International Relations: Scenarios Of International Politics Of The United Nation And European Union

This paper seeks to critically examine the three scenarios of international politics that were allotted to various actor in the United Nation’s and European Union’s meetings from the lens of an international relations student.

The first scenario allotted was the PRC declaring its invasion over Taiwan if its expansion over the South China Sea fails to be recognised as legal in International Law with Taiwan publicly accepting the same. The main actors involved in the disputed territories contesting for claims for islands in the South China Sea are Brunei, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, China and Taiwan. Legally, according to Tribunal 2016 China lacks a legal base to claim its territorial powers of Taiwan (Page, 2020).

Among these actors, as Realist would like to believe, China by virtue of possessing maximum power seeks to expand its territorial sovereignty to establish its security in International Politics. However, while China seeks to establish its territorial claims over a foreign territory, other actors who are not directly involved are also getting affected and have concerns regarding the same. This shifts the whole debate to question what is the role of the United States in this situation. While many countries support the decisions of the United States since they are dependent on it, such as Australia, India and Japan. Some countries also support China for they are either dependent on it or perhaps intimated by China’s power and its close proximity to it and hence choose to support its decisions. As the United States is a regional hegemonic power in the West, China aspires to be the same in the East.

China is not a believer of liberal democratic principles and hence other actors should not only rely on international law and order. Other countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom should take leadership and should not be blinded by the host of opportunities China provides them to grow, jeopardising national and international interests. It is perhaps in the best interests for countries like India and Japan to take leadership in the East and gain support from other actors involved in the South China Sea to contain the growth of China’s aggressive behaviour. While the rest of the world is effected economically in terms of trade with PRC declaring its invasion over Taiwan due to the lack of acceptance of its territorial claims over the South China Sea. Taiwan fights an emotional battle as majority of the population believe Taiwan and China are two seperate countries and do not wish to fall under the same umbrella. China seems to possess all the traits of a Realist; pessimistic, insensitive, power driven etc. as it seeks to not only claim control over Taiwan if its demands are not fulfilled, it also played politics with Papua New Guinea exhibiting extremely hostile behaviour in the international arena. It is perhaps in the best interest of a combination of international laws to step up along with the coming together of countries especially in the east to contain the behaviour of China. International law although is not legally binding, countries like India, Japan, Brunei, Phillipines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam should come together and stand tall against the domination of China. It should help Taiwan to maintain its sovereignty and it should buffer China’s power and balancing against its power to claim control over the South China Sea as it is legally and morally unjust.

The second scenario allotted was the refugee/migrant crisis encountered in the European Union. The European Union has witnessed a huge influx of migrants illegally, along with people seeking asylum in the region over the last couple of years. The maximum number of asylum seekers have been from Syria. Hungary has been the host and most accommodative of these refugees/migrants while Portugal has only a handful of migrants. This disproportionate distribution of migrants on countries is causing rising tensions in the EU. The migrant crisis also raises questions regarding ethnicity. While most countries do not have a problem with migrants, they seem to have a problem with Muslim migrants as they seek to fight against a Muslim influx into their Christian soil. Countries like Lebanon and Jordan have taken a majority of Muslim migrants despite their infrastructure and capacity while countries like France and Hungary want to resist Muslim influx. The EU is known as a political entity offering great economic integration along with a high degree of security however, if it does not look into the migrant crisis with urgency its economy and security will began to shrink, such as for Denmark. All the actors involved in the EU must come together and combat this issue for it is not just merely a state concern. States need to adhere to international law and find solutions in the laws created by international institutions for they were built to prevent such a situation. The 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights acknowledges every right of a refugee to seek protection from any kind of unjust treatment. With the current situation to uphold the law and humanitarian values it is in the best interest of countries to proportionality and inclusively divide refugees across the EU with assistance from International organisation for migration and UNHCR. It is needed more than ever for not just members of EU to come together and deal with the crisis but it is equally important to work with NATO in ensuring maritime operations in the Aegean Sea and ensuring the EU- Turkey commitments is upheld. The migrant crisis in the European Union is not solely a cause of an influx of migrants but is accompanied by various other factors which need to be taken into considerations while seeking to resolve the issue. For instance, the violent Civil-War in Syria, Afghans seeking to flee the Talibans and Iraqis seeking refuge from violence and unrest in their lands have resulted in the migrant crisis coupled with the reactions of the member states if EU making this a crisis. It is in the best interests of states individually and collectively to agree on some common fixed migration policies to grow back economically. States could also collectively contribute to states that have maximum asylum seekers, such as Syria and Iraq to build its educational, financial and political systems to prevent them from seeking asylum in the EU. Perhaps the ‘return and re-habilitate migration policy’ is the best solution to curb the migration crisis from its root.

The third scenario allotted was questioning who should the Arctic belong to? The nearby states constituting the Arctic; Canada, Russia, Greenland and the United States among some others have been constant rivals over who does the region belong to? The Arctic harbours a host of economic and strategic interests with the powerhouse of natural resources it possesses. This leads to the intervention of International Governmental and Non-Governmental Organisations since the debate must take into account environmental factors such as the melting of ice, global warming, loss of habitat for the indigenous population and animals. With the melting off the ice, the Arctic is opening up potential trade routes between Europe and Asia Pacific, that are believed to boost trade, forcing states not only within the territory but also beyond such as Japan, China, the United Nations, the Arctic council among many others to contest with each other, raising sovereignty disputes. According to UNCLOS and the law of the sea each country receives exclusive economic rights to any natural responses that is present on or beneath the sea floor out of a distance of 200 nautical miles beyond their natural shorelines with the remainder being qualified as common property. This gives United States claims over the Arctic due to its possession over Alaska, however since the US has not ratified the Conventions of the law of the Sea its claims are not valid. Canada occupies the a large chuck over the region along with holding a military base, while Russia comprises about half of the Arctic coastline, they both share an indigenous population and should perhaps have certain ownership over the region as per UNCLOS, i.e. within 200 nautical miles of their coastline. Greenland should have access to the same with its claims being managed by Copenhagen since its Ministry of Foreign Affairs rests there. The remainder of the Arctic should be under the control of the Arctic Council as with it representation of 8 states and 6 indigenous groups along with 38 observes including 13 Non-Arctic states is, however, the rest of the world should also have access to the Arctic since the remainder of the region is common property. This control over the Arctic by the Arctic Council would cater to environmental concerns and seek to balance political and environmental concern ensuring the degradation of Arctic is minimised and political and economical motives do not overpower the environment. The contest for claims over the region highlights military, political and economic importance of the region. The Arctic Council could seek cooperation from International Governmental and Non-Governmental organisations to ensure that no economic activity leads to threatening the Arctic. The Arctic issue does not limit itself to just states surrounding the region but the entire planet for environmental devastation exists beyond geographical boundaries. The Arctic issue exists beyond states, non-state actors, nations, domestic politics and hence requires actors to act together to combat this global issue.

In all the three scenario allotted to us, exemplify that the practice of international politics, although might be a recent occurrence of, history and historiography has had a role to play and hence must not be overlooked. For instance, China’s claims over Taiwan were based on history where post WWII, China claimed control over Taiwan after the defeat of Japan resulting in a question of sovereignty encompassing ethnicity too. The refugee crisis in the EU, as mentioned above too are a result of conflicts that have been going on since decades in concerned states forcing people to flee their land. The Arctic issue, rose from The United States and The Soviet Union fighting over it during the Cold War as the region was symbolic of military powers apart from serving other benefits.

Although, the three instances can be analysed from various lenses of international relations theories, the scenarios serve as an example of the long going debate between realism and liberalism and their coexistence in the practice of international politics. China claims over the South China Sea is motived by Realistic beliefs of expanding its territorial claims and sovereignty and is curbed by international law and the behaviour of other states acting as deterrence to its power. The refugee crisis also encounters a conflict of humanitarian values vs national and state interests and priorities. Further, the Arctic acts as a playground for international institutions and states to fight over what they think is important; environmental and humanitarian values vs economic gains to boost and secure the power of states.