International Relations from the Global South PDF

“It’s no secret that most textbooks on International Relations are written by Western scholars and offer a mainly Western perspective. This comprehensive and well-written volume is a major step towards building a Global IR, and deserves to be used in class- rooms around the world.” — Amitav Acharya, American University, USA “The stories and theories we encounter in the ﬁeld of International Relations are often presented as having ‘global’ or ‘universal’ reach. Yet quite to the contrary they often reﬂect very particular experiences, viewpoints and understandings of the world. This highly anticipated textbook shows how approaching international relations from the per- spective of researchers and students from the ‘global South’ matters for thinking through international politics more comprehensively, carefully and realistically. This text will pro- vide an invaluable resource for thinking, practicing and studying IR as the ﬁeld’s Euro- centric framings of the world are challenged, shifted and decolonized.” — Milja Kurki, Aberystwyth University, UK “This is the ﬁrst textbook to approach international relations as experienced and theor- ized in the global South. It brings non-Western stories to the center of knowledge pro- duction, breaking with rigid classiﬁcations to reﬂect on the diversity of experiences of the international. This is a bold and emancipatory textbook that will have a lasting effect on the way we teach IR everywhere.” — Manuela Lavinas Picq, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Ecuador, and Amherst College, USA “This new textbook is a generous gift to teachers and students of IR. While the ﬁrst impression might be that it is ‘only’ a solution to the much bewailed problem that stu- dents in the global South have been fed irrelevant introductions to the discipline, it is actually a very productive and stimulating way to also teach mainstream and ‘Northern’ concepts in a topical way. This is the textbook for teaching IR in and for all of the world.” — Ole Wæver, University of Copenhagen, Denmark International Relations from the Global South This exciting new textbook challenges the implicit notions inherent in most existing International Relations (IR) scholarship and instead presents the subject as seen from dif- ferent vantage points in the global South. Divided into four sections, (1) the IR discipline, (2) key concepts and categories, (3) global issues and (4) IR futures, it examines the ways in which world politics have been addressed by traditional core approaches and explores the limitations of these treatments for understanding both Southern and Northern experiences of the “international.” The book encourages readers to consider how key ideas have been developed in the discip- line, and through systematic interventions by contributors from around the globe, aims at both transforming and enriching the dominant terms of scholarly debate. This empowering, critical and reﬂexive tool for thinking about the diversity of experi- ences of international relations and for placing them front and center in the classroom will help professors and students in both the global North and the global South envision the world differently. In addition to general, introductory IR courses at both the under- graduate and graduate levels it will appeal to courses on sociology and historiography of knowledge, globalization, neoliberalism, security, the state, imperialism and international political economy. Arlene B. Tickner is a Professor of International Relations in the School of Inter- national, Political and Urban Studies at the Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia. Her main areas of research include sociology of knowledge in the ﬁeld of International Relations and the evolution of IR in non-Western settings, Latin American and hemi- spheric security, and Colombian foreign policy. She is the co-editor (with David Blaney and Inanna Hamati-Ataya) of the Routledge book series, Worlding Beyond the West. In addition to her academic work, she writes a weekly newspaper column in the Colombian daily, El Espectador. Karen Smith teaches International Relations at Leiden University in the Netherlands. She also remains afﬁliated as an honorary research associate with the University of Cape Town, South Africa, where she was based as an associate professor until 2017. Her research focuses on contributions to IR theory from the global South, South Africa’s for- eign policy and changes in global order. Worlding Beyond the West Series Editors Arlene B. Tickner, Universidad del Rosario, Colombia, David Blaney, Macalester Col- lege, USA and Inanna Hamati-Ataya, Cambridge University, UK Historically, the International Relations (IR) discipline has established its boundaries, issues and theories based upon Western experience and traditions of thought. This series explores the role of geocultural factors, institutions and academic practices in creating the concepts, epistemologies and methodologies through which IR knowledge is pro- duced. This entails identifying alternatives for thinking about the “international” that are more in tune with local concerns and traditions outside the West. But it also implies pro- vincializing Western IR and empirically studying the practice of producing IR knowledge at multiple sites within the so-called “West.” 19. Unravelling Liberal Interventionism Local Critiques of Statebuilding in Kosovo Edited by Gëzim Visoka and Vjosa Musliu 20. Naming a Transnational Black Feminist Framework Writing in Darkness K. Melchor Quick Hall 21. NGOs, Knowledge Production and Global Humanist Advocacy The Limits of Expertise Alistair Markland 22. Theory as Ideology in International Relations The Politics of Knowledge Edited by Benjamin Martill and Sebastian Schindler 23. International Relations from the Global South Worlds of Difference Edited by Arlene B. Tickner and Karen Smith 24. Making Global Knowledge in Local Contexts The Politics of International Relations and Policy Advice in Russia Katarzyna Kaczmarska International Relations from the Global South Worlds of Difference Edited by Arlene B. Tickner and Karen Smith First published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 selection and editorial matter, Arlene B. Tickner and Karen Smith; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Arlene B. Tickner and Karen Smith to be identiﬁed as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identiﬁcation and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Tickner, Arlene B., 1964- editor. | Smith, Karen, 1974- editor. Title: International relations from the global South : worlds of difference / edited by Arlene B. Tickner and Karen Smith. Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2020. | Series: Wording beyond the West | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identiﬁers: LCCN 2019055069 | ISBN 9781138799097 (hardback) | ISBN 9781138799103 (paperback) | ISBN 9781315756233 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: International relations–Textbooks. | International relations–Philosophy. | Developing countries–Foreign relations. | Developing countries–Politics and government. Classiﬁcation: LCC JZ1242.I5764 2020 | DDC 327.09172/4–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019055069 ISBN: 978-1-138-79909-7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-79910-3 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-75623-3 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Swales & Willis, Exeter, Devon, UK Contents List of ﬁgures ix List of tables x List of boxes xi List of contributors xiii Preface xvi 1 Introduction: International Relations from the global South 1 KAREN SMITH AND ARLENE B. TICKNER PART 1 Discipline 15 2 The global IR debate in the classroom 17 WIEBKE WEMHEUER-VOGELAAR, INGO PETERS, LAURA KEMMER, ALINA KLEINN, LUISA LINKE-BEHRENS AND SABINE MOKRY 3 Where, when and what is IR? 38 DAVID L. BLANEY 4 IR and the making of the white man’s world 56 PETER VALE AND VINEET THAKUR PART 2 Concepts 75 5 Order, ordering and disorder 77 KAREN SMITH 6 The international 97 AMY NIANG 7 War and conﬂict 115 ARLENE B. TICKNER viii Contents 8 State and sovereignty 139 NAVNITA CHADHA BEHERA 9 Religion, secularism and nationalism 161 APARNA DEVARE 10 Security 181 PINAR BILGIN 11 Foreign policy 197 ASLI CALKIVIK PART 3 Issues 219 12 Globalization 221 JOHN M. HOBSON 13 Inequality 240 JOAO PONTES NOGUEIRA 14 Migration 259 NIZAR MESSARI 15 Resistances 275 CAROLINA CEPEDA-MÁSMELA 16 Socio-environmentalism 296 CRISTINA YUMIE AOKI INOUE AND MATÍAS FRANCHINI PART 4 Futures 315 17 South–South talk 317 L.H.M. LING AND CAROLINA M. PINHEIRO Index 341 Figures 5.1 Upside-down map of the world 79 12.1 World trade routes, c.1300 CE 229 15.1 Alter-globalization process timeline 279 15.2 Resistances against neoliberalism 284 15.3 Global and local encounters of resistance 291 17.1 Yin/yang pacha 319 17.2 “Universe” 320 17.3 The Andean cross or chakana 326 17.4 Nazca monkey 327 17.5 Andean time-space 328 17.6 Andean time-space-body 329 Tables 2.1 The global IR debate 20 8.1 Conceptualizations of state and sovereignty in IR 144 8.2 Total number of states in the international arena 148 8.3 Numbers of wars between 1820 and 2007 149 8.4 Interventions by major powers, non-major powers and international organizations, 1946–2005 150 15.1 Synthesis of transnational practices 282 17.1 Entwinements and correspondences: worldism and “epistemologies of the South” 334 17.2 South–South talk: creating a platform for transformation on a global scale 336 Boxes 2.1 Non-Western? Post-Western? Global? 18 2.2 Geo-epistemology and epistemic violence 19 2.3 Non-/post-Western IR theories 22 2.4 Moving from ﬁxed categories to network ontologies 27 2.5 Beyond the classroom: practicing global IR differently 29 3.1 Anishinaabe international relations 41 3.2 Weediness and the in-between 47 4.1 Language and colonization 57 4.2 The South African War 59 4.3 Imperial anxieties 60 4.4 Language and decolonization 69 5.1 Are justice and order reconcilable? 81 5.2 The emerging powers and a changing global order 87 5.3 Ubuntu 91 6.1 Patrice Lumumba 100 6.2 The Franco-African Community 101 6.3 White Order, Black Politics 106 7.1 What’s in a name? Colombia and its armed conﬂict 117 7.2 Why “good” people do “bad” things 120 7.3 “Democratic” interventionism and the responsibility to protect (R2P) 121 7.4 When feminization and otherization meet 132 9.1 Origins of the word “secular” 165 9.2 Talal Asad outlining new ideas about religion 166 9.3 The Treaty of Westphalia and its role in creating new “secular” forms of state power 166 9.4 Religion in American public life 167 9.5 How “radical” was the “Islamic” Revolution in Iran? 172 9.6 The crisis in Afghanistan (1979–present day) 173 10.1 Standard of civilization 182 10.2 The other minds problem 187 10.3 Societal security and the societal security dilemma 188 10.4 “Security as technology” and “desecuritization” 190 10.5 Temporalizing difference, spatializing time 192 11.1 From third world to the global South? 203 11.2 Indian foreign policy and nuclear proliferation 207 11.3 G77, UNCTAD and the New International Economic Order 208 xii Boxes 11.4 Dependence, dependency, autonomy 209 12.1 When and why did Eurocentrism emerge? 222 12.2 The contested deﬁnitions of Eurocentrism 223 12.3 The contested deﬁnitions of anti-Eurocentrism 226 13.1 Sovereign inequality 242 13.2 International inequality 248 13.3 Global inequality 249 14.1 Refugees as a speciﬁc type of migrants 262 14.2 Failed attempts at the externalization of EU migration policies 266 14.3 The many levels of importance of migrants to sending states 268 14.4 Migration and climate change 269 14.5 Migrant testimonies 270 15.1 What is neoliberalism? 277 15.2 Transnational coalitions and demonstrations 281 15.3 Local social movements within the alter-globalization process 286 15.4 Resistance and earth justice 286 16.1 The Mamirauá Reserve 296 16.2 Peoples of the forests 306 Contributors Navnita Chadha Behera is a Professor of International Relations in the Department of Polit- ical Science at the University of Delhi, India. Her areas of research include knowledge production in IR outside the West, IR theory, security and conﬂict and political violence. Pinar Bilgin is a Professor of International Relations at Bilkent University, Turkey. She is the author of The International in Security, Security in the International (Routledge, 2017) and co- editor of the Routledge Handbook of International Political Sociology (Routledge, 2017) and Asia in International Relations (Routledge, 2017). With Monica Herz, she is also the co-editor of the Palgrave book series, Critical Security Studies in the Global South. David L. Blaney is G. Theodore Mitau Professor of Political Science at Macalester College, United States. With Naeem Inayatullah, he authored International Relations and the Prob- lem of Difference (Routledge, 2004) and Savage Economics: Wealth, Poverty and the Temporal Walls of Capitalism (Routledge, 2010). He is currently working with Naeem on two companion volumes on liberal International Political Economy and Marxist thought. Asli Calkivik is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at Istanbul Technical University, Turkey. She received her PhD degree in Political Science at the University of Minnesota. Her work focuses largely on international relations and political theory, and critical security studies. Carolina Cepeda-Másmela is an Assistant Professor in the Department of International Rela- tions at the Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia. She obtained her PhD in political science from the Universidad de los Andes. Her main areas of research and teaching are theories of international relations, social movements and transnational collective action. Aparna Devare is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Hyderabad, India. She teaches courses in IR. Her areas of interest are coloni- alism and international relations, religion, nationalism and politics. Her book History and the Making of a Modern Hindu Self (Routledge, 2011) deals with themes of religion, secu- larism and nationalism through key Indian nationalist ﬁgures. Matías Franchini is a Professor of International Relations in the School of Political Science, Government and International Relations at the Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia. His main areas of research are global environmental governance, the governance of the Anthropocene in Latin America, and the international political economy of climate change. He is the co-author of Brazil and Climate Change: Beyond the Amazon (Routledge, 2018). xiv Contributors John M. Hobson is a Professor of Politics and International Relations at the University of Shefﬁeld, UK. He is a fellow of the British Academy and author of nine books, the latest of which is Multicultural Origins of the Global Economy: Navigating beyond the Western- centric Frontier (Cambridge University Press, 2020). Cristina Yumie Aoki Inoue is a Professor in the Institute of International Relations at the University of Brasília, Brazil. She is member of the Earth System Governance, Scientiﬁc Steering Committee and of the Active Learning in International Affairs Section of the International Studies Association. Her main areas of research are global environmental pol- itics, transnational relations and international development cooperation. Laura Kemmer is a PhD candidate in urban anthropology at Hafen City University, in Ham- burg, Germany. She studies the emergence of urban collectivities through affective “bonds” and the “political matters” of public transport in Brazil. Her recent publications include “Free Riding Rio: Protest, Public Transport and the Politics of a Footboard,” City & Society (forthcoming) and “Promissory Things: How Affective Bonds Stretch Along a Tramline,” Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory (2019). Alina Kleinn is a consultant for the UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning, based in Buenos Aires. She is the author of a chapter of the volume Globalizing Inter- national Relations: Scholarship amidst Divides and Diversity (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016). L.H.M. Ling served as Associate Dean of Faculty Affairs at the New School for Public Engagement (NSPE) and at the time of her passing in 2018, was an Associate Professor at the Milano School of International Affairs, Management, and Urban Policy at The New School, United States. Her research focused on developing a post-Western, post- Westphalian approach to world politics through the notion of “multiple worlds” or world- ism. As the author of numerous academic books and articles, plays and a novel, Lily’s work will continue to be a driving force in critical IR for many years to come. Luisa Linke-Behrens holds a PhD in International Relations from Freie Universität Berlin, Germany, where she has held positions as Research Assistant and Project Coordinator. She now works at the Senate Chancellery of Berlin. Nizar Messari is an Associate Professor in International Studies at Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane (Morocco) and Vice President for Academic Affairs at the same institution. His areas of interest are IR theory and critical security studies. He has worked and published on topics related to migration and refugee studies since 2010. Sabine Mokry is a PhD candidate in the Political Science Department at Leiden University, Netherlands. Her dissertation analyzes the conditions under which Chinese social actors, speciﬁcally think tankers, scholars and lobbyists, inﬂuence China’s foreign policy prior- ities. She obtained two Master’s degrees from Freie Universität Berlin, one in International Relations and one in China Studies. Amy Niang is a Senior Lecturer of International Relations at the University of the Witwaters- rand. Her areas of research include the history of state formation, the notion of “the inter- national” in theory and practice, and Africa in/and international relations. She is the author of The Postcolonial African State in Transition (Rowman & Littleﬁeld, 2018). Joao Pontes Nogueira is an Associate Professor of International Relations at the Inter- national Relations Institute, Pontiﬁcal Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. His Contributors xv ﬁelds of interest include IR theory, international political sociology, humanitarianism, inter- national inequality and the role of cities in world politics. Ingo Peters is an Associate Professor and Executive Director of the Center of Transnational Studies, Foreign and Security Policy at the Otto-Suhr-Institute for Political Science, Department of Political and Social Sciences, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany. His teach- ing and research interests include German foreign policy, European security and European Union foreign policy, transatlantic relations, European security institutions and IR theory. Carolina M. Pinheiro holds a Master’s degree in International Affairs from the Julien J. Studley Graduate Program, Milano School of International Affairs, Management, and Urban Policy at The New School, United States. With a background in law and diverse activities ranging from grassroots advocacy representing indigenous populations to serving as a ﬁnance attorney, her research interests encompass creative intersections between dif- ferent world views and the art of listening to navigate them. Karen Smith teaches International Relations at Leiden University in the Netherlands. She also remains afﬁliated as an honorary research associate with the University of Cape Town, South Africa, where she was based as an Associate Professor until 2017. Her research focuses on contributions to IR theory from the global South, South Africa’s for- eign policy and changes in global order. Vineet Thakur is a University Lecturer in History and International Relations at Leiden Uni- versity, the Netherlands. He is the author (with Peter Vale) of South Africa, Race and the Making of International Relations (Rowman & Littleﬁeld, 2020), Postscripts on Independ- ence: Foreign Policy Discourses in India and South Africa (Oxford University Press, 2018) and Jan Smuts and the Indian Question (University of KwaZulu-Natal Press, 2017). Arlene B. Tickner is a Professor of International Relations in the School of International, Political and Urban Studies at the Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia. Her main areas of research include sociology of knowledge in the ﬁeld of International Relations and the evolution of IR in non-Western settings, Latin American and hemispheric security, and Colombian foreign policy. She is the co-editor (with David Blaney and Inanna Hamati-Ataya) of the Routledge book series, Worlding Beyond the West. In addition to her academic work, she writes a weekly newspaper column in the Colombian daily, El Espectador. Peter Vale is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship at the Uni- versity of Pretoria, South Africa. He was the founding director of the Johannesburg Insti- tute for Advanced Study, and is Nelson Mandela Professor of Politics Emeritus, Rhodes University. His latest book is South Africa, Race and the Making of International Relations (with Vineet Thakur) (Rowman & Littleﬁeld, 2020). Currently, he researches cartoons and international relations, how the international came to South Africa and the social responsi- bility of higher education. Wiebke Wemheuer-Vogelaar is a Post-doctoral Researcher at the Freie Universität Berlin, Germany. She initiated the project “Global Pathways: Knowledge Diffusion in IR Research” at FU Berlin and worked previously on similar projects at that institution and at the College of William and Mary, United States. She is the co-editor of the volume Globalizing International Relations: Scholarship amidst Divides and Diversity (Palgrave- Macmillan, 2016) and the co-author of several journal articles on the sociology of Inter- national Relations. Preface This book has been a long time coming. For over 15 years, a group of colleagues work- ing throughout the world on distinct facets of what is loosely described as non- or post- Western International Relations, has frequently expressed our discomfort with the ﬁeld of IR and its textbooks for addressing varied experiences of world politics in a meaningful way with our students. A typical challenge faced by professors of IR, particularly in global South classrooms, but increasingly in the North too, is how to teach theories, con- cepts and issues in ways that make sense to students, given the strong disconnect that exists between what we have grown accustomed to labeling the “ABC” or the “canon” of the discipline, on the one hand, and lived realities on the ground, on the other. In April 2012 we ﬁnally decided to do something about this. At the International Stud- ies Association (ISA) annual convention in San Diego, Pinar Bilgin, Nizar Messari, Karen Smith and Arlene B. Tickner sat down in a random coffee shop and talked through what a textbook written from the global South, and of use both there and in the North for understanding IR and international relations1 in all of its diversity, would look like and who we might recruit to actually write it. We were fortunate enough to receive the generous support of Nizar’s institution, Al Akhawayn University, to hold a ﬁrst authors’ workshop in Ifrane, Morocco, in October 2012, at which an initial contributor pool delivered preliminary presentations, discussed in greater detail the contents of our “dream” textbook, and tried out our ideas on some of the university’s IR students. In Ifrane we were joined, among others, by Lily (L.H.M.) Ling, who became a tireless source of support for the project and collaborated temporarily as one of the textbook’s co-editors (as did Nizar). Thanks to Lily’s efforts, the Julien J. Studley Graduate Pro- gram in International Affairs at The New School hosted a second workshop in New York in October 2013, at which more reﬁned chapter drafts were presented and commented upon by both textbook contributors and New School professors. Subse- quently, we presented our collective work in panels at the annual ISA conventions in Toronto (February 2014) and New Orleans (March 2015) and at the EISA in Sicily (2015), where we were genuinely surprised at the amount of enthusiasm that the text- book idea generated among our academic peers, many of whom have continued to ask about it regularly. On more occasions than we would like to remember, we were ready to throw in the towel on this project. In addition to the comings and goings of potential chapter authors, as the project advanced our ideas changed in terms of what we were doing, whether it was a textbook of alternative theorizing, a more general critical reading of international rela- tions from the perspective of the global South or both, for which audiences (undergraduate, graduate, global South, global North or all of the above), and how best to achieve this. We are grateful to those who encouraged us not to give up, and deeply appreciative of Preface xvii all our contributors’ patience, understanding and commitment, as well as that of our editors at Routledge. During those times when it seemed as if the textbook would never come to fruition, Lily liked to remind us that doing something different as com- pared to the dozens of other publications available for teaching IR was a tall order, given the disciplining functions of IR. In particular, providing students with a minimal roadmap to dominant approaches in the ﬁeld – as is customarily expected in a “textbook” – while avoiding making those same approaches the center of attention or the main focus of critique, is surprisingly difﬁcult. The fact that after so many years nothing analogous to this textbook has yet appeared seems to prove the point. We think that Lily – who departed this world way too soon in 2018 – would ﬁnd this quite amusing. Now that we have (ﬁnally) completed the textbook, which admittedly is a bit different from what we might have envisioned eight years ago, we are hopeful that it will help professors and students alike to identify alternatives within IR and international relations and to envision the world(s) differently. Note 1 In the volume we distinguish between International Relations (IR) as the ﬁeld of study and international relations as a practice. 1 Introduction International Relations from the global South Karen Smith and Arlene B. Tickner A familiar saying about the ﬁeld of International Relations (IR) is that it is not very “international,” given the pervasiveness of Western (mainly Anglo-American) modes of thought, nor much about “relations,” except for those that exist between states, especially world powers. By way of justiﬁcation, neorealist theorist, Kenneth N. Waltz (1979: 72) once claimed that [i]t would be as ridiculous to construct a theory of international politics based on Malaysia and Costa Rica as it would be to construct an economic theory of oligopol- istic competition based on the minor ﬁrms in a sector of an economy. In his critical historiography of IR, John Hobson (2012) traces the origins of such myopia to scientiﬁc racism in the 18th and 19th centuries, showing how the main canons of (Westphalian) world politics are rooted in the perspectives and experiences of white, European men (a similar argument is developed in Chapter 4). This Eurocentric back- ground, according to Hobson, accounts for both the intellectual and the material domin- ation of the West in IR. And yet, the claim that world politics may look different depending on the geocultural site from which one views it has become commonplace in IR. During the past two dec- ades, growing scholarly interest in the global South and the non-West has led to a number of literatures that have sought to: (a) critique the supposed “universality” of categories such as sovereignty, the state, secularism and security; (b) analyze distinct IR concepts as they have actually been experienced, problematized and theorized in distinct parts of the world; and (c) identify different non-Western concepts that may shed light on world politics beyond existing disciplinary lenses (by way of illustration, see Neuman 1998; Dunn and Shaw 2001; Gruffydd Jones 2006; Acharya and Buzan 2010; Nayak and Selbin 2010; Cornelissen et al. 2012; Tickner and Blaney 2012). Although signiﬁcant contributions have been made by critical theories of distinct stripes, including feminism, poststructuralism, queer theory, postcolonialism and decoloniality, to our understanding of the social and situated nature of knowledge, and of the diverse per- spectives on the world derived from them, the question of what an IR rooted in the experi- ences of the global South and the non-West might actually look like has been less explored, especially in the realm of teaching (for more on this issue, see Chapter 2). It could be said that a growing “decolonializing” mood is permeating the IR discipline, generating impatience and discontent with much of the conventional work being done in North American and European universities (Gruffydd Jones 2006; Taylor 2012). Many in IR, particularly a growing number of younger scholars and students (including those still 2 Karen Smith and Arlene B. Tickner in undergraduate and graduate programs), are hungry for materials to enrich their know- ledge in a way that helps them to see how the world looks from diverse places. A characteristic challenge that many of the contributors to this volume share when teach- ing IR both in or centered around the global South is precisely the disconnect that we sense between the theories customarily used to analyze world politics, the ﬁeld’s key concepts, categories and themes as determined by those theories, and lived realities out- side the West and North. However, deeply entrenched disciplinary logics operate in such a way that even scholars who acknowledge the problematic and exclusionary nature of the ﬁeld, and support efforts to decenter or globalize it, continue to use conventional texts in their syllabi, and to present students with a limited, Western-centric account of IR. As explained brieﬂy in the Preface, it is with this quandary in mind that the idea for our textbook emerged. Despite the fact that doing IR “differently” has become increasingly embraced as an idea, be it through distinct critical lenses, alternative concepts, or diverse methods such as narrative (Inayatullah and Dauphnee 2016), actual engagement in such an effort – the “how to” question – continues to pose considerable challenges. More so than other ﬁelds of knowledge, and as suggested by Waltz’s quote, IR has largely limited itself to the study of issues of relevance to the global North. When we try to think and write differ- ently about international relations, we ﬁnd ourselves constrained by the boundaries cre- ated by decades of gatekeeping and attempts at constructing and maintaining an independent ﬁeld of study, not to mention the rules that customarily underwrite “scien- tiﬁc” narratives in general (Inayatullah 2013). These boundaries relate to what know- ledges are regarded as important (in terms of subject matter), where knowledge comes from (both geographically speaking and in terms of how it is made, a question of epis- temology), and how and where “serious” knowledge is published and presented. The stories that textbooks tell As Kim Nossal (2001) reminded us nearly 20 years ago, textbooks play an essential role in constructing the way in which the story of international relations is told and in intro- ducing students to speciﬁc ways of thinking about the world. Even when they do not engage explicitly with theory, textbooks suggest what subject matters do and do not legitimately form part of the discipline of IR. In foregrounding certain issues, others are inevitably left out, implying that they are unimportant to the concerns of IR and to the workings of the international system. They also suggest which authors’ analyses should be considered authoritative. It is important to challenge the view that there is a self-contained, existing ﬁeld of IR “out there” and that the purpose of a textbook is simply to introduce students to it. This contention implies that textbooks play no role in constructing the ﬁeld, when in fact they do. In particular, by emphasizing certain topics, framing them in a particular way and privileging some approaches to understanding the world, thus excluding many others, textbooks bestow upon students ready-made lenses through which to see international relations, which inevitably constrains the ability to think creatively about potential alter- natives. As has been pointed out repeatedly, due to the nature and power dynamics that are operative within the global production of knowledge (Tickner 2013), IR textbooks are predominantly American or Western-centric, including not only their authors and publishing houses, but inevitably their content. The implications of this include the per- ception that only the views of Western scholars are important to the discipline of IR and, Introduction 3 by extension, that only they can legitimately engage in theorizing (with non-Western scholars and students limited to being consumers of Western knowledge). It also “con- ﬁrms” that international relations revolve around the West, and Western interests. As noted by Nossal (2001: 6), the main storyline as told by many textbooks is thus that world politics cannot be understood unless the United States is at the center. While a number of introductory International Relations textbooks claim to be sensitive to global South concerns and/or to “alternative” readings of world politics, a common element that is largely missing from all of them are the views and scholarly voices from the global South. Our volume aspires to ﬁll this gap by problematizing the issue of per- spective as a theoretical, methodological and pedagogical problem that should be placed at the core of classroom debates, instead of being a secondary or subsidiary matter. Namely, it offers students a textbook that challenges the implicit notions inherent in most existing IR textbooks and, instead, presents international relations as seen from dif- ferent vantage points in the global South. Its chapters are authored mainly by scholars who are either from and/or based in the global South, and whose primary goal is to pro- vide an alternative or complementary reading of IR derived from the experiences of the non-core. We have tried to include perspectives that are not normally found in standard IR textbooks – including alternative origins of the discipline and views on the state and security that do not have their roots in the West or North. In doing so, we challenge conventional notions about which and whose narratives matter. In this sense, the know- ledge-making exercise practiced in this textbook seeks to shift the point of departure from singular and exclusionary narratives towards multiplicity and discovery, thus show- ing that other ways of doing IR are possible. The importance of multiple stories Nigerian writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie gave a TED talk in 2009 called “the danger of a single story” that has since been viewed by over 18 million people (watch it here: www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story?language). Her message resonates strongly with the singular readings of the world (re)produced in many IR textbooks. Although Adichie focuses largely on the problematic effects of simplistic narratives about Africa that condense the entire continent into oftentimes derogatory adjectives such as “backwards,” “uncivil” or “corrupt,” she alerts us to the impossibility, if not the dangers, of reducing people, places and problems to single, ﬁxed explanations and categories by exploring her own biases concerning Mexico.1 Within the ﬁeld of IR, and notwithstanding increased self-reﬂection and self- consciousness concerning our academic practices, many scholars continue to ignore how their own perspectives – derived from myriad socio-cultural factors, including gender, race, class, academic training, institutional location and where they live – may lead them to prioritize one particular view. This is also characteristic of Eurocentrism (to be dis- cussed further in the next section), which assumes not only that the West lies at the core of the world, but that its ideas and experiences are universalizable. The result is that we base our understandings on an incomplete history, in which agency is denied to many marginalized actors, and in which the worldviews, actions and experiences of a small percentage of the world’s population are prioritized. Stories from other parts of the globe are subsequently left out because they are believed to be of no consequence. That is, they do not provide credible accounts of the world, at least not as the West understands 4 Karen Smith and Arlene B. Tickner it. By listening only to some stories and being led to believe that they are the only important ones, we as scholars of IR are missing out on potentially important insights. With this void in mind, our textbook is ﬁlled with a wealth of stories. Indeed, most of the chapters begin with a story, an example or an anecdote that puts into relief situations and encounters in global politics that the tools offered to us by conventional IR are poorly equipped to understand, and that beg to be accounted for distinctly in order to make better sense of the world(s) around us. Contrary to scholarly prose, stories allow us to lower our guard, avoid trying to ﬁt things into accepted categories and stop asking questions such as “what is this an instance of?” or “what theory does this reﬂect?” When they contain ideas or behaviors that contradict predominant modes of understanding the world, stories also play a more emancipatory function through the jolts they produce to accepted ways of knowing and categorizing the world. In this fashion, they turn conven- tional academic analysis on its head by generating openness towards new and oftentimes unexpected situations (if not feelings) that are often “explained away” by dominant con- ceptual lenses. “This relaxed transportation … allows us a sense … that multiple valu- able positions exist on any issue” (Inayatullah 2013: 194–5), thus opening space for the creative and transgressive power of diversity and difference. This textbook is premised largely on the argument that the global South’s encounter with the “international” has been mediated by its particular (and dependent) mode of insertion into the world system, thus making its experiences distinct. However, a second underlying theme is that the invisibility of the global South within dominant narratives about world politics has been a key enabling factor of the singular, universalizing stories of the West, such as the formation of its civilizational ideal or the idea of the modern nation-state. This is not a call for particularism, but rather an invitation to transcend the Western-centrism within which IR has historically been embedded, and to make visible and give legitimacy to alternative worlds. Accordingly, the contributors to the textbook ask questions such as: how has the global South dealt with the epistemic violence that is mainstream IR? What is the meaning of sovereignty to those who have experienced colo- nialism and imperialism? How can we re-imagine the “international” when the global North sets its norms, institutions and practices? What does it mean to give voice to the world’s silenced voices? Does it mean to necessarily hold critical views on IR? In add- ition to focusing on how geocultural differences inﬂuence the experience, problematiza- tion and conceptualization of world politics, the textbook asks: how should we teach this global South IR? Deﬁning our terms Although this textbook does not assume prior knowledge of the main theoretical debates in the ﬁeld of International Relations, many of our contributors refer to both “conven- tional” IR theories and to a number of terms more prevalent within “critical” IR circles (including feminism, poststructuralism, postcolonialism and decoloniality). It is to a broad deﬁnition of some of the latter that we now turn. Conventional, mainstream, disciplinary IR Many of the textbook chapters establish contrasts between global-South-driven approaches, on the one hand, and “conventional,” “mainstream” or “disciplinary” IR on the other. Although diverse contributors may use such terms in slightly different ways in Introduction 5 order to highlight distinct facets of the dominant strains of International Relations, they largely operate as synonyms in that they all underscore the idea that IR is a ﬁeld of study in which certain understandings of the world predominate and various gatekeeping practices (among them specialized publications, scholarly associations and academic training) are in place that “discipline” potential members and reproduce such domination. By way of general distinction, by mainstream or conventional IR we refer to scholar- ship that centers on speciﬁc research topics (largely rooted in the experiences of the West and the North, as discussed previously), that defends a positivist idea of science (consisting of empirical observation and the testing of hypotheses and causal claims about a world “out there”), and whose adherents share ontological assumptions about what the “international” is and epistemological ones about how to build knowledge about it (Steans 2003: 432). In turn, we share Ling’s (2017: 4–7) description of disciplin- ary IR as a domain of hypermasculine, Eurocentric whiteness that is rooted in realist and liberal modes of relating to the world, and that assumes that the West and North America are the main origins (and drivers) of international relations. For her, the Peace of West- phalia (1648) and the resulting Westphalian state system are thus one of disciplinary IR’s main founding myths. North, South, West, non-West In this textbook, many references are made to the “West,” “non-West,” “global North,” “global South,” “third world,” “core” and “periphery.” We are cognizant of the varied interpretations that might exist of these terms, the boundary problem entailed in their use as dichotomies, and the potential risks of deploying them to refer to very diverse parts of the world (including the danger of treating diverse places as homogeneous). Placing the terms initially in quotes is meant to acknowledge the contingent nature of their construc- tion and their eventual overlaps. For example, the “West” certainly does not refer to a geographical location alone since “Western” hegemony in IR and world politics spans the globe. Similarly, some of the “third world” or “global South” could be considered part of the “West,” as occurs in the case of Latin America. Given this understanding, and in order to provide a less cumbersome text for the reader, we refrain from putting the terms in quotes in the remaining sections of this chapter and subsequent ones. Broad categories are never unproblematic, but if we use them carefully, whilst histori- cizing and contextualizing, they can be useful analytical tools. In the speciﬁc case of this textbook, they allow us to focus on what distinct parts of the world deﬁned variously as the periphery, third world, non-West or global South, have in common. For instance, while those who study modernity have established clear links between Western colon- izers and the non-Western colonized, global capitalism continues to operate in such a way that distinguishes between core and periphery, or North and South. Additionally, core–periphery- or North–South-like dynamics are also palpable in academic practice, where exclusion from the production of IR knowledge, and in some cases, a deliberate silencing, are apparent. Within ﬁelds such as IR, we have seen an evolution from the use of ﬁrst/third world to West/non-West to global North/global South, the latter being the preferred paired terms today. What all these concepts share is that they are invoked in antithesis to the West, a concept that also has multiple meanings, ranging from being a predominantly geographical indicator to referring to religion (Christianity), political ideology (liberal- ism) and development. As O’Hagan (2002) points out, while we often see reference to 6 Karen Smith and Arlene B. Tickner “the West” in IR, both in theory and practice, scholars are not necessarily referring to the same conception, and may refer to material, normative or other dimensions. She div- ides the impact of the West on modern IR into three key elements (the West as an actor, the West as an institutional model and the West as an intellectual foundation) (O’Hagan 2002: 9). These different elements are present to a greater or lesser degree in each of the references to “the West” that you will encounter in this book. The latter (the West as an intellectual foundation) is perhaps most directly relevant to our project, in the sense that this book is an attempt to challenge the Western-centrism or Eurocentrism (discussed below) so prevalent in the discipline of IR. It is also important to note that these terms are always contextual and never static. During the Cold War, for example, the West was contrasted to the East, whereas today it is contrasted to the “non-West” (see for example, Acharya and Buzan 2010) or the “global South” which includes Asia, Africa and Latin America. In some cases, “Western” is also regarded as a euphemism for “white.” The term “global South,” which is the preferred one in this volume, has less of a negative connotation as the parts of the world that make up this broad category are identiﬁed not only in terms of their non-Westernness. While the global South is some- times used to refer to countries based on economic indicators (for example, World Bank classiﬁcation), we use it in a broader sense, in line with Dados and Connell (2012: 13), who afﬁrm that it “[f]unctions as more than a metaphor for underdevelop- ment. It references an entire history of colonialism, neo-imperialism, and differential economic and social change through which large inequalities in living standards, life expectancy, and access to resources are maintained.” Therefore, for us, global South also denotes those parts of the world that have largely been absent in terms of contrib- uting to our understanding of international relations. While it has (sometimes) been studied, it has not been viewed in mainstream IR as having the agency to make sub- stantive theoretical contributions, but at most to provide the raw empirical data that can then be analyzed by scholars in the North, much the same as raw materials are exported from the global South to be turned into manufactured goods elsewhere, only to be sold back. The idea of the South as a region of distinctive intellectual production is articulated, among others, in Boaventura de Sousa Santos’ “epistemologies of the South” (discussed more extensively in Chapter 17) and Raewyn Connell’s “Southern theory” (Dados and Connell 2012: 13; in the speciﬁc case of IR, see among others, Aydinli and Biltekin 2018 on “homegrown theories”). Many chapters in this textbook similarly explore the global South’s agency, for example in terms of resistance by actors generally perceived to be marginalized victims, to global power or proactive measures designed to create other worlds. In sum, and echoing Asli Calkivik’s discussion of foreign policy in Chapter 11, global South is used in this textbook not only as a geopolitical label, but also as a distinctive political positionality and an ethical subjectivity. Eurocentrism At the heart of the debate about the need to globalize International Relations and to make it more inclusive, lies a critique of Western-centrism or Eurocentrism, two terms that are often conﬂated. In the speciﬁc case of IR, authors such as Steve Smith (2002) also refer to the American-centrism that characterizes the ﬁeld in order to describe U.S. dominance, as discussed in a previous section. Introduction 7 It is important to keep in mind that there are different understandings of Eurocentrism. You might want to take a quick look now at the distinct ways in which Pinar Bilgin and John M. Hobson perceive it in Chapters 10 and 12. Eurocentrism is understood here as the limitations engendered by theorizing from a particular narrative on “European” experiences to study the rest of the world. For example, concepts that form the core of IR (such as sovereignty and statehood) have been derived from a narrow European experience, and yet have acquired status as universal categories. The effect is that, as students of international relations, we are limited in terms of understanding the world based on Eurocentric accounts. Eurocentrism is evident in IR in that the themes, theories and preoccupations of the ﬁeld largely reﬂect the history of the West (Gruffydd Jones 2006: 3). The result is that certain forms of knowledge (which originate in the West) dominate the ﬁeld. In addition, Western knowledge and theories are perceived to be universal, while knowledge originat- ing in the global South is regarded as particular and therefore inferior. The idea that some forms of knowledge are universal while others are localized or particular has been challenged by numerous postcolonial and decolonial scholars, who point out that all knowledge is hybrid, multilayered and intertwined (see Chapter 3 for more on this issue). An important part of the anti-Eurocentric critique in IR is the rejection of the Westphalian narrative that underlies both the ﬁeld of IR and the practice of international relations (Kayaoglu 2010; Ling 2014). Epistemic violence The term “epistemic violence” originates from Spivak’s (1988) reference to hegemony’s dismissal, silencing and/or erasing of alternative perspectives, particularly those devel- oped by the “subaltern.” It is described in further detail in Chapter 2. As postcolonial scholars have pointed out, colonialism was not only about political domination but also about cultural (and psychological) domination, which involved the denigration of know- ledge systems that were different and deemed to be inferior to that of modern Western science that, in the words of Santos et al. (2007: xviiii), was granted “epistemological privilege.” This also had implications for understandings of what constitutes legitimate knowledge. Entrenchment of dichotomies such as modern/traditional, scientiﬁc/unscientiﬁc, rational/irrational has served to facilitate the domination of Western knowledge while the knowledges of the colonized were deemed irrational, unreliable, unscientiﬁc and therefore illegitimate (Lily Ling and Carolina Pinheiro develop this discussion more in Chapter 17). However, epistemic violence is never completely triumphant. Indeed, postcolonial and decolonial theorists, as well as many of our textbook contributors, amply demonstrate the resilience of local cultures, languages, religions and ways of life to survive despite hegemonic, colonizing attempts to the contrary, thereby ensuring the interwoven, intersti- tial legacies that make world politics what it is today (see Chapters 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 17 in particular). This does not mean that “epistemicide” (Santos et al. 2007) – the sys- tematic suppression and destruction of subaltern knowledges – does not occur, but rather, that subaltern logics and practices are still alive, despite unequal conditions, and conse- quently, that they continue to make worlds (or in the words of some, a pluriverse) on a daily basis. Epistemic violence also operates in such a way that we customarily measure ourselves against dominant notions of what IR is and is not. In the speciﬁc case of this textbook, 8 Karen Smith and Arlene B. Tickner we are wary of the potential of the ﬁeld’s allegedly “key” concepts and categories – around which the distinct chapters are largely structured – to do harm themselves. By starting with a story, instead of a summary of how conventional IR approaches each topic, our aim is precisely to unsettle and to “decenter” such dominant narratives. Decentering and counterpoint “Decentering” and “counterpoint” can be considered methods for countering epistemic violence. Although not explicitly mentioned throughout much of the textbook, most of the chapters implicitly practice them. While both seek to unsettle the hierarchical power operations that place dominant (Western or Northern) experience at the center of histor- ical narratives, as well as politics, economics and what not, they also address the prob- lem of how to communicate with an “Other” who is signiﬁcantly different from one’s Self, and how to recognize that the Other or the “stranger” is also always within us (Nandy 1983). The act of decentering challenges the alleged existence of a center from which legit- imate knowledge is deemed to originate and is oftentimes used with reference to Euro- centrism or Western-centrism, although it largely originated in feminist thinking. According to Nayak and Selbin (2010: 4), “to decenter IR from its Northern/Western anchors requires us to challenge the politics, concepts, and practices that enable certain narratives of IR to be central.” An important element of globalizing and pluralizing Inter- national Relations is recognizing the role that the global South has played in shaping world politics and recognizing the work that scholars from the global South have done, with an eye to identifying distinct starting points for talking about the world. This text- book does both. As David L. Blaney discusses in Chapter 3, drawing upon the work of Edward Said, a method of “counterpoint” highlights in turn the intertwined and overlapping trajectories that exist between past and present, and colonizers and colonized. By creating awareness of the complex connections that exist between things, a “contrapuntal” reading makes visible knowledges and histories that have been occulted or repressed, thus offering an alternative means and an ethos for (re)envisioning global politics (see too, Bilgin 2016). Structure and rationale Many distinct approaches to structuring this textbook were proposed and debated among our contributors. In the end, we decided that authors would write their chap- ters based on concepts and issues, with some exceptions. Many of these are well- known categories such as order, war, security, sovereignty and foreign policy, that are not only familiar to mainstream IR scholars but that are also at the core of their work. We are conscious of the potential problems inherent in using them, as described previously, and as highlighted by Nayak and Selbin (2010: 9) in their decentering pro- ject. One of the aims of the chapters, however, is to problematize these concepts, and through engaging with how they have traditionally been used, ask whether they are relevant to thinking about IR in the global South, and to envisioning IR differently. Related to this are questions concerning how concepts travel and whether they have multiple origins and can therefore be considered Western at all (see Chapter 12 for elaboration of this idea in the case of globalization). We are also interested in how concepts have and can be rearticulated in diverse contexts. Introduction 9 The book also does not start from a position of simply rejecting the existing IR canon but instead chooses to engage with it, something that will undoubtedly elicit skepticism from some critical scholars who feel that this serves to continue privileging the West. By placing conventional and alternative treatments of key IR concepts, categories and prob- lems side by side, in counterpoint, we might say, the book offers a broad understanding of the “international” in different parts of the world, especially the global South. Further- more, it is unique in its insertion of IR knowledge within a context of epistemic violence and geocultural epistemologies, of understanding the global politics of international thinking informed by both post-positivist epistemologies and global power analysis. The textbook is divided into four parts that address: (1) the IR discipline, (2) key concepts and categories, (3) global issues and (4) IR futures. In Chapter 2, Wiebke Wemheuer-Vogelaar, Ingo Peters and co-authors Laura Kemmer, Alina Kleinn, Luisa Linke-Behrens and Sabine Mokry, argue that widespread agreement about the short- comings of mainstream IR for understanding world politics has yet to permeate Inter- national Relations teaching in any meaningful way. The authors offer a comprehensive mapping of what they call “global” or “globalizing” IR, consisting of diverse strands of critique that seek to interrogate IR as U.S. social science, expose Western-centrism, identify alternative disciplinary practices and conceptual frameworks emerging from the global South, and develop a non- or post-Western IR. Like us, they are wary of the potential dangers of simply “adding on” the global South as an appendage to existing pedagogical exercises, and thus offer ways of bringing “global” IR into the classroom with an eye to generating awareness and sensitivity to geocultural bias, epi- stemic violence and diversity. Chapters 3 and 4, authored by David L. Blaney, and Peter Vale and Vineet Thakur, respectively, illustrate what decolonizing and decentering International Relations might mean in practice by recovering alternative narratives and histories of the discipline. Blaney makes use of the method of counterpoint, discussed above, to highlight the mul- tiple and entangled perspectives that are necessarily at play in all worldly encounters. With this goal in mind, he explores the “when,” the “where” and the “what” of Inter- national Relations through three distinct narratives: the stereotypical story of Eurocentric IR, the invasion of North America and the Chinese One Belt, One Road initiative. One of the key takeaways of this exercise is a more nuanced understanding of international relations as shifting spaces of (human) interconnection and intermingling, in which multilayered, overlapping histories and trajectories coexist. In turn, Vale and Thakur claim that imperialism and racism are inscribed in the very DNA of International Relations, and call for further inquiries to show how, in addition to questions of war, order, anarchy and state sovereignty, colonial administration and race account for the origins of IR in both Europe and the United States. Rather than Aberyst- wyth University in Wales, or the U.S., where the discipline is said to have emerged in the aftermath of the First and Second World Wars, respectively, the authors trace its appearance to South Africa, where organizational ideas related to the reformulation of British empire were ﬁrst tried out. Part 1 constitutes an initial provocation to “unlearn” IR as it has been conventionally narrated and taught. Instead, and following Blaney’s closing invitation, these chapters illustrate how the “what” of IR can be expanded when the “when” and the “where” are interrogated critically. Parts 2 and 3 of the textbook continue to disturb (or decenter) the discipline’s “master narratives” by beginning each chapter with a story or an anecdote that puts into relief the misﬁt between canonical understandings of IR’s concepts, 10 Karen Smith and Arlene B. Tickner categories and themes, and the ways in which these are experienced in concrete settings across the global South and the North. As suggested previously, the purpose of these stories is to both lower the readers’ guard and to decenter, which amount to quite a different exercise than simply “adding on” global South voices to already existing IR knowledges. Only then do the chapters examine conventional approaches to each concept or issue. In doing so the authors offer a brief intellectual history of IR in its dominant version. In the third and perhaps most substantive part of each chapter, alternative approaches to the categories or issues included in the textbook are offered with the goal of highlighting both the limitations of traditional tools and the peculiarities of dealing with such topics in the global South. Each chapter therefore offers a systematic “intervention” into key IR concepts, categories and issues that aims at both expanding the horizons of our understanding and enriching the original and dominant terms of the debate. Part 2 includes chapters on order and ordering (Chapter 5, Karen Smith), the “inter- national” (Chapter 6, Amy Niang), war and conﬂict (Chapter 7, Arlene B. Tickner), the state and sovereignty (Chapter 8, Navnita Chadha Behera), secularism, nationalism and religion (Chapter 9, Aparna Devare), security (Chapter 10, Pinar Bilgin) and foreign policy (Chapter 11, Asli Calkivik). In turn, Part 3 explores a number of international relations issues, including globaliza- tion (Chapter 12, John M. Hobson), inequality (Chapter 13, Joao Pontes Nogueira), migra- tion (Nizar Messari), resistances (Carolina Cepeda-Másmela) and socio-environmentalism (Cristina Yumie Aoki Inoue and Matías Franchini). As it would be impossible to do justice to the richness of content present in each author’s analysis in such a brief Introduction, at the risk of gross simpliﬁcation we limit ourselves here to a number of common themes that we see running through these chap- ters. First, in many ways, the “international” in its distinct guises is largely an extension of racialized, colonial (and gendered) practices conceived as a result of Western imperial- ism. As underscored by Latin American decolonial writers such as Anibal Quijano (2010), colonial domination did not end with decolonization but was essentially transformed into a regime he describes as the “coloniality of power,” which continues to uphold global hierarchies of identity, development and knowledge. For example, Western-based conceptions of order, sovereignty, peace and security, and the absence thereof, constitute dichotomies through which the countries of the North and the South are customarily represented, act to fuel anxieties about the disruptive effects of the global South for the international order and oftentimes justify distinct forms of interven- tion in the global South. Second, historicizing concepts and issues that singular narratives have monopolized and naturalized is a crucial step in overcoming epistemic violence and in recovering alternative histories and knowledges. By decentering our gaze away from Eurocentric or Northern narratives, the agency of distinct Southern actors, their knowledges of the world and their distinctive protagonism in diverse global processes, comes into view. Third, the rigid classiﬁcation schemes that we customarily use to portray complex and constantly changing social practices result largely from Eurocentrism, colonialism and more recently, liberal forms of “pluralism” that all subsume difference as particular forms of allegedly universal projects. Echoing the need for greater contrapuntal sensitiv- ity, many of the chapters in Parts 2 and 3 underscore the co-mingling of diverse tradi- tions related to religion, political community, peace and conﬂict, and others, thus making visible the multiplicity that is always at play in worldly encounters. Introduction 11 Fourth, another of the main insights offered by these chapters is that allegedly “univer- sal” ideas and categories rooted in provincial European history, and normalized and global- ized through practices such as colonialism, are a ﬁction everywhere as they fail to capture the lived realities of most people, both in the global South and the North. Indeed, as Devare reminds us in Chapter 9, this may well be the largest “fault line” in today’s world. In Part 4 (Chapter 17), L.H.M. Ling and Carolina M. Pinheiro offer a vision for an alternative IR future by suggesting that distinct actors of the global South learn to con- verse among themselves, rather than gesturing regularly towards the West and the North. They liken this strategy, which is derived from Ling’s idea of worldism and Santos’ epis- temologies of the South, to creative chatting among friends. They provide an example through a conversation between Daoism and Andean cosmovision, both of which uphold a similar notion of relationality. One of the key messages that we derive from the authors’ exercise is the need to make visible both multiple understandings, and distinct forms of being in and with the world. How to use this textbook The idea of non-Western or global IR has been gaining traction within the ﬁeld for over a decade now and has slowly begun to appear as a topic of study in undergraduate and graduate courses alike. And yet, as we have noted in this Introduction, the gap between scholarly research focused on decentering and pluralizing the study of international rela- tions, and IR teaching, continues to be considerable (see Chapter 2). Given that this text- book is aimed at students and educators located in both the global North and the global South, we expect that its use will vary in these two broad geopolitical contexts. At the risk of gross simpliﬁcation, we hope that Northern students will become more sensitive to why and how the South experiences the international differently but also, where important commonalities or points of potential intersection may lie. Ideally, Southern stu- dents will encounter a textbook that speaks more directly to them, with concepts and examples that are less distant, and that potentially resonates with their own experiences of and perspectives on world politics. More generally, we envision the textbook being used in several different ways. First, it is meant to serve as the main text in undergraduate-level International Relations courses, at institutions in both the global South and North. Given that the distinct chapters offer general “state of the art” treatments of the subject matter addressed, in those courses that aspire to provide students with “the basics” in terms of the main debates within discip- linary IR, the textbook can easily be combined with supplemental readings or be used alongside more traditional texts. Second, the textbook will complement undergraduate International Relations theory courses by offering alternative readings of key IR concepts and categories. Third, in the global North in particular, the textbook is meant to be essential reading for a growing number of courses offered on diverse matters related to world politics and/in the global South. In advanced IR courses, we envisage the textbook serving two distinct purposes: to teach IR differently by bringing in global South experiences and readings of the “inter- national” to the forefront; and to interrogate the theoretical, conceptual and pedagogical frames used by conventional IR textbooks. In other words, we hope that the textbook provides educators with an empowering, critical and reﬂexive tool for reﬂecting on the diversity of experiences of international relations and for placing it front and center in the classroom. 12 Karen Smith and Arlene B. Tickner For this same reason, we think that the textbook will also be useful in graduate courses that include a mix of Western/Northern students and overseas ones, where some engagement with distinct cultural traditions, geopolitical concerns and ways of knowing is necessary and rarely achieved through conventional texts (which are either narrowly grounded in Western perspectives or in Western readings of non- Western ones). In addition to general, introductory IR courses at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, the textbook, or some of its chapters, might appeal to courses on sociology and historiography of knowledge, globalization, neoliberalism, security, the state, imperialism and international political economy. Remaining challenges We are at a stage today where the Western story appears wanting. It can no longer pro- vide us with satisfactory ways of understanding what is going on in the world, if indeed it ever was capable of such a feat. Fortunately, as the different chapters in this textbook will attest, there are countless unexplored ways of thinking about the world from the global South. If we want to advance a more nuanced and meaningful understanding of international relations, this is where we should be looking. Although squarely situated within the perspectives of the global South with an eye to showing how key concepts, categories and global issues can be conceived of differently, as many of our contributors argue, this textbook is not only equipped to speak of the South, but also of the wider world, including the North, and our knowledge of it. One challenge of existing IR scholarship that we have not addressed is that of language. The discipline remains an Anglo-centric one, with the majority of books and articles published in English. While English is not the mother tongue of most of our authors, all chapters are written in this language in order to reach as wide an audience as possible. It would have been a radical departure indeed to publish a multilingual textbook, but this is simply not practically possible (yet). However, in an attempt to expose readers to scholarship not published in English, some authors have drawn on and referenced sources published in other languages. In light of the enduring hegemony of global knowledge production, this indeed remains a pending debt. Our hope is that the textbook will subsequently be trans- lated into other languages. Finally, we are well aware that this textbook, like all others, is simply another attempt at constructing IR. We do not claim to be accurately representing the full extent of the discipline nor of global South experiences and readings of the world, mainly because we do not believe that this is possible or desirable. Our hope is that you, our readers, both teachers and students, will engage with the textbook critically, questioning the views taken by the different authors, counterposing them to your own views, and in doing so, building your own stories of international relations that make sense to where you ﬁnd yourselves in the world, conﬁdent in the knowledge that there is never just one story (nor for that matter, one world), but always multiple ones. Note 1 For those who are interested, you might also take a look too at “African Men Hollywood Stereotypes,” produced by the NGO Mama Hope, www.mamahope.org/media/ Introduction 13 References Acharya, Amitav and Barry Buzan (eds) (2010) Non-Western International Relations Theory, London: Routledge. Aydinli, Ersel and Gonca Biltekin (eds) (2018) Widening the World of International Relations: Homegrown Theorizing, London: Routledge. Bilgin, Pinar (2016) “‘Contrapuntal Reading’ as a Method, an Ethos, and a Metaphor for Global IR,” International Studies Review 18(1): 134–146. doi:10.1093/isr/viv018 Cornelissen, Scarlett Fantu Cheru and Timothy Shaw (eds) (2012) Africa and International Relations in the 21st Century, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Dados, Nour and Raewyn Connell (2012) “The Global South,” Contexts 11(1): 12–13. doi: 10.1177/ 1536504212436479 Dunn, Kevin and Timothy Shaw (eds) (2001) Africa’s Challenge to International Relations, Hound- mills: Palgrave Macmillan. Gruffydd Jones, Branwen (ed) (2006) Decolonizing International Relations, New York: Rowman & Littleﬁeld. Hobson, John (2012) The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760–2010, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Inayatullah, Naeem (2013) “Distance and Intimacy: Forms of Writing and Worlding,” in Arlene B. Tickner and David L. Blaney (eds) Claiming the International, London: Routledge, pp. 194–293. Inayatullah, Naeem and Elizabeth Dauphnee (eds) (2016) Narrative Global Politics, London: Routledge. Kayaoglu, Turan (2010) “Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory,” International Studies Review, 12(2): 193–217. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2486.2010.00928.x Ling, L.H.M. (2014) The Dao of World Politics: Towards a Post-Westphalian, Worldist International Relations, New York: Routledge. Ling, L.H.M. (2017) “Introduction,” in Pinar Bilgin and L.H.M. Ling (eds) Asia in International Relations, London: Routledge, pp. 1–9. Nandy, Ashis (1983) The Intimate Enemy, Delhi: Oxford University Press. Nayak, Meghan and Eric Selbin (2010) Decentering International Relations, London: Zed Books. Neuman, Stephanie (ed) (1998) International Relations Theory and the Third World, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Nossal, Kim Richard (2001) “Tales that Textbooks Tell: Ethnocentricity and Diversity in American Introductions to International Relations,” in Robert M.A. Crawford and Darryl S.L. Jarvis (eds) International Relations: Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 167–186. O’Hagan, Jacinta (2002) Conceptualizing the West in International Relations: From Spengler to Said, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Quijano, Anibal (2010) “Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality,” in Arturo Escober and Walter Mignolo (eds) Globalization and the Decolonial Option, London: Routledge, pp. 22–33. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa, Joao Arriscado Nunes and Maria Paula Meneses (2007) “Opening up the Canon of Knowledge and Recognition of Difference,” in Boaventura de Sousa Santos (ed) Another Knowledge Is Possible: Beyond Northern Epistemologies, London: Verso, pp. xviii–lxi. Smith, Steve (2002) “The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: ‘Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline’,” International Studies Review 4(2): 67–86. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1988) “Can the Subaltern Speak?” in Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg (eds) Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, Champaign, IL: University of Illinios Press, pp. 271–313. Steans, Jill (2003) “Engaging from the Margins: Feminist Encounters with the ‘Mainstream’ of International Relations,” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 5(3): 428–454. 14 Karen Smith and Arlene B. Tickner Taylor, Lucy (2012) “Decolonizing International Relations: Perspectives from Latin America,” International Studies Review 14(3): 386–400. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2486.2012.01125.x Tickner, Arlene B. (2013) “Core, Periphery and (Neo)imperialist International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 627–646. doi:10.1177/1354066113494323 Tickner, Arlene B. and David L. Blaney (eds) (2012) Thinking the International Differently, London: Routledge. Waltz, Kenneth (1979) Theory of International Politics, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Notes Preface 1 In the volume we distinguish between International Relations (IR) as the field of study and inter- national relations as a practice. Chapter 1 1 For those who are interested, you might also take a look too at “African Men Hollywood Stereo- types,” produced by the NGO Mama Hope, www.mamahope.org/media/ Chapter 2 1 We are very grateful for Julita Dudziak’s research assistance and Anchalee Rüland and Sandra Bätghe’s tremendously helpful comments on the draft. We also thank Jack Galloway and Rabea Hei- nemann for their editing services. Laura Appeltshauser was originally one of the authors of this chapter. Unfortunately, we lost track of her after graduation and were unable to obtain her author information. We honor her contribution to this chapter and could not have done it without her! 2 While we acknowledge Amitav Acharya’s use of the term “Global IR” (2014, 2016), we under- stand what we call the “global IR debate” to include much more than his work. That is, we do not endorse Acharya’s particular agenda but rather use the term to refer to IR around the globe. 3 The discussion that follows adheres largely to the arguments presented in Wemheuer-Vogelaar and Peters (2016: 1–27). 4 Many authors in the second strand of the debate have a global South/East background, marking a shift not only in the debate’s content but also in the agency of the debaters. 5 Jenny Edkins and Maja Zehfuss’s textbook Global Politics: A New Introduction (2013) approaches IR from a new perspective and introduces students to key issues in global politics drawing on a wide range of disciplines including sociology, postcolonial studies and geography. However, the TRIP survey data show that it has not (yet) been used in the discipline’s most prestigious programs. 6 At the Institut d’études politiques de Paris (Science Po), a significant proportion of the man- datory readings are in French, in Moscow’s MGIMO around half of the material is in Rus- sian, and in different German universities around a third of the required readings are published in German. At CEU Budapest and EUI Florence no readings written in Hungarian and Italian were assigned (Hagmann and Biersteker 2014: 13). 7 Three excellent examples for the “refusal to listen” to subaltern women are given by Julia Roth in Occidental Readings, Decolonial Practices: A Selection on Gender, Genre, and Coloniality in the Americas (2014). She explains how colonial and gender hierarchies play out in the relations between “Western interpretive communities,” such as biographers, pub- lishers or art critics and three Latin American women – namely Frida Kahlo, Victoria Ocampo and Rigoberta Menchú. 8 An important example is the Latin American decolonial perspective which has evolved around Ramón Grosfoguel, Maria Lugones, Nelson Maldano-Torres, Walter Mignolo and Aníbal Qui- jano. For a more detailed explanation of decolonial thinking, see Box 2.3. 9 The two six-month classes “Locating the ‘I’ in IR: Non-Western Contributions to Inter- national Relations Scholarship” at Freie Universität Berlin were co-taught by Ingo Peters and Wiebke Wemheuer-Vogelaar, while the shorter seminars at the College of William & Mary were taught by Wiebke alone. All co-authors of this chapter were participants from Freie Universität, while the student quotes in the following sections come from William & Mary students. Chapter 3 1 Xian Lu, Lan Yaqing and Luo Zhantao provided research assistance during the summer of 2018. 2 See Tucker (2018) for a helpful recent discussion. Blaney and Tickner (2017a) point to Robbie Shilliam’s work (2015) as an important decolonial effort within IR. 3 See, for example, Osiander (2001). We might follow on this thought and diversify our idea of units and still see our object of inquiry as IR. See Ferguson and Mansbach (1996), who classify a variety of political and social forms under the label “polities,” and, more recently, see Rosen- berg (2016) who favors the term “society.” 4 Of course, this account is disputed. Maybe capitalism arrives much later and global capitalism not until the more complete European colonization of the globe. See the varying accounts of Wallerstein (1976, 1980); Ellen Meiksins Wood (2017 ); and Timothy Mitchell (2002) to suggest how contentious the idea of a capitalist world system. 5 Obviously, I don’t favor this view. See Inayatullah and Blaney (2004) for an articulation of IR’s creation myth in relation to the 30 Years’ War and the conquest of the Americas. 6 See Weitz (2008) on the civilizational notions and the forced movements of people associated with the recognition (or construction of) sovereign states in the interwar period. 7 See Schmidt (1998) and Vitalis (2015) on the central place of race relations and colonial administration in early 20th-century IR. See also, Chapter 4. 8 Many such accounts are available. For example, Calloway (2003) begins with an extended dis- cussion of “The West Before 1500” that serves as both the “ancient” and more recent history of peoples and their responses to Spanish invasion from the south and the U.S. army and set- tlers from the east. See also Richter (2001), Du Val (2006). 9 On trade and market centers, see, for example, Fenn (2014) on the Mandan and Young and Fowler (2000) on the Mississippian center of Cahokia. 10 See also White (1983). Jennings’ language is reminiscent of Third World theories of depend- ency and unequal development that reached prominence in the 1960s and 1970s. The most prominent Latin American dependency theorists, at least because their work was available in English, included Cardoso and Faletto (1979), Sunkel (1969, 1973), Furtado (1969, 1970) and Dos Santos (1970). Theorists of unequal development, such as Rodney (1974) and Amin (1976, 1979), make closely associated claims. 11 The geopolitics of North America during the process of European colonization included vary- ing conflicts and alliances (Nye 1968; Richter 2001; Taylor 2002; Calloway 2007), shifting of populations (Warren 2014), the rise and fall of empires (White 1991; Gwynne 2010), Amerindian refinement of their own theories and practices of treaty-making (Williams 1997), and mixed results of efforts to create a united front against the outside invaders (Dowd 1992). 12 Others have mapped the terrain of encounter. See Greenblatt (1993), Pagden (1993) and Mason (1990) as examples. 13 See recent Xi speech at (http://en.ndrc.gov.cn/newsrelease/201503/t20150330_669367.html). The implications for China’s relations with various regions are discussed by Blanchard (2017), Tukmadiyeva (2013) and Fallon (2015). 14 Mearsheimer (2014) and Allison (2017). 15 Some Chinese analysts share the offensive realist vision of China’s foreign policy, but many put more weight on the defensive motives for national policy, either in securing a regional role or to secure China’s national identity in regional context (Lynch 2013). 16 Though somewhat beyond Scott’s “Zomia,” Tsing’s work is recognizably connected with his account (see Greenhouse 2011). 17 Neumann (2013: 78–97). 18 Chin (2014) finds that coinage and quantitative theories of money emerge in the Han Dynasty around the need for currency exchange and foreign, not domestic, commerce, which are both submerged in “Confucian” ideas of propriety. Chapter 4 1 A sapper is a soldier who is sent ahead on a variety of engineering duties to create the requisite infrastructure to facilitate the advance of the army. Chapter 5 1 For more alternative world maps see https://worldmapper.org/. 2 See, for example, Michael Doyle (1997). 3 See, for example, Hedley Bull (1977). 4 For example, Immanuel Wallerstein’s world systems theory (2004). 5 Marxist scholar Antonio Gramsci’s understanding of hegemony provides us with an interesting answer to the question of why states cooperate and comply with global rules. He argues that an important part of hegemony is not coercion but spreading of values of the dominant group through- out society (especially the subordinate classes) to become accepted as their own. 6 See, for example, Peterson and Runyan (2010); Tickner (2001). 7 These claims about the origin of sovereignty and the state system have been disputed by scholars like Teschke (2003). See Chapters 3 and 4. 8 International organizations are generally defined as formal, continuous structures with inter- national membership, active in three or more states, and with a permanent headquarters or secre- tariat. There are, of course, a wide variety of international organizations, and many attempts have been made to distinguish between them. Generally, the simplest way to classify international organizations is to divide them into intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs). Intergovernmental organizations are often the fora where states create the rules that regulate various aspects of global interaction. 9 In recent years, however, growth in many of the countries previously designated as “rising” or “emerging” (including Brazil and South Africa) has stagnated. Together with severe political and other domestic challenges, this has led to questions about their ability to influence regional and global orders. 10 This argument it not unfamiliar to IR scholars, including liberal theorists, who have empha- sized the importance of looking seriously at actors beyond the state. See, for example Milner and Moravcsik (2009). Chapter 6 1 Equatorial Guinea and Guinea Bissau are the only non-Francophone member countries. The franc zone consists of two independent regions: the West African Economic and Monetary Union and the Central Africa Economic and Monetary Community. 2 Foreign reserves stood at 100% at independence and 65% between 1973 and 2005. 3 In Vietnam, attempts to reinstate colonial rule where it had been defeated; in Japan, promotion of crony regimes, clientelism and empire by economic rule. 4 For more information, see the 2001 Report of the Parliamentary Committee of Enquiry in charge of determining the exact circumstances of the assassination of Patrice Lumumba and the possible involvement of Belgian politicians. 5 Assembly of the French Union, debate on a proposition requesting equal treatment of French and Canaques in New Caledonia, Session of April 21, 1948, ANOM/ BiB/50243/1948. 6 Attempts at instituting a British-style self-government were stalled by engrained ideas that even if one could accept the possibility of autonomy, it would have to be contingent upon dif- ferent “degrees of evolution.” A “structural feature of colonial modernity” resided, according to Wilder, in “the tensions between coexisting policies to abstract and modernise or to differenti- ate and primitivises subject populations” (2005: 10). 7 Imperial sovereignty had to be preserved at all costs, including the lives of colonial subjects as the massacres of Thiaroye (1944), Sétif (1945) and Madagascar (1947–48) demonstrated all too well. 8 The United States and France at times acted on behalf of the international community using the UN Security Council (UNSC) authorization procedure (France and NATO in Libya; the U.S. in Haiti, etc.) while the UNSC expands the realm of applicability of its resolutions to the domestic prerogatives of certain states. 9 Thus 138 agreements or conventions were signed between 1959 and 1953 and these essentially extended or maintained the jurisdiction of the institutions of the Community (Meimon 2007: 20). 10 According to Meimon, France has over 138 cooperation treaties between 1959 and 1963 that extended the areas of competence of the old Communauté; these treaties allowed France to maintain over 60,000 military troops in 90 bases (and garrisons) (Meimon 2007: 20). 11 The expression “pays du champ” is evocative of a “field” open for cultivation, of a field yet to be cultivated and developed (hence the need for mise en valeur). The expression also evokes a backyard, that is the extension of a core, hence also the expression of pré-carré, which delin- eates a zone of exclusive influence. 12 This hegemonic dynamic should be understood as a system of “domination” (Herrschaft), an “ethical,” “civilizing,” “evangelizing” or “assimilationist” posture, one that mobilizes obedience and adhesion, as much as a regime based on “force” (Macht) and fear; in that sense it raises the question of the legitimation of the postcolonial relationship. 13 A variable of adjustment, imperial or postcolonial. 14 Eleven of its 14 members of the CFA franc are on the list of least developed countries (LDCs). 15 For Henderson, personhood, for Emmanuel Kant, “is circumscribed by his white supremacism” given that blacks are nowhere near meeting the “minimum requirement for moral agency and thus of personhood.” Chapter 7 1 I am grateful for the research assistance provided by Mateo Morales Callejas in the preparation of this chapter. 2 The Armed Conflict Dataset of the International Peace Research Institute Oslo, PRIO and the Department of Peace and Conflict Research of Uppsala University, also distinguishes between four types of war: interstate, intrastate, internationalized and related to decolonization. 3 An adequate discussion of terrorism and the war on terror is beyond the scope of this chapter. Since 9/11, the U.S. alone has waged this war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Somalia through direct military intervention, proxy wars and drone strikes, inflict- ing alarming material and human costs in those countries, and arguably worsening the situation in each. For a comprehensive approach to terrorism as a distinct form of political violence dis- tinguishable from war, see Chenoweth et al. (2019). 4 In an 1988 article, feminist scholar J. Ann Tickner delivered a systematic critique of Mor- genthau’s six principles rooted in that author’s masculinized assumptions about human nature as “naturally” rooted in domination, power and conflict. See Tickner (2014). 5 The study of the role of personality in political decision-making processes that predispose lead- ers to warlike behavior has been most prevalent in the subfield of foreign policy analysis. See Hermann et al. (2001). 6 A similar argument was formulated in 1932 by political theorist and Nazi supporter, Carl Schmidt (2007), who deemed “the political” to be rooted in the distinction between friend and enemy. According to the author, political difference and enmity are not necessarily rooted in objective causes, but rather are socially determined. However, contrary to con- structivists, Schmidt considers the very existence of the state to be rooted in the differenti- ation of a given political community from an “enemy” and the willingness to go to war with that “other.” 7 It is important to note that civil or intrastate war is not a singular phenomenon, but rather, exhibits a number of types with varied causes, objectives and dynamics, including rebellions against the state, secessionist wars, and inter-communal wars (that may coincide with geno- cide). See Zeleza (2008: 6–8) for a more elaborate typology. 8 For the most recent versions of the UCDP/PRIO dataset, see the Uppsala Conflict Data Pro- gram webpages: https://ucdp.uu.se/#/(consulted July 5, 2019). 9 In contrast to these authors, Partha Chaterjee (2011: 20–21) maintains that political society rarely conforms to the Weberian state’s ideal monopoly over violence, and that local politics is usually characterized by the exercise of some mutually defined “normal” level of violence. This is the case of so-called “strong men,” whose governance capacities are largely a function of such violence. 10 Nazih Richani (2013) too traces the origins of war to social, economic and political exclusion, land concentration and inequality, but argues that its resilience is due to “war systems” result- ing from institutional failure to mediate between antagonistic group interests. Consequently, war is perceived by distinct actors, including the state, military, guerrillas, business elites, para- militaries and organized crime, to create a positive political economy. Chapter 8 1 https://sacredland.org/taos-blue-lake-united-states/ 2 https://fromshepherdsandshoemakers.com/2017/01/15/those-infamous-border-changes-a-crash- course-in-polish-history/ 3 For the map of the world in 1648 AD, see www.timemaps.com/history/world-1648ad/; for the world map in 1945 as per the United Nations, see www.un.org/en/decolonization/pdf/ world1945.pdf; and for the current world map, see www.un.org/en/decolonization/pdf/world today.pdf 4 See the video that shows how the European map has changed since 400 BC: www.visualcapital ist.com/2400-years-of-european-history/ 5 Also see the map of countries joining the UN by their date of admission: www.targetmap.com/ viewer.aspx?reportId=2937 6 Data provided by Berman et al. (2018) that charts the incidents and effects of conflicts world- wide between 1975 and 2015 further corroborates such trends. It juxtaposes the figures plotting battle deaths in thousands for intra-state and inter-state conflicts in each year with the number of conflicts with at least 25 battle-related deaths occurring in the given year. This period too has seen far more civil wars than wars between nations. 7 The U.S. locks up more people per capita than any other

International Relations from the Global South PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue