The Three Stooges: Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism

I have always been more inclined towards the theoretical aspects of my courses, and when I got  this assignment of analyzing a security issue through the lens of a Realist, Liberalist and Constructivist approach to anarchy, an image began to appear in my mind. For the purpose of this blog post, I am personifying these theoretical approaches, and analyzing a security issue through their point of views. The security issue that I have chosen to analyze is the privatization of the military and its role in conflict zones. 

I recently stumbled onto articles about this phenomena, and how Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) are playing an increasingly large role in proliferation and distribution of small arms and engaging in conflict zones. PMSCs started emerging in the 1990s for a myriad of reasons. After the Cold War, the world order was shifting to a unipolar system, and the need for a massive military presence was not as important, because no big war was looming in the future. Instead, states, especially the United States, turned to PMSCs to carry out smaller military operations. Some areas remained conflict zones long after the end of the Cold War, such as Afghanistan or Iraq, and states find it more convenient to hire private security personnel rather than deploy soldiers for such long periods. Moreover, with the liberalization and privatization of most industries, and the opening up of the international arms trade, it has become much easier for these companies to acquire arms and provide security services to the states. These security personnel have committed human rights abuses in conflict zones, an example of which can be seen in the Nisour Square Massacre, where 17 Iraqi civilians were shot and killed by Blackwater (a PMSC) guards. While the privatization of the military is not inherently a bad thing, it is very difficult to regulate the actions of PMSCs, especially when they are hired by powerful states in conflict zones, such as the United States and China. Recently this has become a concerning security issue, especially in the Ukraine Russia conflict, where Russia is using personnel of the Wagner Group. Let us look at how the Realist, the Liberalist and the Constructivist would view this issue. 

The Realist, in a trench coat and fedora, cigar in hand; would not think much of this issue. According to him, the international structure is an anarchy, and states are always a threat for each other. Non state actors, for the Realist, are not threat objects. As such, he would not consider PMSCs as a threat, as long as they are working for non-state actors such as powerful individuals, or NGOs. However, when PMSCs are hired by states as an addition to their existing military force, it will be a cause for concern for the Realist. Furthermore, because the realist believes that the security dilemma cannot be overcome, the only solution is to become as powerful as possible. This might lead him to use the PMSCs for his own state to strengthen their military prowess. The ethical dilemma of the human rights abuses inflicted by private security personnel would not bother him, because Realism focuses on balance of powers and acquiring arms, rather than the ethical consequences of war.

The Liberalist, in a dazzling three piece suit; would have a more optimistic point of view. Liberalists also believe that the international system is an anarchic one, but try to resolve the prevailing security dilemmas through cooperation between international organizations. He would not try to stop the PMSCs from continuing their services; in fact he would encourage the private security sector to provide services so that there is equal opportunity and access to security personnel for non-state actors as well. The Liberalist would also hire PMSCs for security measures other than armed services. For example, the United Nations has employed PMSC forces for peacekeeping operations. 

The Constructivist, clad in her native clothing, would perhaps be the most worried about this issue. The constructivist approach to anarchy is “anarchy is what states make of it”, as explained by Wendt. “Central to the constructivist approach to anarchy is the intersubjective meanings we attach to social contexts.”[1] This is why the Constructivist would be focused on both domestic as well as international affairs. Her opinions are shaped by the social structure she was raised in, her identity, and her preferences. She believes that the international system exists according to the beliefs of the states - if they believe it is an anarchy and they need to attain balance of powers, conflict will ensue. However, if they try to pursue peaceful coexistence, it is possible. Therefore, the intersubjectivity of the Constructivist’s social context would lead her to be involved in domestic affairs and agitate against the human rights abuses inflicted by the PMSC personnel.

Obviously I have barely scratched the surface of the depths of these theoretical approaches, and tried to explain it as simply as possible for the sake of this blog. Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism are complex theories, and it is difficult to apply them to tough security dilemmas and summarize them in a thousand words, but I have tried to understand their nuance as much as possible, in the context of this relevant and ongoing security dilemma. 

References

[1] Hopf, Ted. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory.” International Security, vol. 23, no. 1, 1998, pp. 171–200, https://doi.org/10.2307/2539267. Accessed 1 May 2022.

Bibliography

1. Makki, Sami. “Private Military Companies and the Proliferation of Small Arms: Regulating the Actors.” GSDRC, September 4, 2015. https://gsdrc.org/document-library/private-military-companies-and-the-proliferation-of-small-arms-regulating-the-actors/.  

2. Cimini, Tea. “The Invisible Army: Explaining Private Military and Security Companies.” E-International Relations, August 5, 2018. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/08/02/the-invisible-army-explaining-private-military-and-security-companies/. 
   
   

3. “Upfront - War on Want.” waronwant.org, February 2008. https://waronwant.org/sites/default/files/WOW_upfront_autwint16_web.pdf. 

4. Lind, Dara. “Why Four Blackwater Contractors Were Just Now Convicted of Killing 17 Iraqi Civilians in 2007.” Vox. Vox, October 23, 2014. https://www.vox.com/2014/10/23/7047519/blackwater-trial-nisour-square-massacre-2007-guilty-convicted. 

5.  Hopf, Ted. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory.” International Security, vol. 23, no. 1, 1998, pp. 171–200, https://doi.org/10.2307/2539267. Accessed 1 May 2022.