A Realist, a Liberal and a Constructivist Walk into a Bar

The broader discourse surrounding the refugee crisis is disjointed and yet somehow, the narratives constituting it are largely coherent. These ‘coherent’ narratives of realism, liberalism and constructivism argue using grammar that varies significantly but doesn’t stray away from the larger assumption that anarchy is a defining feature of conduct in the international realm. Given that these three theories place an overwhelming emphasis on the significance of the state, there are renewed implications of analyzing the refugee crisis (a phenomenon that generally revolves around individuals and communities) from the conventional perspective. 

Realism has occupied the space of the hegemonic theory in the discipline of International Relations and that position was accompanied by positivist tenets that supplemented its status quoist nature. Yet, as Mureille Cozette argues in defense of the realist school, classical realism concerns itself with the interrogation of power. Cozette argues that while it may be perceived that realism has a ‘normative commitment to preservation of the existing order’ she invokes Hans Morganthau to assert that scholars of IR (and therefore realism) should ‘stir up the conscience of society’ (Cozette 2008). This perhaps explains why realists critique US foreign policy to a great extent. The American track record for interference in foreign states is violative of what realists view to be of paramount importance: sovereignty of the states. Since states are the primary referent object in this school of thought, the violation of its integrity is perceived negatively as unjust intervention in the operations of a nation state and is analyzed as a consequence of power imbalances amongst states, a consequence of the anarchic realm. Realists could therefore explain the refugee crisis in many parts of the world as direct consequences of great power politics. For instance, the refugee crisis that America finds itself dealing with at its borders has a certain karmic undertone to it for the realists would point to the US interference in overthrowing democratically elected governments (sympathetic to the left) in Latin America during the Cold War period which had resulted in a steady decline of institutional mechanisms in these states and therefore individuals fled their home countries in search of a ‘good life’ since only a state can provide that. The US government has also interfered significantly in these nations as a consequence of the Reagan administration’s war on drugs and while it ‘rational’ for the US state to develop anxieties about self preservation since drugs from Latin America were undermining national security, I’d like to once again employ Morganthau’s (and Cozette’s) argument for why realists would not condone American interference. According to them,“power lies when it pretends to be the embodiment of Truth or Justice” (Cozette 2008) and therefore it is ‘rational’ to deconstruct the power equations that produce environments for forced migration. 

As you can see in this blog as opposed to the first, there is a dramatic shift in the analysis even though the examples remain the same since the ‘individual’ has almost no agency or role in the realist framework. The ‘refugee’ is relevant to the realist only in so far as it helps prove that intervention is problematic and probably not even then. With the example of the Syrian Civil War and subsequent migration which was a consequence of climate change, realists will be able to empathize with the notion of ‘lack of resources’ that leads to conflict for it is one of their core assumptions. Furthermore, since the physical survival of the state is the primary goal, the resources that sustain its presence and enable the balance of power will ideally be protected by realists in my opinion. This is not to say that realists can adequately engage with solutions to climate change but the physical existence of the state and anarchy together guide all realist analysis, certain resources that enable nation building and internal balancing will be preserved. 

When viewed from a liberal perspective, the value assigned to the idea of ‘intervention’ changes significantly. Since the referent object is a free standing individual, sovereignty of the state is secondary and therefore intervention is not only justified but also encouraged. Moreover, the reason for intervention specifically in the case of Latin American countries discussed above becomes clearer when analyzed through this lens. The idea of the state as a ‘transmission belt’ helps understand the role played by the National Rifle Association for instance in enabling gun violence in countries like Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador (Moravcsik 1997). While this has been previously discussed, another example of domestic groups influencing foreign policy is that of United Fruit Company (known as Chiquita today), an organization that was opposed to the President of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz, who wished to redistribute land to the farmers. UFC worried that the Arbenz administration would impact their business since they “owned much of Guatemala’s arable land, along with railroad infrastructure and a port” (Planas 2014). Given UFC’s interest in a regime change, the CIA intervened in Guatemala and overthrew the government, a direct example of how the vision of interest groups within the US translated into American foreign policy.

Furthermore, even though the normative commitment of liberalism lies with the individual, it does not account for the complexities that come with them being embedded in power structures since they are viewed as free standing individuals. The category of the refugee is therefore intentionally not complicated with mention of their ethnicity, gender, class etc. Although, since liberals have a strong conviction in changing the anarchic realm by promoting liberal values and establishing a world government, the question of citizenship is subject to change and therefore so is the idea of the ‘refugee’. 

The idea of domestic liberalism will also tie into holistic constructivism and how foreign policy with regard to the refugee crisis takes shape. The difference being that constructivism will enquire more deeply into the identity of the domestic interest groups and that of the refugee that is seeking asylum. The social relations that interact to form this conflict are the explanatory factors that underpin constructivist analysis of the crisis. For instance, mutual constitution i.e. the existence of the ‘other’ is important to help define citizenship in countries. In America, the existence of the ‘Hispanic other’ is important to define an arguably skewed notion of the ‘American way of life’. This perceived threat enables the American right to bear arms, further strengthening the NRA, an organization responsible for migration to a large extent. Constructivists are more likely to address the conflict of identity and interests between a company like the UFC and its neo colonial agenda legitimized by the US and that of the citizens of Guatemala and other Latin American countries. They were wary because the memory of colonization was still fresh since immediately after the Spanish ‘imperial rivals’ left the region, American businesses filled the power vacuum by instituting a monopoly on the economy but also political organizations, ultimately creating ‘banana republics’ (Táíwò 2021). Post colonial theorists would follow a similar route but would diverge in what the objective of the analysis is because constructivists would like to remain analytically neutral and not prescribe methods to alter the status quo. 

When viewed in isolation, each of these narratives are coherent, incomplete but coherent. When viewed in the larger context of refugee discourse, the limitations of conventional theories become evident. Even with Cozette’s intervention of viewing realism as having critical dimensions, the overwhelming emphasis on the state in all three theories inherently disallows for the refugee crisis to be taken as seriously and to demand an engagement with empathy as any other ‘state-centric’ and therefore prioritized issue. 

 References

 Cozette, Murielle. 2008. “Reclaiming the Critical Dimension of Realism: Hans J. Morgenthau on the Ethics of Scholarship.” Review of International Studies 34 (1): 5-27. 

 Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997.“Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics.” International Organization 54 (4): 513-553.

 Planas, Roque. 2014. “Here's How The U.S. Sparked A Refugee Crisis On The Border, In 8 Simple Steps.” HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/refugee-crisis-border_n_5596125.

 Táíwò, Olúfémi O. 2021. “When the United Fruit Company Tried to Buy Guatemala.” The Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/economy/united-fruit-guatemala/.