Social Constructivism explains the Arab Spring

Social Constructivism explains the Arab Spring

 

The Arab Spring is a term generally used to describe the current and on-going changes occurring in the Middle East since the 2010 outbreak of protests originally occurring in Tunisia following Mohammed Bouazizi’s self-immolation after being awfully treated by police-force and local officials. However, this tragic incident had unconsciously brought light to the corruption and lack of human rights afforded to those not only in Tunisia but also throughout the Middle East. This event consequently sparked the Arab Spring revolution creating uprisings throughout the Arab region. These protests and uprisings had spread across the Middle Eastern regions like wildfire as a result of “Facebook campaigns” and online activities together with the prolific use of mobile phones to acquire internet information.

The Arab Spring - Facebook. Photo credited to Google Image

 In order to develop a greater understanding of the Arab Spring incident, it is imperative to take into account the influences of ideas, norms and rules on identity and interests of particular states. Social constructivism places an emphasis on structures constituting the identities of states rather than constraining them, as seen in the case of the Arab Spring.

Middle East - Protesters. Photo credit to Google Image

The key to understanding and explaining the Arab Spring in through a constructivist approach as it recognizes that ideas, values and cultural norms are the fundamental elements in domestic and international political decision-making.

Many theories of International Relations fail to clarify and foresee events in the international realm including the Arab Spring; this is because they assume that states have a certain level of generality. However, Social Constructivism places greater value on norms, rules, identities and other social dimensions. Social Constructivism therefore teaches that the international realm is a continuous course of construction and interaction, where structures are influenced by state identity as well as identities being influenced by structures; these processes cannot be explained by the application of generalizations.

Constructivism cultural norms. Google Image

Social Constructivism vies the world as being under ongoing construction, it is continually transforming according to ideas, values and cultural norms. It is particularly the states elites and leaders that possess the capacity to fully transform and build national identity this can explain the relationship and interaction of nations with one another and the consideration of enemies and friends. In turn, constructivists believe that states are susceptible to regular change, and that the nation’s values and norms can be socially reconstructed provided that these changes are in harmony with their cultural values and norms.

Social Constructivism provides an effective explanation of the Arab Spring as the propagation of Western norms within the Middle East through globalization, the utilization of social networking and media tools causing transformations and change. Social interaction is believed to be the driving force in the occurrence of the Arab Spring as this level of interaction constituted divergences.

Middle East meets West. Photo credited to Google Image

So the Middle East became submerged with Western concepts of human rights, freedom and social equality which posed a great threat to their current structure and identity which had been established over centuries. This is explained through the constructivist teaching of the changeability of social structures and identity and their interdependence.  

Because states in the Middle East felt at ease about the solidity of their allegedly secure identity and structure, the proliferation of Western norms and ideas through the course of globalization was not initially considered dangerous. But the wave of globalization was particularly influential through media on particularly the youth of the Middle East. More and more individuals became willing to rebuild their collective identities as a result of regular social interactions. The Arab Spring revolution was centred on the idea of individual and political rights. This awareness and desire for the recognition of their rights was the most influential instrument for structural transformation which led the people of the Middle East to construct new pathways from the original structures that once guarded their previous lives.

Arab Spring Revolution. Photo credited to Google Image

However, the Arab Spring revolution is far from achieving a Western sense of freedom but it seems that the Arab regions are regressing to a more culturally accepted form of control and governance which can be more effectively explained under a constructivist theory as the decisions of the state are based on their identity and cultural norms and any changes to these norms or identities will result in a shift in social structure.

 


References:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqOdG9RygNw

http://www.e-ir.info/2013/06/19/can-constructivism-explain-the-arab-spring/

Neoliberal approach to US-China Cooperation

The arena of International Relations has generally remained one focused mainly on issues such as power, security and conflicts between states, this ensured the dominance of the Neorealist approach.

However, the rising number of environmental issues has brought the problem of destabilizing climate change to light and the effectiveness of Neoliberalism in problem solving.

UN panel warns of dire climate change effects. Mar 31st 2014.

Over time, climate change continue to be one of the biggest and most obstinate issues concerning humanity to this day.

From a realist approach to climate change, it is the nature of the state to be reliant on self-help that makes the issue of climate change one that is not only complex but as a result impossible to solve through international cooperation.

Neoliberalism is one of the most successful theories of International Relations and is considered the revival of Liberalism. Neoliberals like the Liberals have a very positive outlook on human nature and strongly believe in humanity's ability to collectively progress through international cooperation and interaction. They believe that it is in the best interest of individual states to cooperate with each other in order to pursue common interests.

Aside from the influences of Liberalism, Neoliberalism            Although Neorealism holds a marginalized

 also shares common views with Neorealism. They both         opinion on institutionalism, Neoliberals believe

 share the perception and belief of states being state-              that state-interdependence and

centric and egocentric but they differ in terms of their              institutionalization will lead to successful

belief in the ability of states to look past this self-                    international cooperation.

centeredness in order to cooperate and strive for mutual 

benefits. 

Kerry urges action on climate change. Feb 16 2014.

Climate change offers a great opportunity for Neoliberals to apply their claims on the significance of institutionalism and international connectedness as well as displaying the effectiveness of Neoliberalism in tacking intricate current issues.

 The fact that preventing the damages of climate change/global warming is in the interest of all states only solidifies the Neoliberal view of international cooperation in order to gain mutual benefits.

The cooperation of the United States and China to fight climate change shows the growing awareness of states to work together and cooperate in order to conquer challenges posed by global warming and destabilizing severe weather events.

                                                                                   Kerry: US to work with China on Climate Change. Feb 14 2014.

On Saturday, 15th Feb 2014, the US and China had announced their agreement on intensifying their efforts in addressing the issue of climate change. The US Secretary of State John F. Kerry declared that China and the US would work more closely together to tackle serious environmental issues well ahead of the global summit held at the end of 2015 on the issue of climate change.

So far, many of the conventions and conferences on global environmental issues have come to the conclusion shared by Neoliberalists on the importance of international cooperation as the key    concept for progressing in environmental protection.

This is seen through the decision of the US to cooperate with China on the issue of climate change.

This is only fitting as not only do they have the biggest economies in the world but they are also the highest producers and emitters of greenhouse gases and contributing to the increasing concerns caused by climate change.

Largest emitters of CO2. Photo credit to Google Image.

US plans accelerated climate change cooperation with China.

The two states have agreed to collaborate in terms of enhancing dialogue on policies as well as information sharing on their plans to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. This is in compliance with the Neoliberal notion of interconnectedness and interaction in order to successfully cooperate and approach mutual interests.

There has also been talk about US-China plans to develop measures that will assist and enable poorer states in adjusting to climate change and severe weather events. This setting an example for the rest of the international arena.

The stress put on increasing efforts on exchanging information, active interaction between China and the US and cooperation on forming effective policies to decrease environmental issues and global warming display the fundamental concepts of Neoliberalism in order to solve problems in international relations.

While Neoliberalism acknowledges the difficulties of state-centric nations to achieve interaction and cooperation in a state of anarchy, they do believe that international actors will be able to move past their egoistic behaviors in order to cooperate on major problems that call for interdependence such as the issue of climate change.

US and Chinese Flag. Photo credit to Google Image.

In conclusion, climate change remains one of the biggest issues facing humanity to today and will continue to increase in seriousness overtime. The need for states to cooperate and interact in order to decrease the environmental threats posed by climate change only proves the key concepts and relativity of Neoliberalism in solving problems in the international relations realm.

China's decision to cooperate with the US on tackling the problem of climate change and efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions reassures the positive stand of Neoliberals on human nature and their ability to move past self-help and become interdependent and cooperate in order to address mutual interests to achieve mutual benefits.

References

Danil Akbar Taqwadin. Global Environmental Cooperation on Neoliberal Institutionalism Perspective. Retrieved from: http://www.academia.edu/3846321/Global_Environmental_Cooperation_on_Neoliberal_Institutionalism_Perspective

Jeremiah Collins. 2012. Assessing International Cooperation on Climate Change. Retrieved from: http://journals.library.mun.ca/ojs/index.php/MP/article/view/367

Simon Denyer. 2014. U.S., China pledge cooperation on climate change. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-china-to-cooperate-on-climate-change/2014/02/15/4064e818-963e-11e3-ae45-458927ccedb6_story.html

 

Realism in Crimea Conflict

                                                       Realism and Crimea.

Bitterness lingers in Moscow over the drawing of borders post-1991 and this is particularly controversial when it comes to the conflict over Crimea.

Ukraine’s historical conflicts between Europe and Russia have left the country divided culturally and politically resulting in a major identity crisis. While western-Ukraine is occupied by those speaking mostly native Ukrainian and aligning themselves more towards Europe, eastern-Ukraine is dominated by those who share a cultural heritage with Russia. 

Recently, tensions continue to escalate between Ukraine and Russia over Crimea as Moscow warns that it will do anything possible to protect the interests of Russia and Russians within Ukraine and Crimea.

The International Relations theory of Realism provides an accurate explanation of the fundamental principles behind the conflict between Ukraine and Russia over Crimea. This approach to international relations recognises that all national affairs are in conformity with the states own self interest. 

A sailor holds the Russian St Andrew flag on top of the submarine

which was taken over. (credit for image: DailyMail.)

The strategic importance of Crimea to Russia lies much deeper than the issue of perceived borders. The port of Sevastopol is also essential to Russia's naval power. The naval base is fundamental as it is the main method of expanding force through the Mediterranean and beyond. In short, Russia’s main interest in Crimea is in relation to their naval base in Sevastopol, without this, Russia’s global military power would be virtually non-existent.                      

Russia along with the West and Europe has always had conflicting interest in the post-Soviet region. The main concern for Ukraine is that after Crimea, Russia may turn towards Estonia or other eastern parts of Ukraine with a large Russian speaking population. Although the West and Europe may appear to step in to defend Ukraine as an ally, it is obvious that their ulterior motives serve in their own self interest as they want to prevent Russia from expanding their geographical sphere to include the Ukraine in fear of a repeat of the Soviet Union and the Cold War.  

                                Crisis deepens in Ukraine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpJWFvKRoK8

The theory of Realism identifies the importance of three key components to each state including Statism, Survival and Self-help. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine over Crimea we must consider these components in relation to the Crimea conflict.

 

Statism under Realism places great importance on power and recognizes that conflicts in the sphere of international relations can only be resolved in war or violence. The acquiring of as much power as possible is seen to be the main objective for each state and this could explain the method behind Vladimir Putin’s actions. Putin realizes that Russia holds greater power in comparison to the Ukraine and therefore acts upon them without restriction. 

A demonstrator holds a sign with his mouth while taking part in a protest against Russian troops in Ukraine, outside of the Russian embassy in Ottawa March 4, 2014. REUTERS

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/ukraine-crisis-live-updates-vladimir-putin-russia-crimea-usa/1/346853.html

Machiavelli, whose writings are commonly used in Realism, states that international relations are not concerned by issues of morality. It may hold relative importance between nations of equal power but in terms of superior Russian power over the inferior power of Ukraine, moral objections are irrelevant. This is seen through Putin’s blatant disregard for Ukraine’s concerns.  

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/ukraine-crisis-live-updates-vladimir-putin-russia-crimea-usa/1/346853.html

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/ukraine-crisis-live-updates-vladimir-putin-russia-crimea-usa/1/346853.html

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and their military actions in Crimea reinforce their willingness and preparation to use their armed forces to achieve their political aims. The question then is how much Ukraine and the West is willing to tolerate from Russia before the conflict results in war.

  

Armed servicemen wait in Russian army vehicles in Crimea.

 The second key component in Realism relates to Survival. This concept recognises that states must pursue what is in their national interest above all else. In the past few years, Russia’s foreign relations imply an increasing sense of insecurity.  This notion of states pursuing national security at all costs best reflects the decisions of Russia in regards to Crimea.

The principle of self-help relates to trust and also recognises the states responsibility for providing national security. Crimea’s invasion by Russia ended Europe and the West’s delusional partnership with Russian leader Vladimir Putin. A loyal partnership with Russian is likely only when Putin believes it is in his nation’s best interest.

 Riot police stand in front of pro-Russian activists as they storm the prosecutor's office in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk  Photo: ALEXANDER KHUDOTEPLY/AFP/Getty Images

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine over Crimea is one that is understood more clearly under the approach of Realism. It demonstrates that not only do states act in their own self-interest with their main objection being the acquiring of power, but also that their national security is paramount above all else and should be pursed at all costs. Russia’s invasion and threats of military action strengthens the Realist notion of conflicts only being resolved through warfare. 

References:

U.S. to Russia: Pull out of Ukraine immediately. USA Today. March 1, 2014. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/01/crimean-putin-russia-ukraine/5922731/

Christopher Spencer. Ukraine Crisis: The Theories Involved. Liberty Voice. March 5, 2014. http://guardianlv.com/2014/03/ukraine-crisis-the-theories-involved/

Russia in Crimea: When States Act Out Of Insecurity. The Diplomat. March 15, 2014. http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/russia-in-crimea-when-states-act-out-of-insecurity/

Time for Realism and Common Sense on Ukraine. The Nation. March 6, 2014. http://www.thenation.com/article/178655/time-realism-and-common-sense-ukraine