International Relations Theory Must Urgently Confront Its Euro-Centrism

...

To begin with, realism specifies that international relations are anarchist in nature; predominantly dependent on the coercive might of nation-states. Inherently, realism is Eurocentric because the theory implies that European nations including the USA have a greater say in international politics. Hobson (2012) affirms that this is due to their military and economic power. Countries with minimal coercive material are likely to defer their decisions to coincide with those of European countries so as to avoid ensuing repercussions. Moreover, Shohat and Stam (2014) observe that realism was developed by European philosophers and political theorists. As such, realism is essentially contextualized to the politics in Western countries. The coercive capability of third-world countries, in terms of military or economic power, is constrained resulting in developed economies pursuing their interests in international politics. Realism, as per Shohat and Stam (2014), constrains the capability of developing and third-world nations in international relations; thus promoting a Eurocentric agenda. It is important to note that developing and third-world nations collectively constitute the majority in the world. As with realism, the liberalism theory also promotes a Eurocentric agenda in international relations. Primarily, this is due to the subtle fact that the theory was proposed and refined by European institutions. This translates to its premise being in European context. Hobson (2012) observes that democracy is a construct of Western-liberalism. This is due to the fact that liberalism promotes both individualism and freedom in countries. Hall and Hobson (2010) affirm that this leads to Western liberal democracies, and other similar institutions being set as the templates for the world to emulate. This translates to the international relations being centred on these democracies. Hobson (2012) further explicates that liberalism leads to the segmentation of the world into a hierarchical meta-geography composed of civilized liberal states, autocratic states and collapsed states.

Marxism also propagates euro-centralism as noted by Lindner (2010). As an IR theory, Marxism rationalizes the existence of several powerful nations in the world and a majority of less powerful nations. Hobson (2012) indicates that the Marxism IR theory stems from Euro-Marxism proposition that posits that Europe has been central all across modern civilization. As a result, Western nations have an upper-hand in international politics due to their longevity in world politics. Moreover, Hostettler (2012) elucidates that Marxism does not acknowledge nations that underwent colonization lead to their disenfranchisement in international politics. Another Eurocentric tenet of Marxism is the fact that the European middle class propagated colonialism in order to increase their economic power (Tibebu, 2014). Despite the end of colonialism, this relationship still holds. Lastly, constructivism despite its value and holistic approach to international relations promotes euro-centrism. Hall and Hobson (2010) note that constructivism establishes nation-state and identity as two separate constructs; with the latter being influenced by the nation’s culture. As a result, world politics becomes a construct of states’ cultures, ideas and histories. As with the above stated theories, constructivism stems from English institutions within the European context. This results in Western countries either ignoring non-Western ideologies and cultures or illustrating their incompatibility. The most apt example given by Lawson, Armbruster, and Cox (2010) is the Western religious and political tolerance not exhibited by non-Western nations.

Reasons why International relations Theory Must Urgently confront its Euro-centrism

As indicated in the above sections, euro-centrism is one of the unintended consequences of the international relations theories. The Eurocentric nature of the IR theory privileges some countries while extremely disadvantaging a majority. This indicates that there is imbalance in international politics where the international community considers the interests of the few at the expense of the majority. This paper, in the subsequent section, presents an extensive framework on the importance of resolving the Eurocentric theme in these theories. The West is no longer the epicentre of international relations and this reality needs to be integrated in the existing theories. Moreover, modern scholars in international relations need to identify the Eurocentric tendencies of current theory prior to proposing new theories.

Shohat and Stam (2014) argue that that the realism approach is extremely archaic due to its inherent support of a Western approach in international relations. The two World Wars and the ensuing Cold War clearly demonstrate the inapplicability of realism in international relations. A more modern example is the current Iran-USA stalemate regarding nuclear arms (Washington Post, 2015). This form of security competition among states in the international stage is a narrow and dim approach in IR as it excludes developing countries from international negotiations. These developing and Third World countries are not endowed as their First World counterparts. As a result, Shohat and Stam (2014) ascertain that their needs are neglected. The war against Al-Qaeda, in the first decade of the 21st century, propagated by the USA is a clear depiction of the consequences of realism as an IR theory (Rasch, 2005). The Iran-Iraq War, spanning from 1980-1980, is another quintessential example of the misgivings of realism in international politics (Rasch, 2005). In these conflicts, nations with increased military and economic power violated the sovereignty of countries with lesser power. The international community, as noted by Hixson (2007), did not object or attempt these conflicts from taking place.

Hixson (2007) argues that realism, as an IR theory, explicates solely on international conflicts. This further adds onto the notion that realism is Eurocentric. Western entities, in the recent past, have consistently engaged in conflicts from the Prussian wars, World Wars and the fight for freedom from colonized nations. Western nations, through these wars, aimed at exercising and maximizing their power against other nations (Toros and Gunning, 2009). Realism offers a solid and an unquestionable explanation for these wars; however, this is not the case today. Wars are no longer the staple of Western nations; limiting the applicability of realism in modern international relations (Hobson, 2012 ). In these wars, there were winning nations and the ones that lost as per the realism ideology. According to Toros and Gunning (2009), this evinces the “bipolar” and “multipolar” nature of realism; which