3. Theoretical Overview. As touched upon in the initial section of the literature review this study s

Transcription

1 3. Theoretical Overview As touched upon in the initial section of the literature review this study s theoretical framework will focus on the core elements of Buzan s (1993) structural realism along with the addition of satisficing to form the customized structural realism framework. The main elements of this framework come from Buzan (1993), minus the final section on satisficing, and the more in depth descriptions of the structural realism categories, along with the customizations, which come from the author s own interpretations. A concise outline of the framework is as follows: 3.1 System: Anarchy Conflict and Cooperation The first and most crucial element is that the world of global politics is in a state of anarchy. There is no central institution that delegates and optimizes the way global affairs should be run, therefore, countries act as self governing sovereign states. As such the focus is on conflict as opposed to cooperation, however under Buzan s (1993) view, and in this study, cooperation is not completely excluded, as cooperative actions such as treaties help to preserve the anarchic system by re confirming the sovereignty of independent states. Nonetheless, anarchy is the underpinning of the entire system. Related to this system of anarchy is the general lack of trust between nations. As nations look out for their own interests, survival, security, and welfare; they must be aware that other global participants are also doing the same. Therefore, distrust is a 18

2 common concern in global affairs and a key component of the system is anarchy, irrelevant of whether the units are cooperative or in conflict. 3.2 Structure The Waltzian (1979) structure system remains relatively intact with some adjustments. Units are the core of the structure s conception as the structure is formed through the relationships and arrangement of the units (Buzan 1993). Buzan further develops the structure level with the addition of deep structure where both anarchy and hierarchy may co exist. Deep structure also consists of both international and domestic politics, including leadership effects. Most international relations (IR) theories ignore the role that domestic politics play; however this seems to be a glaring omission from some of the more prevalent contemporary theories. Leadership changes can have a major influence on the actions in a country and this can affect their role in the global realm. At times, the changes may be minor, but nonetheless changes do occur. Of course if there is a drastic regime change, then the changes could have drastic effects on their international space. 3.3 Units As in Waltz s neo realism, states retain their prominence as the most important element at the unit level. However, this does not eliminate the potential of other kinds of units, such as non government organizations (NGOs), and transnational corporations. 19

3 Additionally, not all power is reduced to the political level, as in neo realism, and even though Waltz believed that the international system will create structural uniform states, in Buzan s view of anarchy, there is room for the differentia of states, which allows the entrance of domestic political structure and resource allotment to intertwine with the external structural factors forming the double security dilemma. 6 A major element of this theoretical framework will be the greater emphasis on the unit level and the differences between the units that Buzan draws attention to, and which I have expanded upon, as well as the underlying system level of anarchy with both conflict and cooperation. To further define the difference between states I have broke them down into three main categories: developed, developing, impoverished/rogue states; along with their resource (oil) strength. As well, within these elements exists a tiered hierarchy of states. 7 The above three elements, system, structure, and units form the core of this theory and all remaining elements are engulfed around this central core, as there is no escape from these elements. The subsequent four elements and then satisficing, which is the level of each of the initial three additional elements they choose, are the outer shell of this theory (see Table 3). 6 The double security dilemma is the balancing of domestic and international issues 7 See Table 3 and subsequent definitions for a clearer representation of this 20

4 3.4 Survival From the three core elements outlined above, nations own survival must be of primary concern to each global member, as without survival there is no ability to sustain; let alone thrive in any other realm. It is this survival instinct and lack of effective global governance that forces states to put greater emphasis on their own needs, and forces nations to expand their power as is possible to ensure they do not become marginalized, or extinct. There are different levels of survival in this customized approach that range from low to high. In this case, low means the nation gives low priority to survival, which is most often in the case of already developed nations as they do not fear their ultimate demise. Overall, they have confidence in their ability to maintain their sovereignty and existence. High, on the other hand, is more likely to be a or developing nation that must place greater emphasis on merely surviving. This could be due to sovereignty issues, domestic political concerns or economic decay amongst other reasons. Nonetheless, survival remains the primary base concern, even if they register a low categorization. 3.5 Security Along with this basic survival necessity, comes the secondary need for security. Security in this sense means the ability to maintain, in a predominantly political arena, following the realist logic, what a nation already has, or hopes to achieve. For developing nations their level of security may just be basic security and welfare in the 21

5 early stages of their nation s development, while for a further advanced country this will lead to a broadening of security goals as further political and economic development has taken place. Similar to the survival aspect, this will be based on a low to high level, but not in terms of priority but more on level of security, with low meaning more basic security concerns, and high equating to broader security issues. 3.6 Welfare The third and final element, welfare, has to do with the economic pace of a country and at which speed they hope to continue their economic progress. The levels here will range from survive to thrive, as impoverished nations will be more concerned with getting on the economic ladder (Sachs 2006), hence surviving; while more developed nations may be concerned with thriving or with sustaining, relatively, their level of welfare growth. 3.7 Similar Needs, Different Abilities Different Lenses of Power Surrounding these elements is the fact that nations may have similar needs, but their abilities to accomplish their goals differ. These limitations further strengthen the distrust and security dilemma that is central in the neo realist and structural realism realm. Yet again there are differences in these needs. A developing nation may be more concerned with general survival and security, while a well developed nation will put greater emphasis on welfare maintenance as compared to break neck development. 22

6 Furthermore, their abilities will be affected by their resource (oil) strength, as oil is the lifeblood of the modern economy, as coal was previous to it. Both realism and neo realism place political power as the nucleus of all power, at the expense of other kinds of power such as economic or societal. Structural realism emphasizes the dominance of political power, however not at the complete expense of all other forms of power. This study will follow the structural realism lead of breaking away from the narrow lens of only political power and encompass a wider range of lenses to view the elements that shape the choices within. So even though political (military) power remains the core, economic power is not far behind in the power hierarchy, as the world is in an age of globalization and economic interdependence that will not disperse easily. Related to this element, is the power that comes from resources that are necessary to the first two elements of political and economic power. These are all considered more elements of hard power, yet at the same time soft power elements such as influence and global prestige still play a role, albeit a lesser role than the aforementioned hard power elements Satisficing The element of satisficing will be used as the final element of the theoretical framework because as described above structural realism does not break everything down to political power. Inside this framework, a nation must decide if achieving 8 Soft power as developed by Nye (1990, 2004) is the capacity to get your desired results through your influence and magnetism over others causing them to now desire your goals, while hard power is the use of economic and military supremacy to force others to follow your lead 23

7 numerous sub optimal (yet still beneficial) goals is better then achieving maximum potential in one area at the expense of others, or to leave the system unchanged. Power and interdependence are not thought of as mutual exclusive (Buzan 1993) and by using more lenses to view the international system this study suggests satisficing to help break down this wider scope, as nations will be unable to maximize its benefits at every lens. Thus, there will have to be trade offs to find a suitable overall level. The preceding elements of structural realism along with satisficing give a more clear depiction of the customized structural realism framework that will be used in this study. To further clarify how this theory will be used the following matrix has been designed to bring a clear concept of the theory and its design. In the data analysis chapter the matrix will be analyzed and the elements explained within the scope of this study. 24

8 Table 2.1 Framework of Customized Structural Realism Matrix Priority (From most important to least) power States Survival (low high) Security (low high) Welfare (survive thrive) rich Superpower US Second tier rich UK developed Japan, Germany, countries France Third tier developed countries rich Norway, Denmark, Canada #2, Iceland, to #30, Czech Rep. Powerful rich Russia developing countries China, India, Brazil Second tier rich OPEC nations developing #31, Barbados, to countries #146, Swaziland rich Selected African Impoverished and Asian nations* #147, Togo, to #177, Niger rich Rogue N. Korea, Afghanistan * See Table 4 for list of oil rich countries From looking at the above matrix you can see that nations are divided along three lines: 1. Level of development (impoverished/rogue, developing, developed) 2. Level of Influence (tier system) 3. Level of s (resource rich or ) 25

9 Development level (developed, developing or impoverished/rogue) is based on the UN Human Development Index Data (2006), and the authors own determination. I have broken down the groups into developed which are generally countries with approximately $20,000 or above GDP/capita and all countries inside the top thirty of the UN Human Development Index (UNHDI). The next group, developing, is from country thirty one, Barbados, to country one hundred and forty six, Swaziland. These nations in general have GDP/capita in the range of $2,000 to less than $20,000. This developing category is also the category with the largest amount of nations. The final grouping is considered impoverished and these are the remaining nations on the UNHDI and are mostly located in sub Saharan Africa, with GDP/capita under $2,000. Included in this group is rogue, which will not be analyzed in the customized framework due to uncertainty over their proper classification because of unclear statistics and reports from these nations. See Appendix 1 for the full list of nations, and the HDI and GDP/capita figures. Level of influence, or tiers, are based on a combination of hard and soft power. However, these are determined at the author s discretion. Tiers are a measure of influence "carrots and sticks". rich/ is based on a nation's oil balance. If a country has the ability to be self sufficient in oil then they are considered resource rich. At the present time, oil is the main resource of the modern economy, and in a historical context it would be coal in the post industrial revolution era until post World War II. The following table gives a geographical overview of where the resource rich countries are situated. As well, see 26

10 Appendix 2 for the data tables further explaining the designation as resource rich or. Table 3.2: Oil Rich Countries North America Canada Mexico South and Central America Europe and Eurasia Middle East Africa Asia Pacific Argentina Colombia Ecuador Azerbaijan Denmark Kazakhstan Norway Iran Iraq Kuwait Oman Qatar Algeria Angola Cameroon Chad Rep. of Congo (Brazzaville) Egypt Brunei Indonesia Trinidad & Tobago Venezuela Russian Federation Turkmenistan United Kingdom Saudi Arabia Syria United Arab Emirates Yemen Equatorial Guinea Gabon Libya Nigeria Sudan Tunisia Malaysia Vietnam * Countries listed in bold are members of OPEC ** United Kingdom still qualified even though in 2006 it had an oil deficit. In the proceeding years they had an oil surplus, along with their North Sea leases, the author decided to include them For now this should give a better understand of the groupings, the nations within them, as well as the three priority choices that they must make. In the conclusion section I will fill in the matrix to see the affect it has on Canada China relations. 27

11 3.9 Rationale Behind Theory Selection The main criteria in selecting this customized structural realism approach is that it works to combine elements of the leading realist and neo liberalist viewpoints to come up with a wider look at contemporary international relations. As well, by retaining the main elements of structural realism, yet customizing the areas that I feel needed further descriptions and a different viewpoint, I feel this theory works as a strong compliment to other studies in this field. As well, be looking at the differences between states and the differences in power this should allow for a more clear view of any historical situation as depending on their specific differences, the various scenarios should be able to be explained. Along with this, by adding the resource element, currently oil, previously coal; this opens up a historical viewpoint as there always has been some key resource, finite or not, that has been the life blood of the system. 28