Theory, practice of international relations and trends in 2021
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@hotmail.com and tweets @20_Inam
International Relations (IR) has seen some tumultuous period thanks to one cataclysmic event after another in the last 100 years or so. From the World Wars (1914-1918 and 1939-1945) onwards, major IR milestones can be identified as formation of the United Nations in 1945, Korean War (1950-1953), Suez Crisis (1956), Arab-Israel Wars (1947, 1967, 1973), creation of Bangladesh (1971), Iranian Revolution (1978…), Soviet Afghan War (1979-1989), Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), Cold war 1.0 and the breakup of Soviet Union (1989-1991), First Gulf War (1991), US/NATO-Afghan War (2001-2021), and the 2nd Gulf War (2003-2011), etc.
However, the above human-engineered incidents are also buttressed by events like climate change, global warming, calamities and pandemics… Covid-19 (2020…) being the latest. IT revolutions and the advent of microchip in mid-20th Century (1956) impacted greatly on human life and human/inter-state relations.
IR is considered a combination of foreign policy and diplomacy. In narrow sense, IR stipulates interaction between/among nation states, whereas, its broader manifestation is the ‘totality of interactions between, below or above nation states including communities, peoples and organisations, etc. Foreign policy, on the other hand, is ‘a systematic statement of deliberately selected national interests’. Whereas, diplomacy is considered a tool of foreign policy.
It is good to know that Pakistan’s first National Security Policy is in the offing, after some 70 years with multiple drafts repeatedly shelved in the past. This would be a big triumph for the National Security Division and all related entities (34) besides Joint Staff HQ, Services HQs and academia/NDU. The document is expected to firmly state national purpose, national objectives and national interests (vital, primary, secondary, permanent, variable, general and peripheral) etc. A yearly review is prescribed to harness changes in the global, regional and domestic environment.
IR stuck to its traditional view up to the end of First WW, when it was focused upon historical description of events. After WW-I, the focus shifted to current affairs. After the Second WW, IR analysis spanned scientific understanding of the causes of conflict. Its current and modernist view is broad in meaning, scope and extents; is multi-disciplinary and multi-dimensional; and spans multiplicity of actors i.e. states, people, societies and institutions. IR today deals with diverse issues impacting upon national interest, power politics, international institutions, global politics/trade and commerce, international/corporate law and multinational organisations, etc.
In a broad survey of approaches and theories to the IR, ‘Positivist’ Theory, involves liberalism, realism and humanist approaches (putting a premium on centrality of human values/human rights), while taking a linear view of history. The ‘Post-Positivist’ Theory deals with international society and social constructivism. It opposes the notion of ‘power’ being ‘just there’. The theory gives weightage to the broad human construct (beliefs/cultural practices), institutions and collective identities. The ‘Post-Structuralist’ Theory deals with issues like feminism, post-colonialism, etc. It tries to redefine power as a construct.
However, we are at the cusp of a new context in the IR. Just a little before the Covid-19, the world under the bonhomie of WTO and EU was jubilant in economic and political integration and globalisation. The competing strands of ethnicity, technology, finance, media and ideas were all working towards this cherished integration. Regionalism and localism were effectively contained; at least that was the perception. Not anymore. Today non-traditional issues (health, migration and emigration, trade and commerce, climate change, sustainable development, inequality, intellectual property) dominate the agenda. And the advent of non-state actors has changed the nature of power (military, economic and smart).
Diplomacy, the art of negotiation, and an effective and tested IR tool is also under transformation on two accounts. First, its nimbleness and softer side is changing into a hardwired format. It is giving in to sanctions, unilateral/imposed/agenda wars and other coercive measures, mostly targeting the already weak and the poor. Non-recognition of the present Afghan government by even the stalwarts of Muslim Ummah, without the US/Western blessing, is a case in point. Diplomatic tools like tact, skillful persuasion, adjustment, allegiances, alliances and agreements, etc are backseat. Diplomatic protocol and etiquette, diplomatic correspondence, messaging and media skills, and diplomatic language, etc are at times, a brazen casualty. The changing face of diplomacy now transforms from ‘secrecy to nakedness/brazenness’.
Second, diplomats are under pressure for quality and acumen. As against the ‘traditional view’ of ‘state-centred approach’ in diplomacy, that related to government-to-government relations (primarily in the realm of geo-strategy and security), dealing with limited actors; war and peace; balance of power, territorial disputes, and alliances, etc; the ‘modernist view’ of diplomacy integrates a plethora of subjects. Its seemingly unlimited canvas encompasses from democracy to human rights, culture to agriculture, climate change to economic development, biotechnology to cooperative networks, private sector to civil society, etc.
Its newer frontiers are now economic diplomacy, digital diplomacy, public diplomacy, cultural diplomacy (China, Russia), diaspora diplomacy, etc. Use of ‘nakedness’ through ‘disruptive technologies and informatics’ during negotiations is generally another tough ask. No wonder, our foreign office needs to do a lot of catching up and do it fast and do it regularly.
From the above theoretical framework, what can we forecast? Last year, US Council of Foreign Relations identified growing costs for pandemic preparedness by national governments; increased cost because of/and to fight climate change; dependence of future medical trade upon a functional and dependable global supply chain; and growing gap between a younger population and aging leaders in Africa, as some trends to watch in 2021. The list remained inconclusive.
Year 2022 is likely to see continuation of cold hostility between the US and China for global leadership. Block politics would see relative consolidation, given the exponential expense by China through Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), in mostly poor countries. New variants of Coronavirus would keep rattling the US and Europe in particular, continuing shifting of trade and commerce towards East/South. Covid-related restrictions would cause unrest among vast segments of global population. Dissatisfaction with national leaders (perceived as under-performers) would grow. International air travel/tourism would shift domestically. Worldwide economic recovery would remain erratic. Global hotspots like Afghanistan, Middle East, South Asia, South China Sea, Ukraine, Africa, etc would remain hostage to a single-event trigger. Big data control, manipulation and privacy concerns would keep technology giants like Amazon, Facebook, etc under pressure.
However, believing that His rehmat (blessings) eclipses His zehmat (annoyance), let us wish all a happy New Year.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 30th, 2021.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.