Review 

The article captures the shift in the outlook of  Chinese scholars and the intelligentsia from the inauguration of the Trump Presidency. Trump's harsh rhetoric towards China during the election campaign suggested an aggressive foreign policy towards China. However, seeing the first Xi-Trump summit a success, many in China took his aggressive rhetoric just as a means of electoral politics. The businessman's image of Trump gave the Chinese a reason for optimism as many in China would be looking at the economic benefit rather than bringing ideology into play. This assessment turned out to be over-optimistic or, as Lei Wei puts it, an "Illusory Honeymoon". Wei writes that indications for a trade war began when the United States did not sign off on China's request for a market economy status in the WTO in November 2017. The market economy status lowers the trade tariffs and helps to increase trade and interactions. This is due to the stagnant market reforms in the Chinese economy. The lack of transparency and the high regulation of FDI from countries, and the weak intellectual property laws that are in place in China have been cited as factors for this decision.

Following the commencement of the trade war in 2018, China's economic and foreign relations circle has been a concerted effort to understand the trade war causes between both countries. Wei pointed to a structural conflict between the two countries, namely the free-market American economic order and the statist Chinese economic order. This difference in the order itself has been cited as the starting point of the trade war.  Wei has pointed out that despite the onset of the trade war, policymakers in China remained confident that the trade war was temporary.their reasoning also that a trade war harms both countries. Nevertheless, many argued that the trade war might continue for some time. Moreover, they believed that the Trump administration's aggressive posturing would end if China conducted market reforms and opened its market to foreign players with fewer regulations. 

  However, with the trade war showing no signs of abating soon and as optimism was fading in China regarding the end of the trade war, many international relations scholars and Chinese economists began to consider the best possible way to counter the American Aggression. There were two thoughts regarding this, the first belonging to what Wei describes as the new 'Nation-state model' and the second as the 'Market Reform' school of thought. The new nation's school of thought argued that the Chinese should go for higher tariffs cheerleading a tit for tat measure. They argue that there should be a reform driven by the government, which encompasses all sectors of the economy. This, they argue, will lead to a higher growth rate and make the economy more competitive and independent from foreign supply chains.

On the other hand, the reform school argued that the Chinese economy should be liberalised and attempts should be made at loosening laws for foreign companies. They have said that the opening of the Chinese economy under Deng Xiaoping led China to be an economic power in the world. They further argued that the Chinese economy opening up will blunt the US attacks on the country as a country that cheats and violates international norms. However, ultimately the 'Hawks' or the advocates for a new nation-state model won in this debate as the Chinese government put tariffs on the American system.

The high octane trade war led to another debate in China about whether the Chinese economy should decouple with the United States. The US economy has for many years been linked with China. The US market has been a large market for Chinese goods, and the Chinese market a good source for cheap labour for US companies. However, the trade war led to a shift in that narrative, with the US falling behind ASEAN as China's largest trading partner. There has been speculation that the process of decoupling has already started happening between the two countries. Now looking at this issue, there has been a school of thought which advocates for complete decoupling from the US. They argue that China needs to decouple from trade and technology to reduce its dependence on the US. They have argued that Chinese that the Chinese have been successful because of self-sufficiency. The 'Decoupling school' talks about the indigenous nuclear warheads and satellites built by the Chinese.

On the other hand, according to Wei, another school of thought advocates for further links with the US economy called the 'Further links' school of thought. They argue that this helps preserve the current world economic order of globalisation, which has helped China prosper. They also argue the claims of nuclear warheads and satellites because they argue it was the help of the Soviet scientist that helped them in their development.  

In conclusion, Lei Wei has successfully shown the various discourses that shape the discussion around Chinese Political Economy. Wei provides an insight into the Chinese perspective of the trade war. Majority of the discussion around US-CHina trade war was dominated by the American perspectives giving people a half baked understanding of the event. This is highly dangerous when it comes to political economy as it skews the conversation and prevents the solution of problems. Therefore this paper is enlightening for anyone who wants a  new perspective on a global political economy event shaping the world.  This paper also shows that the Chinese economists are not a monolith when it comes to their thinking instead of what is portrayed in the media. There is diversity of opinion with the scholarship and reflects the need for a nuanced understanding of the situation.  Overall this paper provides a glimpse of the inner workings of Chinese political, economic thought and its application and ability to shape the future of Chinese-US relations.

Vineeth is a MA student in the Department of International Studies, Political Science and History, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru

Views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the position of the University 

The history of relations between Iran and the US has been vastly fraught. The relations between the two nations were at a high during the 1950s and 1960s. The US had backed the autocratic rule of the Shah in Iran. Starting with the Iranian revolution in 1978 and the ensuing hostage crisis, the relations between the two have gone through phases of thaw. Across administrations and party wise rules, Iran has been seen as an enemy and has used as a political tool for the 

David Crist serves as the chief historian for the US Department of Defence. He is an expert on the history of Iran and all issues pertaining to it. He served in the US military and was a part of the US Special forces. The author was a member of the US Special Forces and had come close to a major altercation with Iran in 2003 when a US warship crossed the territorial borders in the Strait of Hormuz. With a personal connection to the issue and his established position gives the book a specialised and policy specific narrative.

Carter Administration 

The Carter Administration and its handling of relations with Iran has been a key to understanding how the relations of US and Iran have evolved. The Carter administration was aware of human rights issues in Iran and wanted to establish a stable democracy in Iran. This was also the time when the Shah was struggling with poor health. The Carter administration decided to give aid and asylum to the Shah who arrived in the US to get cancer treatment. The exiled leader Ayatollah Khomeini arrived as the Shah left and began to form the ground for the Iranian revolution. The departure of the Shah and his trip to the US made it clear to the Iranian public that the Shah was propped by the US flaming the anti-US sentiment. 

Starting with the Iranian revolution, the case of Iran completely derailed the Carter administration. Looking for any options, the administration was forced to take the military option with Operation Eagle Claw in 1980. The operation prompted the US to form a rapid action force in the Middle East. The rapid action force never took off as the military staff could not come to a compromise with the civilian staff in the administration. 

Reagan Administration

The book highlights the continuation of the policy that was already placed in the defence department by the Carter administration. The creation of CENTCOM became central to the Reagan administration and how it dealt with Iran. The Reagan administration used the existing groundwork of a rapid military force to deal with Iran and created CENTCOM. The organisation with a wide operational force starting from West Africa and ending in Pakistan gave the US the necessary military operation if the situation became dire.

The Reagan administration and its staunch anti-communist stand was aided as the opposition in Iran fell apart. The Iranian government also decided to cut its ties with the USSR. The Tudeh (Iranian Communist Party) was revealed to be infiltrated by Russian spies and allies. The party lost all favour by 1985 and Iran found itself struggling to keep up the war with Iraq. The Reagan administration was quick to swoop in and began to sell weapons to Iran and the funds were later directed to aiding the Contras in Nicaragua.

End of the Iraq-Iran War

The Iraq-Iran war was the flashpoint of the conflict between Iran and the US. The war began in 1982 when Iraq launched a preemptive invasion of Iran. Iraq launched the invasion in fears that the religious upheaval would spread to Iraq and start another revolutionary movement in Iraq. While the US became a strategic partner of Iraq but US was willing to play ball with Iran as well.  Iran was informed about the strategic movement of Iraqi forces on the border with Iran early on but the isolation model and domestic concerns surpassed the war concerns. With the weakened force of the USSR, Iran began to see the ramifications of isolation. This was also the first point where the US came close to fighting an actual war with Iran.

In 1985, there was a close call when the US navy decided to escort Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Persian Gulf.  This was seen as direct action of the US fighting Iran. Kuwait was used as a strategic ally to aid and financially support Iraq. The flashpoint conflict was devastating, leading to the death of 60 sailors of the Iranian navy.

History doesn’t repeat itself but it does rhymes

The Iraq-Iran war came to an end in 1988 when USS Vincennes directed a missile strike against Iranian passenger lines leading to the death of 290 people. The flight was flying across the Strait of Hormuz and there was no warning to the flight. The two sides noting the fear of further escalation and the domestic damage in Iran pushed the end of the Iran-Iraq war.

History repeated itself 40 years later when the US escalated the conflict in 2020 starting from the assassination of Qasem Suliemani, head of the Iranian revolutionary guard’s Quds Force. Iran fought back with missile strikes on a US military base in Iraq. Iran also threatened action against any other nations. All of the conflict paused after Iranians shot down a Ukrainian flight killing 176 people

The book makes it clear that the history of the conflict between Iran and the US has been a repeated trend. Iran started from a strategic partner in communist containment and keeping a tab on the oil exports. Throughout the last forty years of history, US has been the one standing against normalisation of relations with Iran

Clinton administration and dual containment

Book goes into detail about Prime Minister Khatami and his pledge to work with the US after the Khobar Towers bombing. The counter of the Clinton administration to prepare for a military strike. Iran was ready to engage with the US but it did not go ahead with the American preconditions for holding negotiations. The US also sought the policy of dual containment in limiting the influence of Iran and Iraq. Iran became a target of sanctions with legislation in 1994 and then in 1996. The exports from Iran also were targeted. 

Critical Appraisal 

The Twilight War: The Secret History of America’s thirty year conflict with Iran” is an authoritative study into the history of the US-Iran conflict published in the year 2012. Given the timeframe, it is limited, especially concerning more contemporary issues like the JCPOA and the US withdrawal in 2018 along with the escalation of conflict in 2020.

That said, the book is exceptionally precise in the explanation of the people in charge and what the thinking behind their decisions were.

Going into the book, the sources are exceptionally well researched and the narratives presented through the eyes of the officials gives an in-depth understanding of Iran policy as it has evolved within the US.

The lack of sources from Iran, especially in the regional languages makes the book limited in scope. It does an excellent job of presenting the American viewpoint of the conflict and it does open the readers to look at other sources on the issue of US-Iran relations

Conclusion

The book is a good entry point to understand the history and context of relations between Iran and the US. The book is slanted towards the US perspective. The book does open up perspectives into the history and opens up as an introductory read into policy and issue-specific into the readings on US-Iran bilateral relations and thus, is recommended for reading.

Sandeep is a MA student in the Department of International Studies, Political Science and History, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru

Views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the position of the University 

In this chapter, Machiavelli, talks about the how to govern a hereditary monarchy. As long as the new hereditary ruler maintains the balance and status quo set by the previous ruler, dynamically changes the policy relative to any new problem, there won’t be a lot of problem. Such rules last long.

Chapter 3

“Time hurries everything on and can just as easily make things worse as better.”

In this chapter, Machiavelli, talks at length about new territories added to the existing monarchy, i.e. mixed monarchies. There are two types of mixed monarchies, one, where the territory is geographically adjacent and the culture and language is similar. It is relatively easy to hold on to such territories because of the similarities and the only thing the new monarch has to do is to eliminate the ruling family and leave all the laws as they were previously. This will ensure assimilation easily without the subjects rebelling.

Second, is when the conquered territory is geographically distant, in which case it is particularly hard to manage assimilation. However, prescribed in this chapter are ways to ensure grip over the conquered territories. Most effective solution is for the new ruler to move to that territory, ensuring is direct involvement in whatever happens. Another good solution is to establish colonies in some places to provide a link to the empire. This also ensures loyalty and inspires fear in the new subjects.

The new ruler should then build up a friendly relation with the weak neighboring states of the conquered territory and undermine the stronger states as much as possible. The second thing to be taken care of is the prevention of another foreign power’s involvement in the same area. This should be done to prevent conflict of interest. This is explained, with pointed accuracy, through the example of French king Louis and conquest of Lombardy.

Chapter 4

“Eliminate them (ruler and his family) and no one else can threaten you since no one commands the loyalty of the people.”

In this chapter, Machiavelli talks about the exceptions to his previously stated theory. By taking the case of the Persian empire after conquest of Alexander, he brings out the difference between the two forms of monarchy; i.e. one, governed by the ruler and his servants and two, governed by the ruler and his barons. It is relatively easy to conquer countries like France where the foreign invasion is supported by a local baron, but its also extremely hard to hold because of sustained rebellion from the other dissatisfied barons. Countries like Turkey fall under the first type wherein there is a unified front against the invasion which makes it harder to conquer, but at the same time, very easy to hold on to because of zero absence of opposition. The conqueror has to just eliminate the ruling family and there won’t be any challenges to the throne. This, precisely, is the reason for why the Persians did nit rebel after Alexander’s death.

Chapter 5

“Their memory of old freedoms lingers on and won’t let them rest.”

In this chapter, Machiavelli talks about governing the states which have self-governance. The only two ways to preserve such states is to either completely destroy and rout them, or the conqueror should himself go stay at the territory. The latter doesn’t work for a longer time and ultimately the people want their freedom back. The most effective way for sustaining conquered Republics u=is to completely rout them.

Chapter 6

“Because on top of everything else, we must remember that the general public’s mood will swing”.

In this chapter, Machiavelli talks about how, through personal power and abilities, a ruler can obtain a State. The main argument here is that it is very hard to gain control and set up the territories, but fairly easy to hold on to them. The hardship comes when setting up a new law and administration system where the ruler has to take care of both, the previous and the new, benefactors and ensure that there is no resentment amongst any of the two. The other thing to be kept in mind is the ability of the ruler to impose the new system. If the ruler is weak, he cannot impose. So, here, stress is put on army backing. The last thing that the ruler has to do, through his own abilities, is to keep people convinced about his new system and eliminate any resentments to ensure that the public doesn’t rebel and starts respecting him.

Chapter 7

“He has no trouble climbing on to his pedestal, since he is lifted there, but as soon as he is up, there will be any number of problems.”

In this chapter, Machiavelli talks about rulers who have gained their territory by the means of money or in the form of favor. It is relatively easy to gain such territories, but really hard to maintain them. The reason for this is that rulers like such only depend on weak pillars of support and combined with this is their inability to rule due to zero previous experience. They won’t have possession of a strong and loyal army and, coming from a civilian background, they won’t be educated in matters of politics. Here, through the example of Cesare Borgia (Duke Valentino), Machiavelli clearly explains the troubles that come in rules like these.

Chapter 8

“I think it’s a question of whether cruelty is well or badly used.”

In this chapter, Machiavelli talks about states attained by committing a violent crime. The process is explained in the chapter through the examples of Agathocles and Oliverotto de Fermo. Whenever a common citizen eliminates the ruling class with a cruel use of violence, he gains undefeated access over the territory but this does not mean that the ruler has extraordinary abilities to control it. It just means that the ruler used violence effectively. The other thing that Machiavelli points out in this chapter is that to ensure loyalty and respect of the people the necessary cruelty that has to be done, should be done in the beginning to ensure that cruelty is necessary afterwards. Favors, on the other hand, should be given slowly to fully savor them.

Chapter 9

“So, if he is sensible, the ruler must work out a situation where his citizens will always need both his government and him, however well or badly things are going.”

In this chapter, Machiavelli talks about gaining rule by public support. There are two such kinds of rule, one, where the ruler is supported by the nobles because they want to oppress the people and two, where the people make one among them a king to stand against the oppression of the nobles. The rule supported by the nobles is very likely to fall soon because, the dealings with the ruler would be more on an equal level where the nobles would consider themselves akin to the king. Similarly, rules supported by the people would last longer because the ruler is alone and is supported closely by the people. In such cases, it always helps to keep the people who gave the power, close and happy. The problem arises when such a king moves towards absolute rule where the dealings with people are done through magistrates and people start losing touch with the ruler.

Chapter 10

“Its human nature to tie yourself to a leader as much for the services you’ve done him as the good, he’s done to you.”

In this chapter, Machiavelli talks about how a state can withstand siege. There are some rulers which cannot go on the offensive due to lack of a steady army. For them, it is best that they fortify their fortress and have faith on their people that they would not turn against the ruler. Having said this, he also points out a very simple thing that as long as the people are kept relatively safe and properly fed, they will have no reason to go against the ruler.

Chapter 11

“Only church leaders possess states without defending them and subjects without governing them.”

In this chapter, Machiavelli talks about the last form of state, i.e. church states. According to him, Church states are states bound and regulated by faith and therefore, it is nigh impossible to break them. At the same time, church rulers don’t directly fight in wars, but they have their territory protected. This all is attributed to Pope Alexander VI after he used money and violence to build an empire for himself and ended up benefiting the Church.

Chapter 12

“A republic with a citizen army is less likely to fall victim toa coup than a republic paying for Mercenary armies.”

In this chapter, Machiavelli stresses the importance of having a steady army to back any aspiring ruler. Then, he proceeds to completely rule out mercenaries as a force to be used in the army. According to him, mercenaries were the most useless bunch and would never be reliable. Through the examples of Venetia and Florence, he brings out the reason for the rise of mercenaries, that being their numbers and the other was the absence of steady army in the provinces. The other thing that helped out Florence was that both the sides of mercenaries had ambitions elsewhere preventing the need to conquer their employee. In the end, Machiavelli points out that when an army from outside will attack, like in the case of Charles, the mercenaries will just disappear and there will be no one left to defend Italian territories. Having said this, he goes on to attribute the degrading situation of Italy to the mercenaries and their incompetence.

Chapter 13

“So, anyone looking for a no-win situation should turn to auxiliaries, because they are far more dangerous even than mercenaries.” 

In this chapter, Machiavelli, through many examples, advises the ruler to completely avoid the use of an auxiliary army during conquest. Auxiliary armies are even more dangerous to the ruler than the mercenaries because, one, unlike the mercenaries, they are loyal to another person altogether and obey his command. Two, auxiliaries don’t take leisurely time off like the mercenaries. Through the example of Cesare Borgia, Machiavelli explains how an ambitious ruler needs to have his own army to do his bidding rather than depend on other forces. Inviting Auxiliary forces is like suicide because after victory, the ruler will be at their mercy.

Chapter 14

“For one of the many consequences of not having an army is that people will find you pathetic and this is a stigma a ruler must guard against.”

In this chapter, Machiavelli talks about what a ruler’s relationship with his army is. The first thing is that the ruler should always be thinking about war, without that, he would end up being a mere statesman and lose touch over his soldiers. There are two kinds of preparation that should be done to ensure military readiness, one, physical preparation which involves regular army exercise and in addition to that, a lot of hunting, which will provide the ruler with a sturdy structure and help him understand the types of terrain firsthand.  The second is mental preparation which involves reading and studying historical works to understand the semantics of war.

Chapter 15

“If you think about it, there’ll always be something that looks morally right but would actually lead to disaster, and something else that looks wrong but will bring security and success.”

In this chapter, Machiavelli talks about what positive and negative characteristics of any ruler are. He realistically points out that a ruler cannot have all positive and no negative characteristics. Therefore, a ruler should be pragmatic and understand the situation and act accordingly, no matter the moral cost.

Chapter 16

“A ruler in power and a man seeking power are two different things.”

In this chapter, Machiavelli talks about why a ruler shouldn’t be overtly generous to his subjects or to his nobles. When a ruler is overtly generous, there are two things that might have happened, one, that he is spending the public’s money, in which case, he will quickly lose their support. Two, he is trying to gain something, in which case, he has exposed his vulnerability. Any ruler should keep in mind to slowly spend one’s and the subject’s money, but never think twice while spending someone else’s money.

 Chapter 17

“Fear means fear of punishment, and that’s something people will never forget.”

In this chapter, Machiavelli talks about how a ruler should decide to be cruel or to be compassionate. He points out that if a ruler needs to be loved, he cannot be cruel to his subjects. On the same lines, a ruler can never be compassionate during conquest. Case in point here is Hannibal of Carthage who led his armies ruthlessly and inspired people around him. Ultimately, it is upon the people to love or hate the ruler, but the ruler shouldn’t be afraid to be cruel when necessary.

Chapter 18

“Pope Alexander VI never did anything but con people.”

In this chapter, Machiavelli talks about how a ruler should manipulate human nature to his benefit. He points out that to gain support of people, any ruler would have to make promises, promises that he cannot keep due to multiple reasons. Here, it is important that the ruler is fully religious, fully loyal and fully passionate which making such promises. Through the example of Alexander VI, Machiavelli effectively points out the flaws in human nature.

Chapter 19

“Experience shows that for every successful conspiracy, there are any number of failures.”

In this chapter, Machiavelli talks about internal threats that any ruler faces. This internal threat may be in the form of subjects rebelling against him or his own people conspiring against him. This might happen when the ruler does things that lead to a rise in contempt among the people. Through examples of roman emperors, Machiavelli points out that pointless violence, seizure of property etc. are some to the things which lead to a rise in contempt.

Chapter 20

“The ruler who is more afraid of his people rather than of foreign enemies, must build fortresses; but the ruler afraid of foreign armies should do without them”

In this chapter, Machiavelli talks about how a ruler should behave with the citizens around his residence. There are, two kinds of rulers according to him. One, frightened of the people he has just conquered and two, frightened of any external threat. When any ruler begins to arm his people, he inspires a feeling of trust in them and indirectly makes them work for him. On the other hand, if he builds up fortresses to protect himself, the people would be prone to not trust him and would easily go against him during any siege or battle. Building fortresses also means that the ruler is afraid of the people and this might result into resentment and rebellion.

Chapter 21

“And when your ally wins, which with your help is inevitable, he’ll be at your mercy.”

In this chapter, Machiavelli talks about how any ruler should win respect. Conquests and battles are a sure way to win respect among people. In addition to this, being pragmatic and exceptional in administrative matters also wins respect among people. A ruler should unanimously align with one side, must always respect others actual achievements and must assure people of normalcy. All of these would result in him winning respect among his subjects.

Chapter 22

“A ruler’s choice of ministers is an important matter.”

In this chapter, Machiavelli points out the necessity of having a proper set of ministers to guide the ruler. There are three kind of ministers, one which observe and learn without help, two which learn by watching someone else, and three which do nothing. Any ruler should have more ministers falling in the first category.

Chapter 23

“So, a ruler must always take advice, but only when he wants it, not when other want to give it to him.”

In this chapter, Machiavelli talks about how to avoid unwanted advice and falterers. The ruler must make it clear that he is not to be given advice without him asking for it. At the same time, he should keep asking to gain more insight from his minister. A ruler should ultimately follow his own bidding and not just the advice.

Chapter 24  

“The only good, sure, lasting forms of defense are those based on yourself and your own strength.”

In this chapter, Machiavelli talks about how Italian rulers lost their states due to their own lack of abilities and not foreign invasion. He points out that weak army and zero public support combined with zero preparation and getting used to peace, ultimately led to their downfall.

Chapter 25

“ Fortune varies, but men go on regardless.”

In this chapter, Machiavelli talks about the luck factor involved in any ruler’s life. Here, he points out that the rulers who solely depend on luck are more prone to failure when luck runs out while more dynamic rulers who change with time, are the ones that actually last for a longer time.

Chapter 26

“There was one man who showed glimpses of greatness, the kind of thing that made you think he was sent by God for the country’s redemption, but then at the height of his achievements, his luck turned.”

In this chapter, Machiavelli becomes emotional about the fate of Italy and goes on to point out to Lorenzo that his family would be the right one to restore the glory of Italy.

Nishit Jogi is a final year MA student in the Dept of International Studies, Political Science and History, CHRIST(Deemed To Be University 

Views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the position of the University

The paper aims to analyze the competition between China and the Quad (US-Japan-India-Australia) in the Southeast Asian region and how it has affected both regional and global players. The author defines the competition in terms of Southeast Asia’s acceptance rate of Quad’s FOIP (Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy) and China’s BRI (Belt and Road Initiative). The paper covers the economic policies of China concerning BRI in Southeast Asia and US policies to counter China’s outreach in the region. It covers the role played by other significant actors like India and Japan. This paper also provides current and probable policy outcomes of regional countries. 

Methodology

1. Research Questions: 

● Will the Indo-Pacific become a strategic battlefield for US-China? 

● How do the dynamics between BRI and FOIP impact the region? 

1. Methods of study: 

● Comparative Study of impacts and reactions for FOIP and BRI in the region of Southeast Asia. 

● Thucydides Trap narrative to explain the relationship between FOIP and BRI. 

1. Hypothesis and Assumptions: 

● Intense Strategic rivalry between China and the United States is likely to occur and intensify in Southeast Asia because both powers want geo-strategic influence over the region. 

Analysis of the Study

The paper is divided into three sections. The first discusses why China prioritizes Southeast Asia amid strategic competition with the United States. It is then followed by a discussion on China's implementation of BRI and the response from the region. The final section provides an analysis of Chinese perceptions of FOIP, primarily collected from Chinese scholars before the paper concludes with prospects and implications for South-East Asia. In the first section, the author discusses extensively on the importance of South-East Asia for China. The underlying argument is that since most Chinese energy supplies reach China through the region and China has an extensive maritime interest in the region and in the South China Sea, which has become increasingly important. However, in terms of regional security, the US already has a considerable presence and partnership with the Southeast Asian States. To counter this, China has adopted new economic statecraft to woo the states in this region, and BRI is one such measure that has achieved a lot of success in Southeast Asia. This has led to a bifurcated regional order where the leadership in regional security is being countered by Chinese economic advancement. In the second section, the author talks about the reactions to Chinese Policy for the region from the Quad. Here, there is extensive writing about agreements and open economy initiatives under the leadership of various members of the Quad in the region, and how they have aimed at countering the rise of China. In the third section, the author talks about the responses of the Southeast Asian States and the changes in BRI that came as a result of FOIP. The paper argues that the FOIP in its infancy was never perceived as a threat by Chinese analysts because it could never do in practice the ideas that it posed. But recent events have changed that idea when the US came out in support of this initiative by Japan. This meant that China had to counter FOIP and make stakeholders believe more in BRI. The result was seen in the second conference for BRI where the focus was paid more on the economic side rather than the strategic side. The Chinese aimed to create more transparency in the structure and vouchsafed that BRI never engaged in ‘Predatory Economics’. The author argues that all of this came because of the US and the Quad’s increasing interest in the region and also somewhat due to local resistance to BRI projects in Myanmar and Malaysia. This section also talks about the reason behind an increase in the intensity of Chinese involvement in the region. It argues that after the US withdrew from many projects, its credibility was affected and that became a pivot point for China to invest. The paper concludes by stating the policy responses of the regional player in the Southeast Asian region. Accordingly, most states in the region have been neutral and are taking benefits from both sides. 

Conclusion

In terms of analyzing the respective sides of FOIP and BRI, the paper covers everything. The interesting thing to note here is that it also talks about the diminishing role of the US in the region. This may be true in some aspects and not true in some others. The Quad under US leadership still has a considerable grip over the region. In addition to this, the author suggested a Thucydidean Trap situation occurring in the region. This, if taken in the sense of economic competition, can be true to the premises, but strategically, a substantial conflict can't happen in the region. Chinese policy for the region has changed for the past few years and it has started looking for alternatives to mitigate the ‘Malacca dilemma’ that it has been facing. US policy under the Trump administration has ignored the region because of its focus on revitalizing America. The other quite obvious fact is that most of the countries in the region have immensely efficient administrations and all of them are united by ASEAN. So, there is no way in the near future that these countries will let China or the US increase their hold. The idea of non-alignment possessed by these nations is motivated by both, the notion of freedom and the notion of increasing economic benefits. As long as that is there, they will play both hands and ensure that no conflict arises.

​Nishit Jogi is a final year MA student in the Dept of International Studies,Political Science and History,CHRIST(Deemed To Be University

Views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the position of the University 

Title of the article - Contending Frameworks for Foreign Policy Analysis: An Appraisal

Authors – Sivananda Patnaik, William Nunes

Journal - The Indian Journal of Political Science

Scope and Structure of the Study

This study reviews and critically appraises the existing theoretical literature in the field of foreign policy analysis and presents contending analytical perspectives used for analysing and explaining foreign policy. It aims to move away from the area study approach that has been most commonly used in foreign policy analysis which focuses more on a descriptive and relational study.  

Different frameworks have been examined broadly and not individually. The authors aim at explaining the different approaches and then critically analysing them to see their effectiveness in foreign policy analysis.

Methodology of the Study

The paper is an empirical and qualitative study of the literature that is available on the different approaches and frameworks of foreign policy analysis. It looks at categorization of foreign policy analysis in order to identify and locate the patterns in foreign policy behaviour and thereby understand why states do as they do.

Main Arguments

The authors’ first argument is that the study of foreign policy analysis in India has not been effectively addressed due to two main reasons; one, too much focus on the area studies approach and two, lack of resources. The studies have been focused on analysing foreign policy in a state-centric approach which shows the cause-effect relations between external factors and foreign policy decisions while ignoring other aspects which influence decision makers. The authors try to comprehensively list the various contending approaches to foreign policy analysis and have divided these frameworks into four analytical perspectives.

The first approach is the Idiosyncratic Perspective which contends that foreign policy of a State emerges from the perceptions and responses of the leadership who are the foreign policy decision makers. This approach is important since it takes into account the psychological aspect of foreign policy formulation. In this it differs from the realist approach which says that States are unitary rational actors. However, the authors’ criticize this approach since it does not take into account that there are internal and external determinants which affect the idiosyncrasies of decision makers. It also does not provide analytical schemes to conceptualise foreign policy.

The second approach is the Governmental Perspective/ Bureaucratic Politics Model which is an effort to correct the shortcomings of the realist approach. This approach analyses the organizational structures and processes involved in foreign policy making. It contends that foreign policy is a result of bargaining process involving different government departments, military services and subdivisions. The decision makers according to this perspective are driven by their career and departmental interest and it does on focus on the psychological aspect. The criticism of this approach is that it ignores the influence of domestic and external sources of foreign policy.

The third approach is the Societal Perspective which explains foreign policy by considering the socio-economic, cultural and political structures and processes within a state. There are two main goals of a state according to theorists of this approach; to strengthen and stabilise the ruling elite, and to protect its territorial integrity. This approach is considered better in understanding the foreign policy decisions of third world countries rather than the realist perspective which focuses only on national security. However, this approach is criticised for neglecting the role of external factors.

The last approach is the Systemic Perspective which is the oldest approach to foreign policy analysis. While this approach falls under realism, it also influenced by system theory. As per this perspective, foreign policy is shaped by the conditions that prevail outside the state. This approach contends that states use foreign policy as a tool to protect their security and independence in the anarchic international system. This approach is criticised in two respects; it excludes international institutions, laws, regimes and normative processes, and it underestimates the domestic sources of foreign policy.

The authors then argue that the different approaches individually are not sufficient to provide comprehensive explanations of foreign policy and that there is a need to integrate them. Therefore the authors aim at working towards an Integrative Framework for foreign policy analysis. It argues that while there are differences between the different perspectives, there are not many conceptual differences in their general construction. The authors’ argue that based on realist assumptions, these frameworks divide foreign policy activity into five inter-related analytical categories: motivation; determinants; strategy and objectives; decision making structure; and foreign policy behaviour constituting interactions and roles.

​Conclusion

The paper conveys that the factors that influence the foreign policy making process don’t operate in a simple manner as they have been categorised. The authors, through the empirical review of different perspectives, aimed to single out and highlight distinct factors whose complex interplay marks out the field of foreign policy. This paper attempts to underline the importance of each factor on the decision making but whose prominence may vary depending on the state or the situation. This paper therefore argues the necessity of keeping in focus the many different determinants involved in making foreign policies in order to get a more integrated and dynamic understanding of the field of foreign policy studies. 

Anjishnu is a MA student in the Department of International Studies, Political Science and History, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru

Views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the position of the University 

The article deals with the ongoing war in the Arab state of Yemen. Given its title, the article’s scope encompasses everything from the war’s military operations and foreign state interests to its medial portrayal and humanitarian crisis. The writing thus covers the dynamics of all these elements since the Yemeni Spring of 2011.

The article dives into vindicating the first portion of the article’s title – why it is a forgotten war, given the miniscule amount of attention that has been paid to it (both regionally and globally). It then moves on to establishing the correctness of the second part of the title, that Yemen is an unforgettable country. This is done by drawing up how important Yemen is, not just to the Arab states but also to the contemporary world. The conclusion is made by plausible solutions that could resolve the conflict. 

The article has two major research objectives: to portray the fact that within the span of less than about 4 years, the Yemen war has already been neglected and written off by the world; to prove why the world cannot afford to do this, given how significant the country of Yemen actually is in international politics.

There are very few assumptions made by the article. Most of the sections are backed by hard-hitting facts from the ground, especially when it comes to mapping the humanitarian side of the war.However, the authors believe that Russia and China too have a major role in the happenings in Yemen and the possible solutions to them. 

The article argues that the international community has not looked into the Yemen war with the kind of attention it deserves. This is the major argument involved, and the authors have been able to prove this by logically analyzing the happenings.Yemen’s strategic relevance has been highlighted on the basis of both its geo-strategic and geo-political aspects.

It realistically states that the solution, if at all there is one, is not clear today to any of the parties involved, as Yemen has been turned into a complex proxy battlefield by global powers. The article mentions that the solution is not in the hands of the Yemenis but in those of Iran and Saudi, as well as their respective allies. It calls for a clear road map to peace to be created. It recommends a UN relief programme to deal with the issues like civilian starvation. 

​The article presents the facts extremely well, making the dire situation of the conflict crystal clear. It presents the various dimensions of the conflict, speaks of the different parties and the interests driving the conflict.It identifies this war as a proxy war between the power centres in Riyadh and Tehran. The deep meanings of the war in the form of the age-old Gulf sectarianism are pointed out with accuracy. 

One limitation comes at the very end of the article, with regard to the potential solutions suggested by the authors. There seems to be no solid solution being offered for neither the armed clashes nor the humanitarian crisis.

Another is that stating the solution does not lie in the hands of Yemenis is a questionable judgement. At least at the current stage, the Yemeni Houthis are not understood to be entirely powerless puppets in Iran’s hands. The Iranian influence is undeniable, but most believe that the Houthis still operate with a certain level of independence. Therefore, peace can be possible only if Houthis want it too. 

Padmini is a MA student in the Department of International Studies, Political Science and History, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru

Views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the position of the University