Overcoming the poverty of Western historical imagination: Alternative analogies for making sense of the South China Sea conflict

Abstract

This article analyzes the use of historical analogies to interpret and explain foreign policy behavior, focusing on the South China Sea conflict. In reviewing coverage in the international English-language press, we find a range of historical analogies, from the conflict between Athens and Sparta to the 1938 Munich agreement, to interpret China’s strategy and motivations in the region. While analogies are powerful tools for interpreting international events, their use has dangers as they are often deployed to justify decisions rather than analyze options. This article has two goals. First, we argue that relying excessively on Western analogies for understanding China can be misleading; instead, we suggest visiting examples from China’s past that offer alternative readings of its current ambitions. Second, we suggest a way to overcome the deterministic application of historical analogies by not taking them individually, but rather taking them as sets of alternative scenarios. This way, they can provide important insights for generating critical debate and informing tactful diplomacy.

Keywords

Border conflict China threat determinism historical analogy South China Sea Western-centrism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allison

(2017) Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Axelrod

Forster

(2017) How historical analogies in newspapers of five countries make sense of major events: 9/11, Mumbai and Tahrir Square. Research in Economics 71(1): 8–19.

Beinart

(2014) China, the Philippines, and the makings of a “Munich” moment. The Atlantic, February 6. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/02/china-the-philippines-and-the-makings-of-a-munich-moment/283649/ (accessed March 8, 2018).

Bradsher

(2014) Philippine leader sounds alarm on China. New York Times, February 5. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/world/asia/philippine-leader-urges-international-help-in-resisting-chinas-sea-claims.html?_r=0 (accessed March 8, 2018).

Chang

(1993) The absence of war in the U.S.–China confrontation over Quemoy and Matsu in 1954–1955: Contingency, luck, deterrence. The American Historical Review 98(5): 1500–1524.

Chen

(2001) Mao’s China and the Cold War. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.

China Daily (2015) President Xi’s speech on China–US ties. China Daily, September 24. Available at: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2015xivisitus/2015–09/24/content_21964069_3.htm (accessed December 8, 2017).

Dallek

(2010) The tyranny of metaphor. Foreign Policy 182: 78–85.

Deibert

(1997) “Exorcismus theoriae”: Pragmatism, metaphors and the return of the medieval in IR theory. European Journal of International Relations 3(2): 167–192.

10.

Der Derian

(ed.) (2001) International Theory: Critical Investigations. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

11.

Dyson

Preston

(2006) Individual characteristics of political leaders and the use of analogy in foreign policy decision making. Political Psychology 27(2): 265–288.

12.

Gerson

(2010) The Sino-Soviet border conflict: Deterrence, escalation, and the threat of nuclear war in 1969. Center for Naval Analyses.

13.

Goh

(2005) Nixon, Kissinger, and the “Soviet card” in the U.S. opening to China, 1971–1974. Diplomatic History 29(3): 475–502.

14.

Goldsmith

(2005) Imitation in International Relations: Observational Learning, Analogies, and Foreign Policy in Russia and Ukraine. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

15.

Gurtov

(1976) The Taiwan Strait crisis revisited: Politics and foreign policy in Chinese motives. Modern China 2(1): 49–103.

16.

Hayton

(2014) The South China Sea: The Struggle for Power in Asia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

17.

Herman

(2016) China’s Anschluss in the South China Sea. National Review, December 20. Available at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443209/chinas-drone-seizure-south-china-sea-anschluss (accessed March 8, 2018).

18.

Hobson

Lawson

(2008) What is history in International Relations? Millennium: Journal of International Studies 37(2): 415–435.

19.

Holland

(2013) Foreign policy and political possibility. European Journal of International Relations 19(1): 49–68.

20.

Jacobi

(2011) On the “construction” of knowledge and the knowledge of “construction.” International Political Sociology 5(1): 94–97.

21.

Jervis

(1976) Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

22.

Kapila

(2016) South China Sea disputes merits Geneva-model international conference. South Asia Analysis Group, February 10. Available at: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1944 (accessed March 8, 2018).

23.

Kaplan

(2014) The guns of August in the East China Sea. Foreign Policy, March 17. Available at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/03/17/the-guns-of-august-in-the-east-china-sea/ (accessed March 8, 2018).

24.

Khong

(1992) Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

25.

Kirshner

(2010) The tragedy of offensive realism: Classical realism and the rise of China. European Journal of International Relations 18(1): 53–75.

26.

Kopper

(2016) Managing conflicting “truth claims” — Ambiguity in the diplomat’s toolkit in East-Asian Island conflict. The Pacific Review 29(4): 603–624.

27.

Kornprobst

(2007) Comparing apples and oranges? Leading and misleading uses of historical analogies. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 36(1): 29–49.

28.

Kuisong

(2000) The Sino-Soviet border clash of 1969: From Zhenbao Island to Sino-American rapprochement. Cold War History 1(1): 21–52.

29.

Kurbalija

Slavik

(eds) (2001) Language and Diplomacy. Malta: University of Malta Press.

30.

Lakoff

(2009) Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the Gulf. Cognitive Semiotics 4(2): 25–32.

31.

Lawson

(2012) The eternal divide? History and International Relations. European Journal of International Relations 18(2): 203–226.

32.

Lebow

(2010) Forbidden Fruit: Counterfactuals and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

33.

Liff

Ikenberry

(2014) Racing toward tragedy? China’s rise, military competition in the Asia Pacific, and the security dilemma. International Security 39(2): 52–91.

34.

Logevall

Osgood

(2010) The ghost of Munich: America’s appeasement complex. World Affairs Journal, July/August. Available at: http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/ghost-munich-americas-appeasement-complex (accessed March 8, 2018).

35.

Marks

(2011) Metaphors in International Relations Theory. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan US.

36.

Mearsheimer

(2006) China’s unpeaceful rise. Current History, 105(690): 160–162.

37.

Meierhenrich

(2006) Analogies at war. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 11(1): 1–40.

38.

Morgenthau

(1951) In Defense of the National Interest. New York, NY: Knopf.

39.

Mumford

(2015) Parallels, prescience and the past: Analogical reasoning and contemporary international politics. International Politics 52(1): 1–19.

40.

Munro

(1992) Awakening dragon. Policy Review, Fall(62): 10–17.

41.

Nathan

Scobell

(2014) China’s Search for Security. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

42.

Nye

(1998) The case against containment: Treat China like an enemy and that’s what it will be. Global Beat, June 22, 1998.

43.

Nyyssönen

Humphreys

(2016) “Another Munich we just cannot afford”: Historical metonymy in politics. Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory 19(2): 173–190.

44.

Oksenberg

(1991) The China problem. Foreign Affairs, Summer, 70(3).

45.

Pan

(2004) The “China threat” in American self-imagination: The discursive construction of other as power politics. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 29(3): 305–331.

46.

Pinsker

(2003) Drawing a line in the Taiwan Strait: “Strategic ambiguity” and its discontents. Australian Journal of International Affairs 57(2): 353–368.

47.

Prakash

(2017) Beware the rhyme of history. The Indian Express, March 24. Available at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/beware-the-rhyme-of-history-british-prime-minister-neville-chamberlain-munich-conference-german-annexation-adolf-hitler-china-world-war-4582702/ (accessed March 8, 2018).

48.

Pütz

(ed.) (1992) Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution: Studies in Honour of René Dirven on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

49.

Rasmussen

(2003) The history of a lesson: Versailles, Munich and the social construction of the past. Review of International Studies 29(4): 499–519.

50.

Rawnsley

(1999) Taiwan’s propaganda cold war: The offshore islands crises of 1954 and 1958. Intelligence and National Security 14(4): 82–101.

51.

Rorty

(1989) Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

52.

Roy

(1996) The “China threat” issue: Major arguments. Asian Survey 36(8): 758–771.

53.

Schlesinger

(1974) “Lessons” of the past: The use and misuse of history in American foreign policy. By Ernest R.

May

. Journal of American History 61(2): 443–444.

54.

Scott

(2016) China’s nine-dash line, international law, and the Monroe doctrine analogy. China Information 30(3): 296–311.

55.

Shen

Lovell

(2015) Undesired outcomes: China’s approach to border disputes during the early Cold War. Cold War History 15(1): 89–111.

56.

Shimko

(1994) Metaphors and foreign policy decision making. Political Psychology 15(4): 655–671.

57.

Shouten

(2012) Theory talk #49: John Mearsheimer on power as the currency of international relations, disciplining US foreign policy, and being an independent variable. Theory Talks.

58.

Smith

(1999) History and International Relations. London: Routledge.

59.

Stoddart

(2012) Losing an Empire and Finding a Role: Britain, the USA, NATO and Nuclear Weapons, 1964–70. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan US.

60.

Thucydides (1972) History of the Peloponnesian War. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books.

61.

Trager

(2015) Diplomatic signaling among multiple states. The Journal of Politics 77(3): 635–647.

62.

Tsuruoka

(2017) Japan’s greatest fear is abandonment by the US. Asia Times, December 6. Available at: http://www.atimes.com/article/japans-greatest-fear-abandonment-us/ (accessed March 8, 2018).

63.

Waldron

(1997) How not to deal with China. Commentary 3(March): 44–49.

64.

Waldron

(2017) There is no Thucydides trap. The Straits Times, June 18. Available at: http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/there-is-no-thucydides-trap (accessed March 8, 2018).

65.

Webb

(2011) East Asia Relations. Congressional Record 157(107) (July 18, 2011): S4628. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-07-18/pdf/CREC-2011-07-18.pdf (accessed June 11, 2018).

66.

Weldes

(1999) Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

67.

White

(2013) The China Choice: Why We Should Share Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

68.

Wolff

(ed.) (2012) China’s post-revolutionary borders, 1940s–1960s. Eurasia Border Review, 1–177.

69.

Zoellick

(2005) Whither China: From membership to responsibility? Available at: https://2001–2009.state.gov/s/d/former/zoellick/rem/53682.htm (accessed March 8, 2018).