International system is inherently anarchic and is full of conflicts that make it highly unpredictable keeping its managers on tenterhooks. There are recognisable faultlines between the states that exist in the international system that crop up very so often. These faultlines are very natural and one cannot deny them.
Sensitivity to multiple perspectives will also allow recognising that there are always key divisions, or faultlines, within the international system. In this context the attention is drawn to the sharp divisions between rich and poor, developed and developing countries and similar issues that cause widespread differences between intention and conduct of the system. Since developed countries tend to inhabit the northern hemisphere and less developed ones are generally found in the southern hemisphere, the differences therein are usually described as North–South divide in global politics that are considered its integral ingredient.
Many issues in the international arena crop up from a general difference in perspective between developed and developing countries on international economic issues. In developed states, where standards of living are higher, people worry that jobs are and will continue to be lost in international trade to developing states, where labour is much cheaper. American workers worry about competition from China, while German and French workers worry about competition from labour in Greece or Turkey.
Northern countries also feel that southern countries, as they develop, should do their part to advance international economic cooperation by opening their markets to the products of the North. The system run by the North is based upon capitalistic values whereby every activity is measured by its profit and all activities are based upon the availability of wealth so their systems value creation of wealth.
In this context, the view from the South is different. Southern states point out that it is difficult to develop in a world economy dominated by established, rich states. Developing economies want special exceptions in international trade and they want access to Northern markets, like agriculture, even if the Northern countries do not have symmetrical access to their markets.
These debates are played out in various international forums, such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. There are, of course, different perspectives within developed and developing countries as well. In the United States, people tend to believe the government should play a more modest role in influencing the international or domestic economy than is typically expected in European countries and Japan.
In the less developed world, countries that are primarily agriculture exporters view the world economy differently than oil producers and exporters. Exporters of manufactured goods, like South Korea or Taiwan, will have adifferent perspective on trade negotiations as well.
There are also North–South divisions on environmental issues. The United States refused to ratify a global agreement on carbon emissions, the Kyoto Protocol, becauseit felt the burden of reducing emissions was not shared equally among all countries, including big developing countries like China.
Developing countries argue that the existing rich countries developed without worrying about the natural environment, and now expect today’s poorer countries to inhibit their own development due to environmental problems. Developing countries like India and China also demand aid and technology from the North to assist them in limiting emissions and adapting to the impact of climate change.
These differences are causing substantial difficulties for the global South that is resource-starved and faces uphill task to battle climate change.
There used to be an important faultlines in international relations between East and West. During the Cold War (1945–89), the world was divided between communist and non-communist countries. The Western countries viewed themselves as defending the rights of the individual and political and economic freedoms.
The communist countries generally located in the eastern part of Europe but also in Asia and Central America, viewed capitalism as exploitative and saw themselves defending social values, such as full employment and a more equitable distribution of income and wealth. Each side in this conflict viewed the other as a threat and tried to enlist the support of neutral countries to its cause. The East–West division in world politics ended in 1991with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the leader of the Eastern side.
The existence of faultlines in the international system leads to what historically has been a vexing problem in international politics particularly that of dissatisfied states. These states may remain frustrated, patiently build their power, or become aggressive in an effort to advance their relative positions. Germany, Japan, and Italy after World War I are classic cases of dissatisfied states.
Italy desired colonial possessions befitting its self-image as a great power. Germany sought respect and influence after what it considered the humiliation of the settlement that ended World War I. Japan, a vulnerable island economy, desired economic security, whichits leaders believed could be best achieved by occupying its resource-rich neighbours. The dissatisfaction of these states and their determination to rectify it was an important cause of World War II.
A dissatisfied state is potentially dangerous but it is not always easy to recognise. States may act aggressively because they are dissatisfied and intent on transforming the international system, or because they feel threatened and insecure.
During theCold War, policy makers and analysts in the Western countries continually debated whether the Soviet Union was a dissatisfied state intent on world domination, or a troubled and insecure great power that needed to control its immediate neighbourhood because it felt threatened by a more technologically advanced set of Western countries. If the Soviet Union was primarily aggressive, it needed to be contained; if it was primarily insecure, then reassurance and cooperation might be the more appropriate foreign policy.
The failure to contain an aggressive country could lead to trouble if that country believed itself free to dominate others. But an aggressive response to an insecure country could be provocative, reinforcing fear and insecurity and leading to a conflict that perhaps neither side wanted.
International affairs refer to this general problem as the security dilemma. Although it is not always easy to distinguish dissatisfied states from defensive states, it is important to do so because the stakes are very high. In today’s international system, many analysts are debating the extent to which China is a dissatisfied state that will eventually disrupt world order, a defensive state mainly seeking to resolve its internal problems and command a degree of international respect, or a satisfied state content to accept the current rules of the international order.
A similar debate is taking place at a regional level, concerning the intentions and aspirations of Iran. To some, Iran is a disruptive force seeking weapons of mass destruction but to others Iran is an insecure middle power that feels threatened by the world’s dominant power, the United States, and its powerful regional ally, Israel. The United States today is closely associated politically and militarily with Iran’s traditional enemy, Iraq. Iran and Iraq fought a costly and bloody war throughout the 1980s.
The appropriate foreign policy depends, to some extent, on whether one has a clear understanding of the perspective of the country in question.
Leave a Comment