Mein Versuch mich der sozialkonstruktivistischen Theorie der Internationalen Beziehungen zu nähern.
Verfasst für die Prishtina Summer University. Großen Dank an Piro Rexhelpi.
My attempt to use the socialconstructivist International Relations Theorie.
Written for the Prishtina Summer University.
Thanks to Piro Rexhelpi.
1. Introduction
In 1979 the regime of the then ruling Shah of Iran was brought down by revolutionary powers. After a short period of uncertainty the momentum was taken by the Islamic forces which were further
motivated by the arrival of Ayatolla Komeini. Starting from the moment the cleric left the plane that brought him from Paris to Tehran the relations to the United States and Israel changed. The
Shah Palavi was a feudal ruler and the closest ally of the United States at that time. His loss of power is closely related to the strategic approach the United States have today to the Near and
Middle East. Especially the events related to the American embassy Tehran and the rhetoric of Komeini referring to Israel left a deep impression.
This paper will try to show the process realignment between the Israel and Iran and the building of the contemporary antagonism. It will be argued that it can be best explained by the theory of
(social-) constructivism succeeding other possible explanatory approaches that might be thinkable.
At first the dynamics of the last 30 years that drove the relations between Israel and Iran will be shortly evaluated. This is followed by a summary of the main elements of the constructivism
theory as they were introduced by Alexander Wendt in his 1992 article "Anarchy is what states make out of it" (Wendt 1992) which was meant to become one of the most promising challenges to the
traditional theories of international relations an later cumulated in Wendt's book: Social Theory of the International Relations (1999). The theory is applied to the described process
and its explanatory power will be evaluated and closed with a careful prediction of future events as far as this is possible with the help of constructivist theory.
2. Defining Constructivism
The central and widely known quote of Alexander Wendt's article "Anarchy is what states make out of it" (Wendt 1992: 395) can be seen as the circulation point of his theory.
Starting with the basic assumption Wendt argues that the actors and structure in international relations are interrelated and determine each other. Structures are constitutive for actors and
their interests, while actors reproduce and continue but are also able to change them (Ulbert 2006:417). In the conflict with Neorealism and Neoliberalism he argues that both lack the ability to
explain the emergence of interests and identity of states. Both needed to explain change in the international society. Something Wendt shows with the prominent example of the end of the Cold War
which was a mystic puzzle to them (Wendt 1992: 418- 422) He solves the riddle by denying the assumption of endogenous interests of the state. Interest is an output of identity. Identity is the
product of social interaction and mutual definition between actors in an environment but not a forever stable and given attribute of the system. Starting from here Wendt criticizes the Neorealist
definition of anarchy that because of the lack of a supranational "leviathan", the international system has to be one of ultimate self help and protection. Wendt perceives their idea of anarchy
as only one form that might emerge under the conditions of the system. Not one logic of anarchy but many might exist, dependent on which way the relations between states developed. This argument
can easily be documented in different relationships between different states. It is undeniable that the relationships between different states vary. For instance North Korea has totally different
relations to China and the US. States can perceive each other as enemies, rivals and friends. It is a fact that they see each other depending on former interaction and experience. When Wendt
names three different types of international anarchy (hobbesian, lockeian and Kantian (Ulbrecht 2006: 421)) each with another molding, than this can be easily observed, too. Looking at the
European Union is a totally different experience from analyzing the interaction on the superpower stage. If interest is based on identity than the interest of states in interaction depends on the
mutual perception of both.
It was said, that Constructivism claims an explanation for change in the international system. Following the assumptions alternation of identities may modify the view on certain situations
together with the interests that might derive from that.
In a nut shell: The identity formation of state A is only possible in interaction with state B. Interaction also determines A's perception of state B and vice versa. Change in the
relation between both states is only possible through the change of the mutual identities.
3. The process of realignment
The relations between Israel and Iran have changed over time. Before 1979 there was intensive cooperation in the field of intelligence, development and agriculture. Iran was Israel's biggest
supplier of oil and Israel was involved- ironically- in the Iranian weapons program developing long- range missiles. Even more the Shah might have been involved in the negotiations resulting in
the Egyptian- Israeli Peace Treaty (Lewis 2003: 10). This relation ended abruptly with the Islamic Revolution and its end product the Islamic Republic of Iran. While the old establishment lost
its power, the new regime lined up with the Palestinians and took nearly an opposite approach to Israel.
Parts of the Israeli government had the not unjustified hope that at least a basic cooperation could be sustained. Both states faced the threat of a mutual enemy. The Arabic countries
respectively the Sunni states (Lewis 2003: 10-11). Those Illusions were quickly diverted. Tehran's harsh rhetoric towards Israel and the support for the emerging Hezbollah proved such ideas
wrong. The relationship twenty years after the fall of the Shah Lewis describes as follows:
Even before the U.S. eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime, Iran and Hezbollah had long since overtaken Iraq as the greater threat to Israel in the judgment of the Israeli government and
the security establishment (Lewis 2003: 11)
Taking into consideration the recent events in the Israeli- Iran relations or better the absence of such, this has totally been replaced by classic measures of 19th Century diplomacy:
threats and military demonstrations, it is arguably true that a fundamental change in the interaction of both states can be observed.
4. Apply an International Relations Theory to real world events
It is legitimate to call the relationship between Iran and Israel before 1979 a friendship in the Wendtsian sense of the word. Mutual support and cooperation produced a fruitful connection. To
analyze the shift in the type of it, it is possible to compare it with the Wendt's description and evaluation of the transformation of Cold War relationships between the Soviet Union and the
United States. In his article "Anarchy is what states make of it: The Social construction of Power Politics" Wendt (1992) describes, how Michael Gorbachev's policy of the "New Thinking"
lead to a change in the overall Soviet identity. This is Wendt's example of "how states might transform a competitive security system into a cooperative one" (Wendt 1992: 420).
We find a similar process in the relationship of Iran and Israel but in the opposite direction. Former friendly relationships ended up in a per war status that is likely to evolve into open war.
It is a long way from the past to the contemporary status. In his article Wendt's highlights four stages in the transformation process.
The first stage (in intentional transformation) is the breakdown of consensus about identity commitments (Wendt 1992: 420). Instead of the "unfreezing of conflict schemas" (Wendt 1992:420) it is
necessary to find conditions that lead to an "unfreezing of cooperation schemas". Those can be found in the history of the revolution described before. The self perception of Iran changed
dramatically through the revolution. From the strategy of the Shah of authoritarian but west bond rule the Islamic worldview that prevailed after the revolution was saw Israel not as a friend
anymore but as a perpetrator in the Near East. From cooperation with Israel the policy shifted to an active support of the PLO.
The second stage described by Wendt describes (Wendt 1992: 420) is the critical examination of old ideas about self and others determine the sustained structures of interaction. Wendt further
elaborates further, that the result of a critique on old identities "should be the identification of new (other J.R.) possible selves and aspirations". A close evaluation of such a process would
go beyond the scope of this paper. But it can be argued that in the run-up of the revolution the future decision- maker developed an idea on the future relationships with Israel.
Wendt's third stage is concerned with new practices (Wendt 1992: 421). He describes how it is necessary to change the own practices concerning the other to change the self, because through a
change of practices the identity of the other is reshaped.
The execution of the former head of Iranian intelligence was a most obvious sign that indicated new practices. The confiscation of the Israeli embassy and the handing over to the PLO was quiet
definitively (Lewis 2003: 10-11). Through actual actions Iran changed the interaction between both states. The identities transformed from friendly ones to such that were hostile to each other.
After those actions Israel had no other chance to perceive Iran as an enemy who actually allied with others far from friendly to the own existence. Iran followed Wendt's logic, that "[...] ego
(Iran J.R.) tries to induce alter (Israel J.R) to take on a new identity [...] by treating alter as if (cursive letters by author) it already had that identity.
The end result of the realignment we face today is best described by the factors that enforce a competitive (hobbesian) security system upon states: "Competitive security systems are sustained by
practices that create insecurity and distrust" (Wendt 1992:421).
5. Conclusion
Arguably, the case of Iran- Israel relations fits well in the constructivist explanation of state relationships in International Relations. Especially because a more Realism led analyses might
have expected that even when the Iranian regime changed both states still faced a mutual enemy. In the perspective of Realism with the most basic interest of survival I shouldn't have made
sense to disown the Israeli ally. Some years later Iran faced a devastating war with Iraq that was funded by many Arabian countries (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait). Israel might have been a useful
partner.
Looking at the current situation with both countries on the verge of war the constructivist advice would possibly be to change the perception of each other. But for that an interaction apart from
via media distributed threats and maneuvers would be necessary. Communication has to leave the level of verbal war and has to shift to more practical approach. Recent reports might raise hopes
that at least in the US government ideas are changing.
6. Literature
LEWIS, Samuel W. (2003): The Infernal Triangle: Iran, Israel, and the United States. WHITLOCK, Eugene (Hrsg.): Iran and its neighbors: Diverging Views on the strategic Region. German Institute
for International and Security Studies. Internet last consulted 30 July 2008:
[http://www.swp-berlin.org/forscher/veroeffentlichungen.php?id=1338&PHPSESSID=f0f742209]
ULBERT, Cornelia (2006): Sozialkonstruktivismus. SCHIEDER, Siegfried/ SPINDLER, Manuela (Hrsg.): "Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen". Farmington Hills: Verlag Barbara Budrich:
409-440.
WENDT, Alexander (1992): Anarchy is what states make of it: the Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization 46 (2).pp. 391- 425.
Wer im Kosovo ist, muss nach Mirusha. Seht zu, das es ein
sehr warmer Tag ist und nehmt jm. mit, der sich auskennt. Es gibt 15 Wasserfaelle hat man mir gesagt. Bis zum 5 Wasserfall bin ich mit meinen miserablen Kletterkuensten gekommen. Danach wird es
Free Climbing action mit Lebenseinsatz. Aber jetzt lass ich mal die Bilder sprechen:
Bevor ich hier herkamm, hatte ich mit vorgenommen ein paar
deutsche Soldaten zu treffen und mit ihnen ueber ihre Eindruecke und Erfahrungen zu sprechen, wenn sich mich liessen. Eine zumindest im Ansatz aehnliche Begegnung wuerde sich ergeben.
Auf dem Rueckweg hoere ich den deutschen Soldatensender in Prizren. Viele Familien
gruessen ihre Angehoerigen und offenbaren einen guten Musikgeschmack und tiefe Liebe zum Vater, Ehemann oder Sohn.