International Relations: Politics and Securit (Research Paper Sample)

REALISM, CONSTRUCTIVISM AND CRITICAL THEORY IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC
By (Name)
Course
Tutor
University
City and State
Date
Realism, Constructivism and Critical Theory in the Asia-Pacific
Introduction
The Asia-Pacific region is undoubtedly an engine of global economic development and most countries in this section of Asia are becoming economic and political heavyweights. The famous Asian Tigers and some other ambitious nation are part of this economic and political block. Moreover, the US and Australia are important players in this region. Nonetheless, mistrust and lack of a united agenda has seen the region classified as one of the areas with endless security issues. States in Asia-Pacific are very anxious; they are not sure of their future security situation because some of them have embarked on projects aimed at fostering their power at the expense of others. In response to the increasing tempo of globalization, the notion of human security has become fundamental to international relations. My take is that insecurity in Asia-Pacific requires a lot of positivism. Since, positivism studies the realities among societies, realism best explains the situation in this part of the world. Constructivism and the critical theory are very subjective. For instance, it is very difficult to understanding anarchy using constructivism while the critical theory is over-reliant on facts. The world cannot be studied through social sciences because facts cannot be neutral or value-free. Similarly, a researcher cannot claim to be overly objective or detached from the society he is studying because he is a constituent of it. Realism reiterates that all concepts have a historical and social connotation that incorporates certain values. If political power is exercised optimally, there will be no need for military force. However, the only way a nation can wield political powers over other states is by convincing them that it can willingly defeat them militarily. Therefore, most conflicts in Asia-Pacific are as a result of the guiding principles of the world we live in, either individually, domestically or internationally. We are not capable of changing some of the inherent principles on earth because they are a culmination of the desire of humans to dominate each other. Peace is a consequence of skillful implementation of political powers and not an attempt by humanity to change the rules of the real world. For instance, if a country or a region abolishes its desire for power, it would fall victim to the power of others. This paper will try to illustrate how realists’ views are fuelling the insecurity in the Asia-Pacific region.
Applicability of the International Relation Theories in the Asia Context
A Heated debates on whether theoretical perspectives can be used to study Asian international relations exists. Although an interest on international relations theory is growing on the continent theories are seen as being too abstract or detached from the daily undertakings of administration and the people. For that reason, many scholars believe that a theoretical review of Asia’s global relations does not deserve serious and sustained study. Similarly, international relations (IR) theories are also viewed as being too Western to be applied in the Asian context. Citing Hoffman (1998), Acharya (2007, p.1) reiterated "international relations theory, like the discipline itself, has been and remains an American social science." Nonetheless, international relations in the Asian region have inherited behavioral norms and attributes related to the West (Acharya 2007). Thus, the international relations theory is relevant to Asia like anywhere else (Ikenberry & Mastanduno 2003). Likewise, realism, constructivism, and critical theory can explain the current security issues in the Asia-Pacific.
Constructivist’s perspectives ensure that additional conceptual tools are included in the security debate through the theory’s various insights on national identity, interest formation and human consciousness (Tsai 2009). Thus, a number of phenomena in the international sphere can be easily understood by applying constructivism to the models of human security. However, it is very difficult to find out the real meaning of anarchy through constructivism. As a result, a true picture of internal relations is lost. Critical thinking entails questioning mainstream knowledge. This school of thought emerged after a number of scholars, who were disillusioned with the politics of the Cold War, sought to challenge the dominant understanding of security. A typical example of this misleading discursive understanding, according to critical theorists, is that security is tantamount to sovereignty. Unlike other theories, the critical theory does not embody a coherent or unified notion of what security is but combines a number of studies. A distinction is made between facts and values. Facts are neutral and can be ascertained, but values are mainly beliefs entrenched in a given people for a long period. We deduce what is fiction or true by conducting an empirical analysis, this is what the critical theory encourages. However, we have to assume that the techniques for studying the various happenings in the real world are neutral; they are clear of politics. Critical theories connect subjects to objects. They argue that the social scientists (who is the subject), is embedded in a socio-political life. Accordingly, theories cannot be objective descriptions of a social life. The foundation of the critical theory is the improvement of the people’s lives through alleviating and sometimes eradicating injustice. Thus, the theory does not only highlight a situation but acts a force to stimulate change. Nevertheless, facts are well understood by an excellent application of theory. This realization renders the critical theory weak in explaining the security situation in Asia-Pacific. We cannot happenings and confirmed truths for scientific data. Different states crave for different things and sometimes these desires conflict. To fulfill these desires, countries opt for power to out-muscle their opponents or competitors. The concern for power, especially looking for power to gain political advantage, forms the basis of realism in international relations (Trachtenberg 2003). In the world we live in, mistrust and power are very important in as far as realism is concerned. International relations depend on two major themes: peace initiatives and power politics which mainly culminate into security issues. In addition, the main impetus of insecurity and peace is the perpetual struggle for power amongst nations. Countries are in an endless struggle to gain political powers. In other words, they are looking for ways to control the actions and minds of others. Since power politics is at play in the Asia-Pacific, realism theory can best explain the current security issues among the various countries operating here.
Realism and the current security issues in the Asia-Pacific Region
According to the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (n.d.), the Asia-Pacific region hosts a number of powerful and ambitious countries. Specifically, Australia, China, the Us, Japan, South Korea and India have a stake in the geographical area. Very ambitious countries like North Korea and Taiwan also form part of the Asia-Pacific territory. Therefore, it’s tricky to predict the security situation in this region. According to the realist’s notion, the international system is anarchy; no authority is superior to a state (Acharya, 2007). As such, states call the shots in international relations and are guided principally by a craving for power or national interests. Realists believe that states work towards relative gains rather than absolute gains. Put differently, how much a given state gains in relation to others is more crucial than the fact that very state may receive something. Sincerely speaking, war begins majorly as a argument over which nations gains more and which one receives a raw deal. Therefore, war is a failure to exercise political powers correctly. According to realism, since power is the genesis of all politics and competition in the world, the action of all countries are directed towards three goals. These goals include power maintenance, power acquisition and power demonstration (Trachtenberg 2003). Consequently, countries use different foreign policy tactics to achieve these goals.
Power Maintenance
Power maintenance refers to pursuance of the policy of status quo. In this regard, a state or states try to maintain the current distribution of power through agreements, deterrence and coercion (Trachtenberg 2003). The intractable problem that results from the stalemate between countries hell bent to maintain power is called the security dilemma. In this state of affairs, states are unlikely to concede their position regardless of the alternatives availed to them. Most state seek survival by implementing a status quo policy, which calls for sustenance of powe. According to Cronin (n.d.), the US places a high premium on supervision the security dilemma in the Asia-Pacific. Three years ago, the Obama administration ascertained that it will intensify and expand the US role in this region (Manyin 2012). Simultaneously, the government announced that the focal point for the US foreign policy, national security economic interest is shifting towards Asia. "Although Washington seems mired in political and budgetary stalemate at home, it almost certainly will seek to strengthen its existing alliances with countries like Australia, South Korea and Japan, as it attempts to reinforce an inclusive, rules-based regional architecture in the future" (Cronin n.d., pg.1). Thus, the need for multilateral cooperation has plunged the US into the affairs of the Asia-Pacific countrie...