jobseekers, but does not reach everybody

The Estonian labour market has outperformed most EU countries after the global financial crisis. The employment rate of people in...

Energy News9 hours ago

New EU energy labels applicable from 1 March 2021

To help EU consumers cut their energy bills and carbon footprint, a brand new version of the widely-recognised EU energy...

Energy News11 hours ago

E-Boda-Bodas: a promising day for electric transportation in East Africa

Forty-nine motorcycles made little noise but raised much interest in Nairobi’s Karura Forest this morning, as the UN Environment Programme...

Americas13 hours ago

Biden’s Syria strikes don’t make him a centrist Democrat – they make him a neocon

Biden’s Syria strikes last week left many of his supporters, including me, surprised. The Syria strikes don’t make Biden the...

Reports13 hours ago

65% of Adults Think Race, Ethnicity or National Origin Affects Job Opportunities

A recent Ipsos-World Economic Forum survey has found that 65% of all adults believe that, in their country, someone’s race,...

Trending