International Relations Books Analysis
Question One
Compare the similarities and differences between the relations between Athens and Sparta in the history of the Peloponnesian War and the Current Sino-US relations.
In the book, The Landmark Thucydides, the author provides an account of the ancient Greek historian Thucydides who gave a description of the Plague of Athens that led to the killing of approximately 750000 individuals in 430 BC in the second year in which war was happening at the time (Strassler, 1996). Thucydides was able to provide extensive detail on the plague’s deadly symptoms. Notably, from the assessment of Thucydides’ particular historical interpretation of the Peloponnesian War, it is possible to compare it to the present Sino-US relations.
Thucydides asserts that his writing about the Peloponnesian War was because he believed it would be the great war. Primarily, he indicated that the real cause of the war had been the growth in Athenian power systems, and this alarm would inspire Sparta to fight back, making war inevitable (Strassler, 1996). Sparta was fighting against Athens to restore its independence to the Greek cities under its control. Ultimately, Athens did not crumble as expected as they won a range of naval victories against Sparta, which pursued monetary and weapons support from the Persian Empire. Under Lysander, a Spartan General, the war went on for another decade such that by 405 BC, the general had decimated the Athenian fleet and held it in the siege. Athens was forced to surrender to Sparta. This war marked the end of the Golden Age of Greece and the fall of Athens, which was the strongest city-state in Greece.
One similarity of the Peloponnesian War to the Sino-Us relations is that the countries involved do have some tensions of superiority between them. Even before the onset of the war, Athens and Sparta had been in several quarrels, such as after the Persian defeat when the Spartans had put down the Hellenic tyrants and led the resistance of Greek to Persia (Strassler, 1996). Athens and Spartans had considerably quarreled with each other, leading to small wars even with their allies. Corinth, one of Sparta’s allies, had also directly engaged the Athenian army, drawing Sparta into conflict. During the Median War, the two would enter into war and still have some peaceful intervals.
Similar tensions have also been evident between the United States and China that many have wondered if the two would end up in a war. Currently, there is a broad range of diplomatic, legal, technological, and economic issues that are volatile between the countries considered to be potential matters that could lead to an escalation. The long-running trade war started over China’s unfair economic policies propelled with differing ideologies with the United States. The two countries’ relations fell tremendously when former president trump was obsessed with trade deficits that prompted him to implement punitive tariffs on China. These tariffs were followed by restrictions to China accessing high-tech US products and foreign investments, such as security issues and allegations of unfair Chinese commercial practices (Council on Foreign Relations, 2017). These trade tensions are considered a cold war. Regarding a hostage standoff, this emerged in late 2018 when Canada arrested the CFO of the Chinese telecom Huawei requested by the United States government. Shortly after, Beijing detained two Canadian citizens in China for several trumped-up charges (Council on Foreign Relations, 2017). This development that included allies set the stage for a future escalation due to the tensions between the United States and China.
During the Peloponnesian War, the Athenian ‘democracy’ and the Spartan ‘oligarchy’ were first considered ideological causes or notions to fight and die for, which was also aligned to the respective interventions implemented in the stasis of Corcyra. Isonomia or democratic equality represented Athens and functioned as its war slogan. This would, however, be an imperialist escapade, but it also does not mean that the Athenians had not genuinely embraced the precept. Concerning the Sino-US Relations, it has been acknowledged that a war of words was prevalently highlighted when President trump was vying for electoral base support (Council on Foreign Relations, 2017). . The president made constant remarks that were predominantly negative perspectives of China from this war. It was evident that the words alluded to denominationalism, protectionism, and nationalism in contrast to ecumenism, eclecticism, and multilateralism aligned with global diplomacy. Statements from Chinese officials have suggested that the leadership is focussed on fending attacks by counters which could be equalized to ‘tit for tat.’ Therefore, the country is focused on alliance building and listing the support of global agencies in ways that would stop the US attacks on China. Accordingly, depending on the press releases in China, it is believed that China does hold a long perspective on things, and they are pursuing global revelations that are multi-perspective and respect diversity, reciprocity, and reflexivity. Some journalists indicated that the relations between the United States and China seemed to be in a ‘free fall’ as they lay the foundation for a confrontation between the two over technology territory and clout.
The primary difference between the two events is that while the previous one did go into actual military war, the present Sino-US relations involve countries with different views on war. For the United States, war can be viewed as a more feasible option compared to China. The latter has incorporated a more pragmatic route to recover its national prestige while developing a strong ‘great power’ in conjunction with a harmonious and domestic population. China’s approach entails a less confrontational manner of diplomacy focussed on securing its rise and national rejuvenation compared to the United States, especially under President Trump. Also, China seems to exhibit a higher awareness that the interests, aspirations, and strategic goals of both countries are specifically not at odds with each other. There is no dialogue in China or decoupling, considering that the economies within the two countries have inadvertently intertwined. Therefore, none of the countries has military war coming as a priority.
Question Two
Choose two chapters (one chapter in one book) from the two selected theoretical books, introduce their main content and logical reasoning, point out which viewpoints you agree with and which viewpoints you oppose, and what are the reasons?
In Social Theory of International Politics by Alexander Wendt, in Part II of International Politics and specifically the third chapter, ‘Three cultures of anarchy,’ the author provides an important outlook on international relations. The author’s primary argument was that the international could be conceived better as a normative realm or rather international society. In this case, the states are governed by a sense of ‘obligation’ instead of competitiveness. One of his statements stipulated that ‘Anarchy is what states make of it,’ which states would interpret the international system. Therefore, Wendt introduced the concept of three cultures of anarchy which could be termed as social figurations within which a particular habit gets internalized by the citizens. The author described the three internalization degrees specifically: force, self-interests, and altruism for the respective cultures.
Specifically, the Hobbesian anarchy entailed states that interpreted or perceived others as enemies. Hence, war was a common activity similar to the pre-1648 era; the Lockean anarchy represented states that perceived others as rivals but conformed to the idea of ‘live and let live (Wendt, 1999). They acknowledged the right of others to exist similar to the post-1648 Westphalian system of sovereignty. The final one, Kantian anarchy, represented the states that cooperated. The ‘self-help’ from the Hobbesian anarchy avails a way to the ‘other help’ conception founded as a collective identity. This war is displaced with genuine cooperation, which has been a condition that has described the post-1945 universe (Wendt, 1999). Understanding these views persuasively shows that it is accurate to assert that there has never been one timeless and universal logic of anarchy in international relations. The logic and rule of anarchy in world politics rely on the interactions between the states and other actors in conjunction with the intersubjective comprehensions.
Nonetheless, an analysis of the concept and Wendt’s argument would be prudent to state that it is so far a hypothetical one. This is because the argument fails to clarify what might happen is the states encountered in another within the quasi-state if nature nor does he present any specific historical duration or a case to explain, he fails in completing the hypothetical image by explaining how the international system may move from the Hobbesian culture of hostility to rivalry in the Lockean culture. Rather, he has explored how the latter culture could be transformed into the Kantian culture of friendship. He suggests that the latter is the challenge faced by the current international system considering that whether or not the global politics have been mostly Hobbesian, states were able to escape it some years back. His exploration of how states moved from Lockean to Kantian cultures tends to be more hypothetical. He highlights minimal factors that could have led to the transformation with no particular focus on a certain case of transition.
Also, one of the primary distinctions that the author emphasizes as he describes international politics to be socially constructed is that this theory is systemic. He fails to clarify how the three cultures can happen in any other way instead of following the unit-to-unit protocols. An example is when he indicates that “Subject positions are constituted by representations of Self and Other as particular kinds of agents related in particular ways . . .” yet then indicates that “Roles are attributes of structures, not agents.” He is precise when stating that the roles are relational such that they cannot be decimated by one individual but fails to argue for the system going to beat the relation between the units.
In the book, After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy, specifically Chapter 6: A Functional Theory Of International Regimes, the author points out that conflicts of interests will pervade within the self-help system. However, the negative externalities do not preclude effective coordination among the actors. Keohane asserts that in respect to international relations, the inverted Coase theorem is more proper since if the conditions were not present, coordination would fall prey to collective action dilemmas (Keohane, 1984). The author discusses the transaction costs, which play a fundamental and complex role. If the costs are too high, no bargain could be attained, and if they are too low, the outcome may be an unending range of unstable conditions. The government’s actions are dependent on the expected effects of regimes, and hence the latter is perceived superior to the ad hoc agreements. This superiority is attributed to three reasons: legal liability, transaction costs, uncertainty and information, moral hazard, and irresponsibility.
Notably, an evident puzzle of compliance pervades this approach. Considering that the regimes cannot enforce their rules, why do states choose to comply mostly of time? There have been two arguments given. One of them is that state states value the institutions substantially to cooperate even when they do not want to maintain them. It has been noted that the oligopolists choose to do so with an understanding that cooperation is expensive, but it would be better to maintain it after it has been set up. The second argument is in the notion of networks of issues and regimes. States understand that failing to comply now could lead to retaliation by others, hence a tit for tat approach. Furthermore, states that are part of the iterated interactions worry about the reputation since it affects the opportunities for future cooperation. All that needs to be assumed is that for the mechanisms to work, then the states have valued the future interactions, and the states are keeping track of who reneges such that they are monitoring each other,
Question Three
Based on the selected theoretical content of the two chapters, explain why your chosen history is such a result? Based on the selected theoretical content of the two chapters, analyze what outcome do you think the current international situation facing China will lead to?
In the concept of anarchy as described by Alexander Wendt, the Peloponnesian War would fall under the Hobbesian culture of anarchy. This kind of anarchy is described by a struggle for dominance with present hostile relations between the involved parties. These actors will not obstruct the purposes and establish interests based on the present situation as they consider the possibility of adverse changes. Notably, this was the fact that Athens was growing powerful, and Sparta was afraid of the amount of power that could be used in the future. This war demonstrates a combination of anarchy, ruthless self-help, and power-maximizing conduct by the involved parties, leading to the primary assumption of anarchy: war. The threat of war is always present in anarchy, and every state needs to be great to defend their interstate through violence. Athens and Sparta were fighting off each other to protect what they individually considered important. Awra also included their allies since they believed in the respective goals being fought for.
Concerning the current Sino-US relations, and analysis depicts that Wendt’s constructivism provides a viable conceptual framework for understanding China’s rise from the European perspective in which the international system has been archaic. As long as the macro-level structure avoids Hobbesianism, it is possible for China to peacefully rise without its rivals such as the United States to misinterpret this rise. This is not to say that the Kantian society needs to be built where the common norms and perceptions will be securely ingrained. This process is not easy, and it is very unlikely to exist universally. This is because of the divergence in the history and cultures of dominant powers, including China and the United States. Particular elements of the system include the state’s predominance, which is deeply ingrained in the tensions between the Hobbesian and Kantian anarchies. The international system is broadly similar to the Lockean construction. In this case, the common norms will exist and reduce the egregious risks of a solely Hobbesian system. China can rise peacefully within this kind of international system, except that the double hermeneutic risk of a downward spiral doesn’t enforce the realist tendencies. However, it is important to remember that anarchy has historically not existed in a priori such that there is a hierarchy of state emerging.
References
Council on Foreign Relations. (2017, April 27). Timeline: U.S. relations with China 1949–2021. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-relations-china
Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony. Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton university press.
Strassler, R. B. (1996). The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to “The Peloponnesian War,” trans. Richard Crawley (rev. ed, 43.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics (Vol. 67). Cambridge University Press.
