A few
weeks ago, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel described the threat posed by
the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as “beyond anything that we’ve seen.” Indeed, the emergence of
groups like ISIS, al Qaeda, and Hamas, has completely changed the dynamics of
international relations in the 21st century. In order to truly understand these
newfound threats, it is necessary to evaluate the different theories of
international relations and examine how well they can explain these conflicts.
The prominence of terrorist
organizations contradicts the realist principle that only states are the major
actors in international relations. The events of September 11th,
2001 have shaped United States foreign policy over the past decade, yet Al
Qaeda did not act nor represent a major state. Furthermore, if realism could
accurately depict foreign policy in the 21st century, then terrorists groups
would only be as strong as the military power they possess. Perhaps the best
contradiction to this claim involves the use of social media by ISIS. The
release of high quality videos has not only served as propaganda to recruit
supporters across the Middle East, but also has caused an outbreak in anger and
frustration from citizens of countries such as the United States and the United
Kingdom due to the emotional and psychological impact of watching the
beheadings of James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and David Haines. The bottom line
here is that there are now tools other than military strength that can prompt a
response from a state on the international stage.
Another theory, liberalism, does a much better
job of accounting for international relations in the 21st century. Unlike
realism, liberalism takes into account the possibility of interests other than
power and security. For example, ISIS does not seek to have power over
Muslim-inhabited parts of the world merely because power is a means to
survival. Instead, there is an ideological motivation behind the desire for
power, which, in this case, is to spread and enforce strict Muslim religious
authority. Looking beyond the desire to survive and obtain security is
essential to being able to understand and predict how terrorist groups are
going to act. Liberalism also recognizes
the importance of economic power as a tool against other nations. Earlier this
summer, the U.N. Security Council threatened sanctions against states that aid
ISIS. However, many argue that these sanctions will not have a noticeable
impact, which implies that liberalism’s notion of economic power is not necessarily
universal.
Perhaps the theory that best encapsulates the conflict with
ISIS is constructivism. Ever since the end of World War II, the United States
has taken an active role in intervening abroad for both the our own interests and the need to help
other states. In his recent address to the nation, President Obama said,
“American leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world.” The United
States has taken on the identity of a global leader, and that identity
determines our course of action in international affairs. From ISIS’s perspective, constructivism
adequately explains their motives in terms of the community of the self and the
other. ISIS’s
identity is grounded in adhering to strict Sunni ideology, and they are trying
to dominate the “other,” which encompasses all areas of the world inhabited by
Muslims that do not adhere to such an ideology. However, these identities do
not exist independent of the context from which they have originated. In other
words, by defining themselves in terms of their own ideology and motives, ISIS
has created an identity for the “other” that would not exist independent from
ISIS.
While the principles of realism may have been able to depict
international relations up until the early 20th century, they are now outdated.
Liberalism better applies in the current day, as it emphasizes the
interdependence of nations. However, when it comes to the motives and actions
of terrorist groups, the constructivist concept of identity gives us the greatest
insight.
Sources:
Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.
New York: Norton,
2001, p.29-54.
Morgenthau, Hans. “Six Principles of Political Realism” in International
Politics:
Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues. edited by Robert J. Art and Robert
Jervis. 8th ed. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2007, p.7-14
Wendt, Alexander. “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The
Social Construction
of Power Politics.” International Organization 46,
no. 2 (Spring 1992): Selections.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWilliam,
ReplyDeleteAs someone who believes that constructivism does a good job of explaining ISIS, do you think that the threat ISIS poses to the United States is something can be objectively determined or something has been constructed by US policymakers? By the latter I do not mean that they do not pose a threat and Obama is lying but that the TYPE of threat is constructed. They could pose a different sort of threat if we looked at them in a different light.
Professor Shirk,
ReplyDeleteI think there is definitely something to be said for the specific type of threat being constructed. I cannot help but wonder how the leaders of the United States would present this threat to the American people had there been no terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Policymakers often imply (if not directly state) that ISIS could attack the United States homeland if they are allowed to continue to grow stronger. I think it is worth questioning whether we would view ISIS attacking the United States as such a significant threat had there not been a 9/11. Furthermore, many blame officials in both the Clinton and Bush administration for not taking the threat of al Qaeda seriously. Perhaps policymakers' responses to ISIS today are framed by how their predecessors should have responded to al Qaeda.
I agree with your comment to Professor Shirk about the impact of policymakers both today and throughout history, because we cannot look at how policy makers are acting today without understanding where the preconceived notions have come form.
ReplyDeleteI am curious to hear what you would think a feminist approach to the ISIS argument would be? I think that a combination of this and the constructivist approach would best explain why the world power interventions of ISIS are happening.
It’s great that you acknowledge that there are various form of power and the traditional measurement of power, military strength, isn’t necessarily necessary gain more power. Instead there’s also the power of pathos and being technologically literate are very efficient in recruiting new members. Successfully instilling fear into people is another form of power because if an opposing force is more powerful than you whether because of number of men, weapons, or their reputation those factors can coerce the power that is perceived as weak into doing whatever it needs to ensure its survival.
ReplyDeleteTerror groups have been a major focus of United States foreign policy and military action over the past fifteen years, and I think it is important we acknowledge that other actors besides states can drive international relations. But I also think it would be interesting to consider if any of our theories apply to their action specifically. You mentioned that ISIS has constructed their identity as an Islamic State with a mission to enforce their Muslim authority, and attacks any group that is considered "other." But is it possible that they are operating under their own liberalist principle by acting rationally and in their own self-interest to push their beliefs abroad? One could even argue that they are functioning under realist principles: by threatening larger and more powerful states they are gaining power, and they are clearly willing to do whatever is necessary to ensure their survival. Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lexie's comment that just as the United States once brought about the Democratic Peace Theory, making it its mission to spread its own principles, terrorist groups are as well. They are following the United States' own pattern of influencing other nations, taking it as far as violence if necessary, to enforce their ideals. However, perhaps due to past terrorist attacks as well as recent threats such as to British and American citizens, ISIS's approach to spreading its beliefs is ruining the message it is trying to share. People can only focus on the violence. It would be interesting to understand its underlying motives.
ReplyDelete