You are on page 1of 13

FOA 42 INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AND TERRITORIAL CONFLICTS

I. Definition

International Politics according to H.J. Morgenthau, “International Politics include


analysis of political relations and problems of peace among nations. Further he writes,
It “is struggle for and use of power among nations.” According to Charles Schleicher,
“All interstate relations are included in international politics, through all the inter-state
relations are not political.” International Politics as an academic discipline is of a recent
origin. This discipline is so new that it can be called as the ‘youngest of all the social
sciences’. It is dynamic in nature. In the present time, the need to tackle environmental
problems, growing international terrorism, violation of Human Rights, Nuclear non-
proliferation, unjust economic order, negative impacts of globalization as well as the
necessity for reconstructing or reforming UN, IMF,WTO, International power structure,
etc. has been keeping the discipline on an development path.

International Relations is conventionally thought of as competition over political or


governmental office, ideas, policies, and resources across or between states. Here,
international relations is viewed as the process by which foreign policy leaders
balance their ambition to pursue particular policy objectives vis-à-vis other states
against their need to avoid internal and external threats to their political survival.
Strictly defined, the of international relations concerns the relationships among world
governments. But these relationships cannot be understood in isolation. They are
closely related or connected with other actors (such as international organization,
multi-national corporations, and individuals); with other social structures ( including
economics, culture, and domestic politics); and with geographical and historical
influences.

Difference in their subject matter International relations is a comprehensive


concept and all type of political, non-
political, social, economic, cultural, legal,
governmental and non-governmental
relations etc. are its subject matter. In
comparison to it the relation of international
politics is with the power struggle going on
among different nations as every state weak
or strong wants to spread its influence over
other nations.

Difference in the method of study Explanatory method is used for the study of
International Relations whereas analytical
method is used for the study of International
politics
Difference in their objectives The ultimate aim of International Relations
is the establishment of International peace
and for the fulfillment of this objective
principles are laid down and mutual inter
course are promoted among different
nations. In comparison to it, International
politics is ‘struggle for power’ and for the
fulfillment of this purpose different nations
encourage conflicts and wars and keep on
making political maneuvers.

National Interest is the set of objectives that enhances the welfare of the state. Usually
the national interest is thought of in terms of protecting sovereignty, maximizing
security or power, and improving national wealth. When two or more issues are linked
together there may be many conflicting views of the national interest.

National Security is the requirement to maintain the survival of the state through the
use of economic power, diplomacy, power projection and political power. The
concept developed mostly in the United States after World War II. Initially focusing
on military might, it now encompasses a broad range of facets, all of which impinge
on the non military or economic security of the nation and the values espoused by
the national society. Accordingly, in order to possess national security, a nation
needs to possess economic security, energy security, environmental security, etc.
Security threats involve not only conventional foes such as other nation-states but
also non-state actors such as violent non-state actors, narcotic cartels, multinational
corporations and non-governmental organizations; some authorities include natural
disasters and events causing severe environmental damage in this category.

Territorial Integrity refers to the protection of an independent state’s territory from


aggression of other states. It is generally rightly said that the principle of territorial
integrity prohibits dismemberment of states, violation or use of force against their
territory, intervention and interference in internal affairs, etc. But the principle of
territorial integrity is more than that. In fact in essence the principle of territorial integrity
is intimately linked to the state as a legal entity the main objective of which is to ensure
its perennial existence within a specific territory whose borders have been established
in accordance with International Law. The emergence of International Law is closely
connected with the formation of independent states. It is intended to govern the
conduct of independent states in their relationship with one another via norms and
main principles. The main documents on the contents of principles of modern
International Law are the 1970 UN Declaration of Principles of International Law and
the 1975 OSCE Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations between Participating
States. Thus, territorial integrity is related to the relations among sovereign
independent states.

Hegemony is the holding by one state of a preponderance of power in the international


system, so that it can single-handedly dominate the rules and arrangements by which
international political and economic relations are conducted. It is the Leadership or
dominance in the international system, usually (but not always) associated with a
particular state. Gramscian theorists use the term to connote not only dominance but
also the complex of “ideas” social groups use to legitimize their authority

Imperialism is derived from the Latin word imperium it refers to the relationship of a
hegemonic state to subordinate states, nations or peoples under its control. An
imperial policy therefore usually means a deliberate projection of a state's power
beyond the area of its original jurisdiction with the object of forming one coherent
political and administrative unit under the control of the hegemon. This assertion of
dominance is associated with, but can be distinguished from, colonialism. An empire
can result in full economic and political integration of its subjects in the form of a
supranational entity whereas colonies are separate and subordinate by definition. In
practice though, the two concepts often overlap.

Colonialism is a variety of imperialism. It involves the settlement of foreign territories,


the maintenance of rule over a subordinate population and the separation of the ruling
group from the subject population. It has both formal and informal aspects. Formally
it means the practice of one country controlling another by military, economic and/or
political means, usually with the use of, or threat of, violence and local territorial
infrastructures. Informally it can mean the exploitation or oppression of less developed
and weaker countries by more developed and stronger ones through global structures
such as international institutions. It is one of the key component of Marxist and
postcolonial theories of IR.

Imperialism Colonialism
Tends to be military and political Tends to be economic and cultural
dominance

Entering a territory

Aggression is an attack by one state on another that is unwarranted in any one or


more of three respects: politics, law, and morality. At all these levels there is often
disagreement as to whether an attack is warranted or not. The UN has tried to clarify
the matter by seeking a definition of aggression and in 1974 its *General Assembly
managed to agree on one by *consensus. But the eight-article definition still left much
scope for argument, in any particular case, about its proper interpretation and
application.

Secession is defined by Mayall (1990) as the mirror image of irredentism, the term
refers to the political expression of separation by the inhabitants of a region from some
pre-existing state structure. Secessionist sentiments may therefore be seen as
indicative of the rejection of some of the most basic ground rules of the state-system
in favor of nationalism that owes more to ideas about kinship and ethnicity. Modern
examples of secessionist movements that challenged existing state structures are
Biafra and Bangladesh, while at the time of writing secessionism has produced the
complete demise of the state of Yugoslavia. As all three instances quoted above show,
secession is rarely attempted or achieved through peaceful change. A more typical
outcome is civil war. The association of secessionist politics with violence and
communal conflict can be anticipated from the previous discussion. Since secession
represents such a powerful centrifugal challenge to state-centrism, secessionist
tendencies and factions will be resisted by political authorities at the center.

A non-international (or "internal") armed conflict refers to a situation of violence


involving protracted armed confrontations between government forces and one or
more organized armed groups, or between such groups themselves, arising on the
territory of a State. In contrast to an international armed conflict, which opposes the
armed forces of States, in a non-international armed conflict at least one of the two
opposing sides is a non-State armed group. The existence of a non-international
armed conflict triggers the application of international humanitarian law (IHL), also
known as the law of armed conflict, which sets limits on how the parties may conduct
hostilities and protects all persons affected by the conflict. IHL imposes obligations on
both sides of the conflict equally, though without conferring any legal status on the
armed opposition groups involved. How is this different from civil war? The term "civil
war" has no legal meaning as such. It is used by some to refer to a non-international
armed conflict. Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions – called "common"
because it is identical in each of the four Geneva Conventions – does not use the term
"civil war," but refers instead to "armed conflict not of an international character." The
ICRC generally avoids using the term "civil war" when communicating with the parties
to an armed conflict or publicly, and speaks instead of "non-international" or "internal"
armed conflicts, as these expressions mirror the terms used in common Article 3.

Irredentism is a form of nationalism whose goal is the regaining of territory lost to


another state; it can lead directly to violent interstate conflicts. Because of their
association with the integrity of states, territories are valued far beyond any inherent
economic or strategic value they hold. For example, after Israel and Egypt made
peace in 1978, it took them a decade to settle a border dispute at Taba, a tiny plot
beachfront on which Israeli developers built a hotel just slightly across the old border.
The two states finally submitted the issue for binding arbitration, and Egypt ended up
in possession. For Egypt, regaining every inch of territory was a matter of national
honor and a symbol of the sovereignty and territorial integrity that defined Egyptian
statehood.

Border Conflict is when two governments or more do not agree on the location of the
border between their lands or a disagreement between countries about where the
border between them should be drawn. An example is Pakistan and India over the
territory of Kashmir. An historical example is the Honey War between Iowa and
Missouri.
Conflict Resolution is the development and implementation of peaceful strategies for
settling conflicts. It is a way for two or more parties to find a peaceful solution to a
disagreement among them. The disagreement may be personal, financial, political, or
emotional. When a dispute arises, often the best course of action is negotiation to
resolve the disagreement.

Arbitration is the process when both sides agree in advance to abide by a solution
devised by a mediator. It is the settlement of a dispute through reference to an arbitral
tribunal established ad hoc, the members of which may possibly be selected from the
(misleadingly called) Permanent Court of Arbitration. An arbitral tribunal may also be
established to deal with a class of disputes that have arisen or may be expected to
arise out of a particular situation. Except to the extent to which two or more states
have agreed in advance that a specified class of disputes shall be taken to compulsory
arbitration, this device for pacific settlement can only be used when the parties agree
to it. The agreement by which this is done is called a compromis. International
arbitration is generally conducted on the basis of international law, in which case it is
in substance akin to adjudication or judicial settlement. But if they wish, states
resorting to arbitration may provide that it proceed somewhat in the manner of
mediation or ex aequo et bono. Arbitration is an arrangement of great antiquity.
Internationally, it was most notably used between the late eighteenth century and
about 1930. Since then, established arrangements for judicial settlement have been
widely regarded as the most appropriate means for the settlement of international
disputes on the basis of law. But for reasons of expedition, cost, and the technicality
of some disputes, arbitration continues to be used by states.

Good Offices (1) Diplomatic intervention by a neutral third party (or ‘facilitator’) in an
international or intrastate conflict which is usually limited to providing assistance in
bringing the rival parties into direct negotiations but may extend to suggesting a
formula for a settlement. Good offices (bons offices) do not, however, extend to active
participation in discussions once they are beyond the procedural stage; if this
develops, as sometimes happens, the provision of good offices has changed into
mediation. In his Guide to Diplomatic Practice, where he devoted separate chapters
to ‘good offices’ and ‘mediation’, Satow was rightly impatient with those who could not
grasp this distinction, and added the acute observation that, unlike mediation, good
offices could be exerted at the request of only one party to a dispute, ‘since the
essential character of such a step is the presentation to the other party of reasons for
a particular course of action which he is invited to take into consideration and adopt’.
This is the earlier notion of good offices. See also venue.
(2) A synonym for mediation. Support for this usage pre-dated Satow and is now,
largely thanks to the UN, widespread. Gone is the separate chapter on good offices
in the latest edition of Satow’s Guide and the extremely active role of the UN
Secretary-General in the Cyprus conflict is officially described as his ‘mission of good
offices’.

Mediation is the use of a third party (or parties) in a conflict resolution. There is no
hard-and-fast rule saying what kinds of third parties mediate what kinds of conflicts.
Presently, the UN is the most important mediator in the world scene. Some regional
conflicts are mediated through regional organizations, single states, or even private
individuals. For instance, the former president of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias, won the
1987 Nobel peace prize for mediating a multi-lateral agreement among Central
American presidents to end several brutal wars in the region. Some mediation is
strictly technical and some mediators can also actively propose solutions based on
the assessment of each side’s demands and interests.

Collective Security is an agreement between states specifying that each participant


will come to the assistance of any other participant if it is attacked. It is a joint effort by
two or more parties in pursuit if a common objective. In other words, it is the formation
of a broad alliance of most major actors in an international system for the purpose of
jointly opposing aggression by any actor; sometimes seen as presupposing the
existence of a universal organization to which both the aggressor and its opponents
belong.

Hard and Soft Power


Power is one of the more contestable concepts in political theory, but it is conventional
and convenient to define it as “the ability to effect the outcomes you want and, if
necessary, to change the behavior of others to make this happen.” (Joseph S. Nye,
Jr.) In recent decades, scholars and commentators have chosen to distinguish
between two kinds of power, “hard” and “soft.” The former, hard power, is achieved
through military threat or use, and by means of economic menace or reward. The latter,
soft power, is the ability to have influence by co-opting others to share some of one’s
values and, as a consequence, to share some key elements on one’s agenda for
international order and security. Whereas hard power obliges its addressees to
consider their interests in terms mainly of calculable costs and benefits, principally the
former, soft power works through the persuasive potency of ideas that foreigners find
attractive.

II. Using imagination and reasoning, try to relate the following terms to a situation of
territorial conflict between a big nation-state (major power) and a small nation-
state: hegemony, aggression, national security, territorial integrity, national
interest, hard power and soft power.

Power in international politics is like the weather. Everyone talks about it, but few
understand it. Just as farmers and meteorologists try to forecast storms, so do
leaders and analysts try to understand the dynamics of major changes in the
distribution of power among nations. Power transitions affect the fortunes of
individual nations and are often associated with the cataclysmic storms of world
war. Power is the ability to achieve one’s purposes or goals. The dictionary tells us
that it is the ability to do things and to control others. Robert Dahl, a leading political
scientist, defines power as the ability to get others to do what they otherwise would
not do. Knowing in advance how other people or nations would behave in the
absence of our efforts is often difficult. Political leaders also commonly define
power as the possession of resources. These resources include population,
territory, natural resources, economic size, military forces, and political stability,
among others. The virtue of this definition is that it makes power appear more
concrete, measurable, and predictable than does the behavioral definition. Power
in this sense means holding the high cards in the international poker game. A basic
rule of poker is that if your opponent is showing cards that can beat anything you
hold, fold your hand. If you know you will lose a war, don’t start it. Power is not only
isolated to the measurement of force, but power is classified into two types. Hard
power is the use of military and economic means to influence the behavior or
interests of other political bodies. This form of political power is often aggressive
(coercion), and is most immediately effective when imposed by one political body
upon another of lesser military and/or economic power. Soft powers on the other
hand, is the ability to shape the preferences of others through appeal and attraction.
A defining feature of soft power is that it is non-coercive; the currency of soft power
is culture, political values, and foreign policies. However, no matter how power is
measured, an equal distribution of power among major states is relatively rare.
More often the processes of uneven growth, which realists consider a basic law of
international politics, mean that some states will be rising and others declining.
These transitions in the distribution of power stimulate statesmen to form alliances,
to build armies, and to take risks that balance or check rising powers. But the
balancing of power does not always prevent the emergence of a dominant state.
Using these two forms of power, China rises as a regional hegemon and analyst
predict that it can take over the crown from the US. While the US has steadily been
on the wane, China has risen up to establish itself as a new significant powerhouse
on the global stage. There has been “China awareness” worldwide. TV programs
and news articles on China have become commonplace. Given the strength of its
sheer size and enormous population, its dramatic economic growth and overseas
direct investment, its influence on and close relationship with several key countries,
and its domestic consolidated polity and strong commitment to unity, many even
ascertain that China will succeed the US as the global hegemon within the next 10
or 20 years and that its reign will change the world in the most profound ways.
Great powers typically dominate their regions in their quest for security. They
develop and wield tremendous economic power. They build massive militaries,
expel external rivals, and use regional institutions and cultural programs to
entrench their influence. Because hegemons fear that neighboring countries will
allow external rivals to establish a military foothold, they develop a profound
interest in the domestic politics of their neighborhood, and even seek to spread
their culture to draw other countries closer. However, its domination over south
east Asian countries have made them a “Chinese colony”. Sovereignty I believe is
the promotion of national interest, protection of territorial integrity, and
maintenance of national security of a nation-state. But it seems that these
southeast Asian countries are pinnochios who wants and makes themselves
believe they’re a real boy but it is controlled like a puppet by China. Countries like
Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, Philippines, etc. has fell
into the trap of China in letting them meddle with domestic decisions in exchange
for the security of south east Asian countries. This makes them powerless
especially when conflicts arises between China and theses South east Asian
countries since their power to fight against China is absorbed by China.
International court decisions have no power because domestic law is controlled by
the “colonizers”. It is a very sad moment for Philippines when the disputed islands
were freely “borrowed” by China because the government receives aids from
China. How is the weight of the money from China heavier than the Philippines
integrity? How are we willing to give up what is ours to satisfy China’s needs? Is it
part of the strategies of the foreign diplomats?

The Philippines-China relations,


as described by Alan Peter
Cayetano, is in their “golden
period”. China’s soft loans and
grants, aid pledges, loans,
investments, and help to the
Philippines will be able to fund the
administration to help ease
poverty in the country. Liza Maza,
head of the National Anti-Poverty
Commission allegedly helped lift
700 million from poverty and
China is very keen on doing it. However, this regional hegemon who has a realist
approach won’t use their own resources for their moral upliftment. It has been a
pattern that China have been lending massive amount of money knowing these
small countries cannot repay and use it as its leverage to “colonize” them in a bid
for world domination. Developing countries from Pakistan to Djibouti, the Maldives
to Fiji, all owe huge amounts to China. Already there are examples of defaulters
being pressured into surrendering control of assets or allowing military bases on
their land. Some are calling it "debt-trap diplomacy" or "debt colonialism" - offering
enticing loans to countries unable to repay, and then demanding concessions
when they default. Sri Lanka provided a prime example last year. Owing more than
$1billion (£786million) in debts to China, Sri Lanka handed over a port to
companies owned by the Chinese government on a 99-year lease. A report from
The Center for Global Development offers some insight into the spreading China
debt. It shows how infrastructure project loans to the likes of Mongolia, Montenegro
and Laos have resulted in millions or even billions in debts, which often account
for huge percentages of the countries' GDPs. Many of these projects are linked to
the "Belt and Road" initiative - a bold project to create trade routes through huge
swathes of Eurasia, with China at the centre. Participating countries often
undertake work on roads and ports with part-funding from China. More recently,
China's debt empire has been rearing its head in the Pacific, prompting fears the
country intends to leverage the debt to expand its military footprint into the South
Pacific. Recently, President Duterte signed 29 deals within his 2 days visit most of
which are economic in nature that could only hurt the Philippines in the long run.
Beijing's creation of man-made islands in the disputed South China Sea for use as
military bases suggests the concern may be warranted. China’s dealing with the
Philippines and other countries may scar the integrity of the country as it is dealing
with a power that they are far too much to handle. What small countries should do
is to hold hands and shake against from the hegemonic China. The combining
powers of these small countries may able to stand against the hegemonic nature
of China and promote their own sovereignty. The Philippines should also claim
what is rightfully theirs and to stop taking China as a Godly figure. The country
should acknowledge and take action with the ruling to prevent China from
legitimizing their excessive and expansive claims in adjacent waters. The
Philippines should take pride and honor in not only protecting the mother land but
also not staining the Filipinos name by going under China.

III. Read: “10 Conflicts to Watch in 2018” in http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/02/10-


conflicts-to-watch-in-2018/. What are the trends under the Trump presidency,
according to the author Robert Malley. Describe and comment, if you would, on
the Conflicts mentioned that are occurring in Asia. Do you think Malley erred in
not mentioning the South China Sea territorial conflict?

While it is still early days for the Trump administration, it is possible to sketch the
development of an ‘America First’ world-view and foreign policy. In terms of
security strategy, there is an interesting cleavage emerging between the
President’s rhetoric and foreign policy reality. Rhetorically, he has clearly drawn
from the American grand strategic tradition of retrenchment that seeks to
rebalance the US’s sprawling global defense commitments or pass the buck to
regional states. The United States has grown incapable of moderating its ambitions
choosing to pursue a globally expansive grand strategy which is unnecessary,
counterproductive, costly, and wasteful. America should, instead, forgo any
ambitions that are not directly related to immediate national interests. In explaining
how the United States has become the underwriter for global regimes, Malley
traces US ambitions back to a domestic ideology of liberal internationalist
globalism that seeks to fashion a world order in America’s own image and spread
free-market democracy around the globe using its overwhelming military primacy.
From this perspective, US intervention and global engagement is a choice driven
not by national security need but by a (mistaken) globalist ideology that has seen
it militarily overcommit, make itself a target of global ire and neglect pressing
domestic concerns. The United States now has the luxury of choice: it can decide
to reverse its course and abandon its ideologically driven mission to craft the world
in its own liberal democratic image.
Robert Malley sees the growing militarization of foreign policy as the second trend
because of Trump’s disregard for diplomats and sees the elements of hard power
as a strong ground for what he is trying to grow. First, Trump is sabotaging
American diplomacy. Backed by America's economy and unrivaled military might,
diplomacy is the greatest tool in America's national security arsenal. It saved the
world from the Cuban Missile Crisis, brokered peace between Israel and Egypt,
stopped Iran from getting nuclear weapons, and has halted countless bloody
conflicts. Despite this, Trump has rendered U.S. diplomacy impotent.
He's called for cutting the State Department budget by almost a third and won't
appoint senior officials. More fundamentally, there is no value for foreign friends or
adversaries to trust an American counterpart when the recklessness, unreliability
and danger of the U.S. president is on display for the world to see. When the
president tells the world that his secretary of state should stop trying to find a
diplomatic solution to a nuclear-armed North Korea, the president has unilaterally
disarmed American foreign policy. Second, Trump has surrounded himself with a
praetorian guard of military men. Four of the nation's five most important national
security positions – the White House chief of staff, secretary of defense, national
security advisor and deputy national security advisor – are retired or active duty
military officials. Military officials can be excellent policymakers, but like everyone
their experiences shape their world views. When most of the senior national
security team comes from the military, it's likely that policies will be shaped through
that prism. Third, Trump is quietly increasing U.S. military operations around the
globe. The tragedy in Niger and the revelation that there are roughly 1,000 U.S.
troops stationed there was news to some members of Congress, let alone the
American people. Just two months ago Trump announced the expansion of the
U.S. war in Afghanistan, and it was barely noticed by the public. From Yemen to
Syria to Africa and beyond, the U.S. military has ramped upoperations under
Trump. It is not hard to connect the dots between this trend and the fact that military
officers are running U.S. national security policy. What are the results of all of this?
Trump ripped up the diplomatic deal preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,
increasing the likelihood of another conflict in the Middle East. He is looking at
options for war with North Korea while eschewing attempts at diplomacy. This
trend will result in a reduction of U.S. power as allies and partners reject repeated
and unnecessary U.S. military approaches, while also endangering the lives of U.S.
troops in new, avoidable conflicts. Most of all, it will corrode the principle of civilian
control of government and with it one of the most important tenets of American
democracy. As Eisenhower said of the military-industrial complex, "We must never
let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
We should take nothing for granted." At the moment, we're failing Ike, and our
country.

Third is the erosion of multilateralism. Many countries, including allies, have long
resented the contradictory role the United States plays in multilateral efforts. Nearly
100 years ago, President Woodrow Wilson drove the creation of the League of
Nations. And yet he could not persuade the Senate to ratify the Treaty of Versailles,
fatally wounding the league. This was later compounded by tariff wars that
worsened the Great Depression and fueled the nationalism that launched World
War II. The catastrophic horrors of the war convinced US leaders that strong
multilateral institutions—economic and political—would be good for global peace,
security, and prosperity, and for the United States. That view held for decades,
under Democratic and Republican presidents and Senate majorities, as the United
States drove the negotiation and implementation of accords creating the United
Nations, world trade and finance arrangements, the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, regional defense treaties like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), and arms control agreements like the Non-Proliferation Treaty. These
actions were spurred by the belief that multilateral cooperation could promote
security and prosperity, lessons derived from the failure of the League of Nations
and the ruin caused by destructive trade wars, and by a desire to show US moral
leadership. That approach continued after the Cold War’s end, as the United
States led the creation of the World Trade Organization, numerous trade accords,
and the expansion of NATO as a security guarantor for Europe. The United States
also supported and often ran (or tried to run) treaty implementation organizations
and became—and remains—the leading funder of the entire UN system. The
danger for the United States and for the cause of peace and security through
multilateral action is real. The administration’s supporters argue that the United
States needs to act in its own interest and make decisions that are good for the
United States. But the lessons of the past tell us that unilateral actions aren’t in our
own interest. The worst-case scenario is that US undermining of multilateral
institutions starts a spiraling out of control that leads to war or conflagration, or just
a meaner and less secure world. But it is also possible that others in the world will
simply move on without us, and other countries—like China—will step up to take
leadership of the political, economic, and security structures that set the rules for
how countries operate in the world, imposing their norms and advancing their
interests. Until now, the United States has held that leadership, and absent US
engagement, rules will continue to be made that will impact us but that we will not
help shape. Many Americans have stepped up to say they want to remain engaged,
through local climate initiatives and action on nuclear disarmament, refugees, and
trade, giving hope that the United States won’t leave leadership of the world scene
to others. But building a new leadership will take effort and energy from us all.

Conflicts that is occurring in Asia is heavily influenced by big powers especially


from the Western intervention. Disputes over territory such as islands can be
based on many different grounds, including geographical contiguity, claims to self-
determination, historical claims (such as those based on the ethnic background of
the indigenous people or disputed colonial treaties), or the disputed territory may
be of political or strategic significance. In Asia, the current territorial disputes might
escalate to armed conflict mainly due to three factors: geopolitical shifts,
competition over scarce natural resources (e.g., oil, gas, and in particular, water),
and environmental degradation. In a changing geopolitical environment, territorial
claims might assume new relevance in asserting the primacy of emerging powers.
A mix of political, economic, and cultural motives, combined with a more nationalist
reading of sovereignty can trigger confrontations over contested territories. This is
clearly seen in the disputes in the East and South China Seas. The former involves
disputes among China, Japan, and South Korea over the extent of their respective
EEZ. The latter has seen an increasingly assertive and powerful China against
overlapping claims of Southeast Asian countries. The tremendous importance of
this region to the peace, stability, and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific cannot be
overstated. It remains to be seen whether a negotiated solution will be possible
and if the involvement of regional organizations, such as the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and other global powers, such as the US, will
facilitate or complicate a diplomatic solutions. A second factor that can trigger
conflict over contested territories is the increasing competition over scarce natural
resources. Continuing economic development and demographic expansion in Asia
are fostering domestic demands for resources and control over them in disputed
areas. Such competition can become a matter of survival. This is not only evident
in the need for more energy, which is intensifying the disputes in the South China
Sea, but also in the need for water for agricultural use, which today absorbs 70 per
cent of water usage in the region. There is a solid body of research that suggests
a direct relationship between countries sharing water and incidence of conflict and,
in particular, that countries upstream of a river have a significant risk of conflict
with countries downstream of the same watercourse. However, history also
suggests that most of these territorial disputes did not lead to armed conflict, but
rather to negotiated settlements. This is the case of the Bangladeshi-Indian dispute
over the quantity of Ganges water to be released for Bangladeshi utilization during
the dry season, a dispute that began in 1951, when India decided to build the
Farakka Barrage, and found a settlement with the signature of a 30-year water-
sharing agreement in 1996. However, this non-violent trend can change in the
future, if overpopulation, economic growth, and environmental degradation
aggravated by changing climate patterns put further pressure on water sources. In
other words, water can become a key issue that will determine whether Asia heads
toward greater cooperation or greater competition. Finally, environmental
degradation due to fast industrialization and aggravated by climate change will
exasperate the scarcity of resources. It is interesting to note that in one case, global
warming was an improbable peacemaker. The almost forty-year dispute between
India and Bangladesh over a tiny island in the Bay of Begal was abruptly solved
when the rising sea level submerged the land. Some claim that rising sea levels in
the future might cause the disappearance of nineteen small islands that are still
subject to disputes over ownership. Although this may eliminate disputes for some
neighboring coastal states, in reality, climate change is more likely to be an
aggravating factor. Pollution, rising sea levels, and dry rivers are all major concerns
in the region that can hamper economic development and political relations. It
seems clear that an important investment for the future of the region is a political
effort to promote the creation or strengthening of institutions and arrangements for
the management of territorial disputes, which can promote codes of conduct and
joint management schemes. Indeed, the establishment of such mechanisms has
led to the settlement of territorial disputes in many regions of the world. Asia does
not have to be an exception.
I would like to use the world system in analyzing the conflict in Asia especially in
the South China Sea. Immanuel
Wallerstein uses a world system where
countries are divided into according to their
dependency to the dominant countries. So,
the question is, in a multi polar world when
big power interests vary significantly, can
semi-periphery and periphery countries
give up when conflict arises with the core?
How does small and big countries use
aggression or diplomacy to protect their
national interest, territorial integrity,
national sovereignty even if they know that they are far behind the core countries?
Despite the fact that the strategy of china to create harmonious relation and
China’s vision of the multipolar world, and it is also an effective ground for China's
soft power, some refers to China's presence in the developing world as a new type
of colonialism. They argue that China’s appearance doesn’t bring new
opportunities to the countries of the Third World, in fact they get another
oppressive power ruthlessly exploiting their resources. Undoubtedly, China’s
increased influence in these regions hurts interests, primarily the interests of other
– mostly Western – powers, whose influence is overshadowed by China in the
countries of the developing world. These countries and regions were mostly under
the supremacy – or in the economic sphere – of other (mainly Western) powers
due to their colonial past or other historical reasons. This historic dependence
prevailed in the modern era as well and resulted in a hierarchical relationship,
where the developed state still wants to dictate and intends to enforce its own rules
and system to the developing state. China’s dominance over several smaller
countries is a manifestation of their standing as the core of the world system.

In a globalized world of interconnected societies and transnational threats, where


borders seem to be more a geographical expression rather than demarcation of
national interests, territorial disputes are here to remind us that sovereignty still
matters. China, who is embedded in a realist approach in most of their decision
making, reads territorial disputes as an expression of power, since territory is seen
as a fundamental power base. This leads to the assumption that rising powers will
have more aggressive postures toward disputed territories, while declining powers
will be challenged by territorial claims. The territorial conflicts in the South China
Sea is a fundamental gateway of China in gaining core power and for the South
east Asian countries to lose its own sovereignty. This pressing issue should be
always worth mentioning as power transition in Asia is beginning to switch from
Western hegemony to China’s hegemonic rule. China is slowly expanding its
power and making countries bow down to them even it is by force.

You might also like