By Khairunnikman Khairul Anwar
Since the United States had decided to end their military commitment in Afghanistan, therefore clear the pathway for the Taliban’s rapid takeover, the ‘responsibility’ for nation-building of the state is now shifting once again. Now under the rule of the Taliban insurgent group, they face tough challenges as they seek to secure recognition and legitimacy in the eyes of the international community. The identity of the state of Afghanistan as Islamic country, where 99% of the citizens are Muslim are seeming to be weaken by different ethnic lines based on the regions with strong sense of ‘assabiyah’.
The identity of the state plays an important role in the continuous process of nation- building. Every state has their own identity. The theory of constructivism emphasized the importance of state identity as one the significant factor that determine the relations among states in international systems. State identity can be categorized into two sources, namely the internal and external variables.
Examples of internal variables are such as history, socialization and interaction, local norms, culture and traditions, idiosyncrasy and threat perception. On the other hand, international norms and laws, international regimes as well as likeminded states are some of the examples of external variables. In this month’s International Relations series, the author will try to elaborate further these two variables in order to determine which are more influential in constructing the identities of states.
First of all, for a state to be considered as sovereign, it should possess certain important criteria which are; a permanent population, a defined territory, government and capacity to enter into relations with the other states. We can see that three out of four requirements of the state-building came within the state itself. Thus, it is important to focus more on the domestic factors in constructing the identity of the state as it enforces how the material structure, phenomena, relations among states and any other social facts should be defined and understood.
State identity is generally seen as a part of culture, which most constructivists define as socially shared beliefs. Alexander Wendt who is a famous constructivist scholar also sees culture of interstate community as a primary determinant of state identity. One of the example of this case can be seen on a Malaysia-Israel cultural ties where the two countries do not have formal diplomatic relations, mainly due to Malaysia’s pro-Palestinian stance. Malaysia is a country that majority of its citizens are Muslim thus the fact that Malaysia is reluctant to recognize Israel shows that culture can be a basis of relations between two states.
Other than that, norms are an integral part of state identity within constructivist paradigm. It is the norms of a state’s people that are amplified from a domestic level into an international sphere. However, there is also one other factor that can construct the states’ identity which is idiosyncrasy and, in this case, it is a statesman or the leader of a state. For example, during Tun Mahathir’s first prime ministership, he announced an initiative to learn from the experiences of Japan in the nation-building of Malaysia called Look East Policy. It was aimed in emulating some characteristics of other neighbouring nations such as the work ethic and value system but the principle goal was a shift in focus of relation from the West, in particular, Britain towards the new rising power in Asia back then, specifically, Japan.
The counter argument for this topic might respond that the formation of state identity can also be determined by external factors such as international norms. As mentioned by Martha Finnemore, an American constructivist scholar; –
“Identity and interests are defined by international forces, that is, by the norms of behaviour embedded in international society. The norms of international society are transmitted to states through international organizations. They shape national policies by ‘teaching’ states what their interests should be”.
From her statement we can argue that international norms are believed to be able to internalize identity into states. Finnemore gave one case study to support her argument. She mentioned about the acceptance of poverty alleviation by developing countries as a central norm of economic policy. During 1960s, among the top priority of economic policy was to increase production by focusing on economic growth. Somehow by the early 1970s, welfare improvement through economic redistribution subsequently became a key objective of economic policy.
Finnemore claims that this transition was pushed by the World Bank as the bank’s president, Robert McNamara played an essential role where he was convinced that the bank should actively promote poverty alleviation in developing countries. She therefore argues that international norms promoted by international organizations can decisively influence national guidelines by pushing states to adopt these norms in their national policies.
In global politics, similar identities and long-history of alliance between two states, for example, can be a basis of good relationship between states. However, distinct identities and long-history of conflict can affect the ties of both states. A key example of this is found with the classification of Taiwan, who since 1971 has not been recognised by the United Nations. Despite having official diplomatic ties with 15 UN countries and also regularly trading with many other states, while also possessing permanent population and territory, the country is still applying to be a member of UN but to no avail due to the continuous rejection of its application, the latest during 2021 UN General Assembly last September.
This is due to the history between them and China where China claimed Taiwan as part of its territory. China, as a permanent member of United Nations Security Council consistently preventing the recognition of Taiwan as a sovereign state and its membership in the UN system. Thus, this dilemma shows the failure of international organizations where the domestic factor can be more influential than the external variables.
In conclusion, both internal and external variables are crucial in constructing the identities of states. However, it cannot be argued that the internal variables are more influential as it is more persuasive in shaping the interests of the state and its behaviour with other states in the international systems. From the author’s point of view, it is important for states to combine both internal and external variables to create a strong identity that can protect itself and bring benefit to its people.
The writer is the analyst at Arthos Sdn. Bhd.
