Prof T.V. Paul, presently with the McGill University, Montreal is the President of the International Studies Association, 2016-17. Over the past few years, the discipline of international studies has been overwhelmed by international developments and often could not provide theoretical explanation to state and non-state behavior. Excerpts from an interview:
The discipline of international studies been dominated by western scholarship and academic leadership. With the rise of China, India and return of old powers like Japan, are there enough theoretical works from these countries to explain their rise?
The rise of new powers, in particular China, is happening in a relative sense and somewhat peacefully. The sudden upsurge of nationalist behavior by Russia and China and their efforts to carve out new spheres of influence is starting to challenge this momentum. The possible protectionist economic policies of the US may also hurt this process. The scholarly works on this subject are increasing but limited from a theoretical perspective as many theories are built around war as the principal mechanism of change at the great power level. In the era of accelerated globalization and in the context of nuclear revolution, war as a mechanism has become somewhat obsolete. So, a greater understanding of peaceful mechanisms for the rise and accommodation of new powers is necessary. The IR literature, barring a handful of exceptions, has ignored this subject. It is perhaps time to think more clearly on this subject by scholars and policy makers in countries such as India as it has a high stake in finding peaceful mechanisms for attaining greater power and institutional status.
To begin with there was the internationalism, and realism. Then there was pragmatism and even feminism. Which one of these schools can explain our present order or the anarchical situation in the world?
In my view, the international system is semi-anarchic. There is no central governing authority but there are several institutional, legal and normative restraints on what states, even the most powerful ones can do. Realism, especially the recent variants such as structural and offensive perspectives offer poor prescriptions for change, especially based on peaceful strategies. The focus is on balance of power, containment and deterrence, which alone are not sufficient to obtain deep peace or transformation. Neoclassical realism connecting classical realism and domestic politics has been more successful in explaining foreign policy behavior. I prefer an eclectic approach bringing togethergood ideasfrom each perspective.
What is the future of internationalism especially in view of the pushbacks that India has received in UN, Nuclear Suppliers Group.
India as a latecomer to the international order was originally constrained by the Cold War alliance system.Meaningful diplomatic bargaining and making use of new opportunities will be necessary for gaining India’s objectives peacefully. India could also initiate its own initiatives and new institutions with the help of like-minded states, especially in Asia as China has been doing.
What theoretical framework explains the rise of secret wars, terrorism.intelligence and information/cyber warfare that we are witnessing in the Arab world, North Africa and in South Asia?
The ISIS phenomenon is not completely new. Europe and Middle East saw Bandits and partisans during Napoleonic era and even before that. Anytime a powerful state or empire attempts to create hegemony it encourages asymmetric challengers to emerge. The struggle against these forces is somewhat akin to war on piracy, which has never been completely suppressed or eradicated despite efforts for several centuries. The hope for militarily ending ISIS like phenomena is likely to be dashed as without proper governing structures in many of the weak states in the Middle East new radical forces will remerge. The availability of technology goes both ways as states and their asymmetric challengers, both use them for furthering their goals.
Is the think tank culture (mostly state sponsored international scholarship to help diplomacy), hindering serious studies of international affairs or is this a positive development?
Think tanks may be useful supplements to academic institutions as some of them conduct research on pressing policy issues and they tend to have greater connectivity with policymakers. However, neglecting university research will hurt India in the long run as think tanks tend to rise and decline somewhat more rapidly than universities.
