International Political Science Association (IPSA) 24 th World Congress of Political Science July 23-28, 2016 -Draft Paper Outline- A Comparison of Realist and Critical Theories: A Case of the US-Saudi Arabia Relations Abstract Classical realism had an inadequacy to explain the relations between the United States (US) and Saudi Arabia until the 1970s. In the 1970s, new political and economic developments all around the world, especially in the Middle East, have been witnessed. In the light of all developments, new political and economic perspectives necessitated new approaches for explaining new international political developments with reference to neorealist and critical theories. Neo-realism emphasizes that critical theory has an idealist attitude to explain the international political events. In the case of the US-Saudi Arabia relations, neo-realism is more explanatory than criticism. This situation is analyzed with special reference to the political and social structure of the US and Saudi Arabia. Critical theory also accepts the importance of international organizations on the international politics. Besides, it pays attention to social powers and their effects on the international policy. The concept of social power includes the unions, religious groups, clans, etc. The US has a social structure based on unions and religious groups (evangelists). Saudi Arabia has a monarchy based on one family is one country. Therefore, Saudi Arabia s international policy cannot be explained with its social groups except for Wahhabism. Wahabism is official religious ideology of Saudi Arabia. For this reason, Wahhabies are not accepted as a social group with reference to critical theory. Nevertheless, neo-realist theory could explain better the US-Saudi Arabia relations when compared to critical theory. This paper emphasizes difficulties derived from the differences of social structures to explain the relations between the US and Saudi Arabia from the perspective of critical theory. It is organized in the framework of two basic questions and a comparative approach: Why does classical realism remain inadequate to explain international political developments? What are the effects of emerging of neo-realism and the critical theory in explanation of the US-Saudi Arabia relations? A. Emerging of Realism While American power rising in the world, the American policy makers needed a logic for economic expansionism. The discourse of rising American power started in 1898 at the end of the US-Spanish War. After the war, the US became an unique power for Americas. The US became a rising power in the world as defined by Paul Kennedy in the book of The Rise and
Fall of the Great Powers. Rising of the US on the world politics sparked a paradigm change. This change had social and internal dimensions. The social dimension included Anglo- Protestant culture and its effects on the social life of the US. Materialist structure of Protestantism affected the social life codes of the US. The main codes, which explained by Weber as an ethic, were making of money (Weber, 2003, 53). According to Benjamin Franklin, a man s first duty was making of money and to live honestly. These main codes promoted an American utilitarianism (Weber, 2003, 52). The American utilitarianism affected social life and politics in the US. The basic example of social life of American utilitarianism could be seen in New England Colonies in 1600s. New England s small bourgeois, crafts men and yeomen were affected by Protestant preachers (Weber, 2003, 55-56). The combination of capital and religion created a way for the world hegemony of the US. This wayfaced with a first stop as an economic aggression process. The first stage of the economic aggression was related to internal economic developments. The process beginning from 1776 to 1865 revealed that American economic hegemony and its requirements of natural resources emerged. Forming Monroe Doctrine was an important development in 1823 for the US foreign policy. This doctrine defined American isolationism period. This isolationism had two factors. The first one was the lack of military power of the US and the second one was the realignment with Britain (Sexton, 2011, 58). Insufficient military capacities forced the US to establish a relationship based on an alliance in international arena. Additionally, the changing nature of international economy and the US s economic conditions pushed the US for new commercial areas and resources. The new area would be Asia-Pacific region. As main two countries of Asia-Pacific region, China and Japan became very close commercial partner for the US in the late of 19th century. And new alliance with Britain, France, Germany and Russia emerged out a necessity for an effective army for the US. Expansion of the US s international power beginning from the 20th century was declared as an open door policy under the pressure of American Asiatic Association (AAA) and Secretary of State John Hay in 1899 (Hu, 1995, 203). This policy started in 1865 and finished in 1914. The importance of this period was to end the civil war and emerge a new economic power after World War I. After that time, in 1865, the US initiated a massive external economic breakthrough. After the US-Spanish War, the US declared its economic hegemony on Pacific region. This war led a new approach for using of military power in the US. As an important strategist for the US s expansionism Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan thought that the US s military power started to gain influence on the US s foreign policy and economic interests. Combination of military and economic powers created the US s influence in 20th century. During the World War I, the US government supported the allied powers as primarily Britain and France. When the warfinished,allied powers credit rose to 4.3 billion dollars and Britain s support of that credits was %88 (Kennedy, 1988, 268). Economic power was a basic support for the Britain s so-called weight. The last days of the war in 1918, British Chancellor of Exchequer warned the President of the US to be in a position (Kennedy, 1988, 268). This means that the US s economic supremacy was recognized by Britania. This period from 1918 to 1939 was called as an idealist era or 30 years crisis. Idealism was defined seeking a perpetual peace led by Wilsonian principles. Edward Hallet Carr criticized idealism in his book 20 Years Crisis. Carr claimed that, the seeking of perpetual peace between two world wars prepared a new world order which was seen after the WorldWar II. Idealism discourse which was declared by the US President Woodrow Wilson aimed to form a peace environment and a platform where the states came together. But 2
attempts to establish a platform for international corporation remained unsuccessful. World War II was an evidence. Wilsonian points and idealism represented that the US interests were expanding politically and economically. But these efforts remained inefficient because of the anarchic structure of international arena. This arena included a realist implementation. The first step was the classical realism era (1945-1974) which was between World War II and Vietnam War also with global oil crisis. A.1. Classical Realism The founder father of realism Hans Morgenthau set up six principles to clarify international politics and behavior of the states. Those principles are (Morgenthau, 1985, 4, 12, 14); 1) Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. 2) The main signpost that helps political realism to find its way through the land scape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power. 3) Realism assumes that its key concept of interest defined as power is an objective category that is universally valid, but it does not endow that concept with a meaning that is fixed once and for all. 4) Political realism is aware of moral significance of political action. 5) Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspriations for particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe. Realism highlights the importance of states, law and power. Also classical realism refuses the moral values. Until 1974, in which dramatic paradigm changes were impressive, international political arena was dominated by state ordered system in an anarchical international political structure. Classical realism used an American centric propaganda tool. Especially, in the era of Soviet containment, this propaganda was begun by George Kennan, to improve Middle Eastern countries and Middle European countries militarily and economically. But this political improvement was forced to change because of changes ininternational conditions. Changes started with global oil crisis which was triggered by the 1973 Arab-Israel war. These events necessitated a change in classical realism. This was the way for a new type of realism called neo-realism. A.2. Neo-Realism Neo-realism argued that the states needed each other in an anarchical international environment and that was why the international society had a structure which was formed by the states. According to Kenneth N. Waltz, known as father of neorealism, international system was a structure in which states engage each others (Waltz, 1986, 70). Waltz explained this structure with reference to the concept of hegemony inspired by Gramsci. This structure had a hierarchical nature. But in this structure, states tried to balance each others (Waltz, Anarchic Orders and Balances of Power, 1986, s. 108). The World War II and Cold War rebalanced the world order. Until Vietnam War and Oil Crisis, the US foreign policy implementations were based on using hard power and implementing economic leadership. The claims of declining American power at that time led new arguments to find new solutions for American foreign policy shortcomings. Emerging critical theory provided a new perspective to study on international politics. 3
B. Critical Theory As an important article written by Robert Cox, Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory, has brought a new approach to the analysis of international politics. In the article, Cox, argued that the social powers were basic factors for history making process. This process has affected the international politics. It was guided by social forces. For this reason, the social forces were important nucleuses for international politics and its analysis. On the contrary of neorealism, the critical theory asserted that social forces like labor forces, were significant for international political environment (Cox, 1981, 127). The fundamental criticism to neorealism was its approach to history as a fixed structure (Cox R. W., 1986, 212). Neorealism s character was deductive and its understanding of history was related to its repetition (Smith, 1999, s. 89-91). Politics could be explained by historical developments. Critical theory accepted the importance of state as well as religious groups, labor force, etc. In the cases of this paper, a comparison of realist and critical theory is aimed. This paper has two cases for research, as the US and Saudi Arabia, and their relations. The US was a centric country and Saudi Arabia was, at least until 1974, a periphery country according to world system approach. According to realists and neorealists, the relations between the US and Saudi Arabia could be evaluated with reference to two stages. The first stage was until 1974, as a pure realist era. The second stage was neorealist era which began in 1974. According to critical theory, the social forces were significant units for the assessment of the international politics which was expected to rely on the state. C. An Assessment of the Relations between the US and Saudi Arabia C.1. The US and Saudi Arabia Relations from the Realist Perspective The relations between the US and Saudi Arabia were based on classical realism. In the establishment era of Saudi Arabia, the U.S. attempted to gain influence on petroleum areas of Persian Gulf. This was the US attemptagainst British influence in the Arabian Peninsula. After 1932, the US government escalated its initiatives for new petroleum areas. In 1944, the relations between the US and Saudi Arabia had a new dimension which included military protection against Italian air raids. This was turning point for the relations. This was the time for validity of classical realism. Because, the US government had economic and military power by implementing its policy on Saudi Arabia. For Saudi Arabia, this had a meaning that the US based protectionism became visible for its own policy implementation. After the World War II, the relations between the US and Saudi Arabia produced a new era which reflected an institutionalization process. In the leadership of the US, Saudi Arabia finished its institutionalization process in the mid s of 1950s. This institutionalization process included the establishment of Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Army, Air Force, and Intelligence Service. This era could also be called asthe period of state to state relations. Except for the Suez Crisis, in 1956, the US and Saudi Arabia relations were on its way. The main policy link between the two countries was the containment of the USSR. But, after the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and the Oil Crisis changed the relations between two countries. These two crises triggered new approaches to examine the relations as neorealism and critical theory. 4
C.2. Neorealist Relations Between the US and Saudi Arabia The Oil Crisis started a discussion for American economic supremacy in the world. Before the Oil Crisis, the US had an economic supremacy generally. But the changing nature of the international political economy affected negatively the US supremacyand its foreign policy. In addition, the Vietnam War had a similar effect.the 1973 War triggered regional effects in the Middle East. Saudi Arabian government led the oil embargo that negatively affected American economy. American hard power which was relied on the army began to disappear. This was an other negative factor which affected the American hegemony in the world. These developments affected the relations between the US and Saudi Arabia. Before 1974, there was an American power in international arena. But, after 1974, there was a balance between two states. The oil made the Saudi Arabia as an important global actor. But, as neorealist theory argued, rational actors like the US and Saudi Arabia sustained many economic and military developments developments in historiacal process. C.3. Critical Theory and the Assessment of the US and Saudi Arabia Relations Social forces were very important actors for the critical theory. One of the most important social forces were religious groups. Some important religious groupsof the US were Protestants. For Saudi Arabia were Wahhabists. The two groups had deep impacts for their countries and the process of establishment. The Anglo-Protestant culture affected bureaucratic embodiment of the US. Wahhabist culture affected bureaucratic embodiment of Saudi Arabia. The protestant culture also affected the material assets like making money, working very hard and so on. Wahhabism affected the Bedouin clans with its explication of Islam. Wahhabism created Saudi Arabia, and Anglo-Protestant culture created the US. The other important group was labor force forcritical theory. But there was not any labor force which could affect the policies of the government in Saudi Arabia. For critical theory, the US and Saudi Arabia did not have any common ground. For the US, democracy and participation of civil society were important. But for Saudi Arabian monarchy, bureaucratic system had to work for the safety of monarchy. Moreover, the absence of a labor force did not affect the decision making mechanism of the state. Thus, in Saudi Arabia, there was not any effect of social forces except for the Wahhabism which affected the foreign policy and foreign policy making of Saudi Arabia. 5