I am hoping to write a few posts about politics in East Asia over the next month (now that I have some time to blog). To start it off, I thought I would post an outline of Asymmetry Theory, which is how I view international relations. I can then link back to this post when I refer to it in future posts.
The theory was introduced by Brantly Womack, and although there is not a single book dedicated to the theory, there are other publications that detail it. Most of the summary below comes from China and Vietnam: The Politics of Asymmetry. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 295pp. I have pulled the outline from a paper I wrote on Sino-Sudanese relations when I was an undergraduate at UVa.
Asymmetry Theory focuses on the relative differences in power between large country A, and small country B. It argues that the relationship between A and B is actually a subset of two different relations: A’s dealings with B, and B’s dealing with A. Disparities in capacity and power between A and B “create real differences of perception and relative interest.”[1] The smaller country and the larger country have different conceptions of the disparities in power, character of the relationship, and they respond accordingly. For the larger country, relationship with B is only a small speck on the foreign policy horizon. For B, relations with A consume a major portion of the foreign policy horizon. When compared to China, African countries, especially Sudan, have a comparatively smaller economy, military power, and political influence.
The different viewpoints from each country often result in a systemic misperception of the other side’s objectives. Larger country A will usually only pay attention to smaller country B in times of crisis. The larger country then has the option and ability to respond quickly, and often coercively, so that they can resolve the conflict with B and address more important issues. In times of peace, three factors influence A’s policy: (1) “A’s perception of the history of the relationship and of B’s attitude toward A,” (2) the “role B is perceived to play in larger patterns of alliance and hostility,” and (3) “the consistency of ‘B policy’ with A’s general foreign policy priorities and practices.”[2] When examining the Sino-Sudanese case, these have all influenced China’s policy.[3]
For smaller country B, the methods used by A are usually seen in the context of autonomy and national survival. Whereas country A might view coercive methods, such as economic sanctions or military mobilization, as relatively unimportant, country B can easily interpret such actions as dire threats to autonomy and integrity. As a result, B is faced with the problem of potential over-attention, which results in over-analyzing and misunderstanding. This tendency is often mitigated when B joins multilateral institutions, other small countries with similar interests, or forming an alliance with another power to offset A.[4] For many African nations in partnerships with China, the potential for over-attention is very real.
Asymmetric relationships can be managed, but it does not come with out a challenge. The basic tasks “are to neutralize possible areas of conflict by creating a neutral zone in the relationship, and to control the escalation of misunderstanding and conflict by creating a sleeve of normalcy.”[5] There are a few ways that countries can neutralize potential conflict areas. First, both sides can work together to formulate the issues in a way that speaks to common interests. This makes it easier to negotiate and reach agreements on pressing issues. The second way to neutralize is by having joint commissions run by experts equipped to handle common problems. These experts can take issues out of the political arena and attempt to solve them objectively.
The success of the relationship depends on whether each side can be sure that there will be a solution to any potential conflict that emerges. There are certain reassurances that play a role in the management of the relationship. The first is diplomatic ritual. Frequent exchanges, both high-level and low-level, help strengthen the relationship. The numerous official visits and summits between China and Africa are good examples of diplomatic ritual. The second reassurance is precedent, which shapes expectations about what is familiar and what has happened before. If two countries have a long history of peaceful relations, it is not likely that people will believe a minor conflict will lead to war. Established relationships are much easier to manage than new situations, such as those that emerged after the Cold War. New nations often experienced misperception simply because they had yet to establish new relationships.
____
[1] Womack (2004), p. 359
[2] Womack (2006), p. 81
[3] Obviously, it is not a time of peace in Sudan, but there is peace between China and Sudan.
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid, p.89
