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

Abstract

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

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) project legitimisation: The rhetor’s innovation and the US response

“…Thirdly, the American media reflects political issues towards the BRI project, and the European media reflects economic issues. Previous authors have observed similar patterns due to different logics (Kopper and Peragovics, 2019). For instance, Chinese logic differs from the audience, and the audience logics differs from each other in the context of the BRI project (Liu et al, 2018;No ¨lke et al, 2015).…”

Where is Conflict Research? Western Bias in the Literature on Armed Violence

“…Thomas ( 2004 ) argues that when major IR journals study the "Third World," they analyze it as a security threat. The argument that scholars ignore the non-Western world is related to concerns that the dominant voices in IR theorizing tend to be scholars in Western countries ( Tickner 2003 ;Zhang 2003 ;Bilgin 2008 ;Acharya and Buzan 2010 ;Gleditsch et al 2014 ;Deciancio 2016 ;Kopper and Peragovics 2019 ). Interestingly, one recent study of five prominent IR journals found that there do not seem to be regional differences in coverage, although it did find that the United States receives more scholarly attention than other countries ( Hendrix and Vreede 2019 ).…”

“…This appears to have occurred with other subjects, such as research on climate change's effects ( Hendrix 2017 ;Adams et al 2018 ). In conflict research, scholars have asserted that over-focus on Western cases has affected conclusions on topics such as military innovation ( Sharman 2018 ) and Chinese security strategy ( Kopper and Peragovics 2019 ). Beyond these specific subjects, it is unclear if similar biases are present broadly in conflict studies.…”