Live Encounters Magazine Special Edition April 2025.
Eastern International Relations; the question of origin by Dr. Namrata Goswami. – Article Four
International relations, as a discipline, emerged for the first time in the 1920s, tracing its roots to World War I. There was a growing hunger to devote time and money to study the archives of Germany and Russia that were opened at the war’s end, demanding scholarship with discipline that could explain why nations engaged in such a war and for what purpose.[1] These studies focused on the alliances that existed before the war, the nature of diplomacy, and military strategy. Books like those penned by Sidney Bradshaw Fay’s The Origin of the World War; Arnold J. Toynbee’s The World After the Peace Conference, and Winston Churchill’s The World’s Crisis (1923-29) made remarkable contributions to aspects of what happened before, during and after that European originated war. Within the discipline of international relations, there was a growing movement to study the causes of war in all its dimensions: social, economic, political, and psychological. At that time, we had new organizations like the League of Nations that were established. The onslaught of the Second World War and the impact of ideas like nationalism, colonialism, the state of racial minorities, the strategic aspects of international relations, the military-industrial complex, and the implications of economic inequalities galvanized the discipline in the West. Harold Laswell analyzed the psychological aspects of symbols, images, and perceptions and their impact on world politics; others like Quincy Wright, E.H. Carr, Nicholas Spykman, developed the idea of power politics in international relations. The advent of nuclear weapons and its impact on power projection and military strategy added a new dimension to this discipline. Henry Kissinger, Hans J Morgenthau, Arnold Wolfers, and others highlighted the importance of national interest and the balance of power in the international system, as well as dwelling on human nature. States were key in this study. The field of area studies in international relations developed after the Second World War, specifically to understand how regions will respond to the new Cold War. The United States took the lead in this regard. We also saw this chasm in terms of methodology in the 1950s between those who believed the focused small quantitative studies could offer precise ‘natural science’ like precision in developing explanations for human behavior and those who argued that such a methodology is fundamentally unsound.[2] Precision was sought after, for instance, through concepts like nuclear deterrence and game theory, Computation added a lot to that kind of analysis. However, the weaknesses of such methods were clear as none could envisage the largest change in the system that occurred: the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
If you notice the frame of conversation above, you will notice that all of these concepts in international relations developed either in the U.S. or in Europe. Given that, all nations including those that were colonies of Europe were coerced to participate both in events that were none of their making, like the First World War [think India], or assimilate to the theories of International Relations that were of Western origin. So much so that even those who try to argue for a new origin for international relations feel most at ease in juxtaposing it vis-à-vis the West; hence the phrasing: non-western International Relations. It is as if sub-consciously, if we do not address the development of thought processes, outside of Western origin, by locating it in connection to the dominant thinking in Western International Relations, we would fail to be noticed in the larger discipline of international relations. This phrasing and framing is flawed as it falsely creates a division between Western and so-called non-Western international relations because in reality there is none. If one looks deeply at the works of the ancients, be it in Greece, China, or India, thinkers like Thucydides, Socrates, Kautilya, Sun Tzu, or even the dialogues on strategy, justice, values, religion, philosophy, laws that should govern a ruler, the importance of rules of war or just war, the conduct of war, there is a lot in common across the societies of the East and the West. Therefore, to juxtapose something as non-western promises a completely new way of thinking about international relations, which is not the case, when one looks at the evidence.
Instead, I believe a better way of framing a discourse on International Relations, is to locate the origin of the ideas around peace and war, military strategy, community, inter-ethnic dialogues, strategic cultures, histories, let’s say, drawn from China, India, Japan, Southeast Asia, is to call it by an empowering name, Eastern International Relations. The non-Western international relations framing descend into negative connotations of being ignored by Western international relations, the dominant perspective in IR. A better framing is Eastern International Relations, which will prepare future students of international relations to deal with the emerging world better, where ideas from the East and the West, from Africa to Papua New Guinea have always collided, debated, and emerged with levels of wisdom drawn from different roots.
Eastern International Relations offers international relations several ways of thinking about this global field which is not that dissimilar from the way Western origin thinkers have thought about the field. Below are some of the themes I can draw from Indian, Mongol, and Chinese thinking.
1. Expansion and the State
Within Indian and Chinese thinking, there are well-developed concepts and strategies on how a state can expand its territories and influence. Kautilya’s The Arthasashtra offers us the concept of the Mandala (concentric circles), where the king is advised to either maintain his kingdom (status quo) or expand (extend his kingdom). Bordering states tend to compete as they jockey for influence and power, and either one or the other could become a vassal state, paying tribute to the all-powerful state. The Mandala theory can be represented through concentric circles with the king whom Kaulitya is advising at the center, circled by allies, antagonists and enemies. To extend his power, the king can use overwhelming military force, but can also utilize moral, economic, and ideological power. This could be the development of trade routes, new settlements, forts, and infrastructure works like roads and irrigation. In terms of foreign policy, there are the Madhyama or the Middle Kingdom, who share borders with the all-powerful state but also with the enemy and can hold the leverage to tilt the balance, in favor of one or the other. Then, there is the Mitra or ally who shares a border with the Ari (enemy) but not with the all-powerful state, which is an asset to the latter as it extends its power. There is the Ari or the adversary, who shares borders with the powerful state and has the resources and talent to challenge its extension. The all-powerful state (Vijigishu or conqueror) has to base its strategies on sound intelligence of who it is dealing with. Kautilya offers in-depth foreign policy strategies on how to deal with different constituents, in his estimation, about 72. There are six tools of foreign policy called Sadgunya and four methods of control.[3]
Similarly, in Chinese thinking, the expansionist state has to utilize several strategies to expand its power and influence, chief among which is an intelligence-based understanding of the enemy, a knowledge that the enemy state adapts to the expanding state’s strategies and strength, and execute deception; appear weaker than it is, to influence the target state’s strategies. Sun Tzu, for instance, placed a heavy emphasis on deception, strategic patience, the ability to utilize terrain to the powerful state’s advantage and to gain the lead by a show of strength, not by actual fighting. In Chinese strategic thinking, a civilized state does not engage in war; it wins by superior strategy and the most superior is to get the enemy state to capitulate without fighting. The Art of War, which Sun Tzu wrote over 2, 500 years ago, is one of the earliest works of military strategy and culture that exists in the world today. In the third chapter of Sun Tzu titled, “Attack by Stratagem”, it states that “supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting”. In this, one can get insights into alliance building, military strategy, tributary systems, and political culture. The Mongols, brought their version of military warfare, tactics, and their doctrine of assimilation into an occupied territory, in this case, China.
2. Ideas of Just War
Major texts from India and China have a lot to say about the idea of a Just War. Both Kautilya and Sun Tzu insist that a king has to have a moral high ground in order to expand his state and its power. Kautilya states that the king has to be viewed by his subjects as working for their welfare and is benevolent. There have to be laws for a kingdom to flourish, specifically for its subjects to acquire wealth. For Sun Tzu, in his chapter on “Laying Plans”, the art of war is governed by five constant factors: The Moral Law, Heaven, Earth, The Commander, Method, and discipline. Sun Tzu accords a lot of importance to the Moral Law. As per Sun Tzu, when the soldiers fight for justice, they exhibit courage, morale, loyalty, and a willingness to die for the cause. We see such arguments in Mongol and Japanese concepts of warfare as well. It is insightful to see how both China and India are utilizing their ancient theories of foreign policy, war, and peace to tell the world how they interpret contemporary events. For instance, PLA Lieutenant General He Lei, former Vice President of the Academy of Military Sciences, utilizes Sun Tzu to explain how China might behave today. He indicates that China’s policies on Taiwan are informed by Sun Tzu’s conception of the Art of War and ideas of Just War.[4] In India, there are academic efforts and policy push to utilize Kautilya and the Mahabharata to explain India’s contemporary international behavior.[5]
3. Military Strategy and how to forge Alliances
There is rich literature on military strategy and how to build alliances in Eastern international relations. Kautilya indicates that the first step of his six-fold foreign policy is peace which means entering into a peace agreement with an enemy who is equal in strength to the powerful state. Or if there is intelligence that the powerful state is winning or if there is the need to buy time. Alliances can also be utilized as a way to deter and delay defeat, and then an alliance with the enemy’s enemy can strengthen one’s position. Hegemonic expansion can be conducted by peaceful agreements and war is not always the better option. Kautilya states that “When the advantages derivable from peace and war are of equal character, one should prefer peace; for disadvantages, such as the loss of power and wealth, sojourning, and sin, are ever attending upon war… A king who is situated between two powerful kings shall; seek protection from the stronger of the two; or from one of them on whom he can rely; or he may make peace with both of them on equal terms”.[6] The Mongols also prized the building of alliances. Genghis Khan and his descendants prioritized the ability to utilize speed and outmaneuver their enemy, utilize deception, and use an excellent communication system, and sought military alliances. One such military alliance was the one they built through religious diplomacy with medieval Europe (different Popes) during the reign of Kublai Khan. The emissary we all know that is credited to have made that possible was Marco Polo, an emissary from Venice to the Mongol court of Kublai Khan, at a time (1275), when Kublai Khan ruled over China as the founder of the Yuan dynasty. However, it was Italian envoy, Giovanni da Pian del Carpini, a Catholic archbishop who became the first European to enter the Mongol Court. His work titled “Ystoria mongalorum” of 1255 “would become one of the most important European records of the Mongol Empire.[7]
The strategic reasons are clear; at that time, the Mongol empire extended to Constantinople (Byzantine Empire), Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. The first major Mongol-European alliance was built between Kublai Khan and the kings of France and England. There is rich literature on the Mongol-European complex history of strategic alliances where the Pope also wanted to ensure that the Mongols did not invade Europe, something the latter did in 1241 with their invasion of Hungary.[8]
4. Political Identity
Almost all strategic texts in Eastern international relations focus on the political identity of a state. What does the state prioritize? What kind of an administrative system is established? How does the state assimilate its diverse population? In India, for instance, the Mughal administration was a highly centralized and structured system of the state, that facilitated the Empire’s expansion through a combination of cultural integration, economic development, and military authority. There was a great belief in a strong ruler, under whom the empire developed a finance ministry called Diwan-i-Kul, an administrator of the military, a legal officer, and a judicial department. The political identity of the state was spread by developing a full-fledged provincial administrative structure. In Kublai Khan ruled China, a political integration with Chinese traditions, Confucianism, and ancestral worship, were part of the court he established. Kublai retained a lot of Chinese governing principles as well as the Chinese education system. He gave his full support to the development of a peasant economy in China and helped them organize through the development of rural cooperatives. Taxation was fixed and thereby predictable. Their legal system was flexible and easier than the earlier Chinese ones under Empires like the Tang. Kublai Khan is credited with building Daidu (present-day Beijing). His reign was known for religious tolerance, had several Islamic administrators, and he was attracted to Tibetan Buddhism.
In conclusion, it is quite clear that there is a lot the East offers in broadening the field of International Relations. Studying the Great Empires of the East, Eastern military strategy, texts, history, and culture cannot be relegated to the field of area studies, but form a core of the discipline of international relations. The key-framing change that is required is that Eastern international relations are a field in its own right and not a simple non-western international relation, where somehow that tag non-western [emphasis added] gives it meaning. Moreover, there is a lot in common between Western and Eastern International Relations regarding core concepts around expansion, military strategy, power, competition and cooperation, and alliance building. Therefore, I say it’s a matter of origin, and not really hard-core differences around concepts. Moreover, in the arc of human existence, we still feel the impact of the last 200 years of European colonialism and are only now emerging into a vibrant post-colonial world, where technologies like the internet are enabling the sharing of knowledge, cultures, economy, so much more possible, and in a democratic manner. International Relations theorizing stands at such a precipice of real democratization and can strengthen its theoretical processes of explaining the world.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official guidance or position of the United States Government, the Department of Defense, the United States Air Force, or the United States Space Force.
[1] “International Relations”, Britannica, n.d., https://www.britannica.com/topic/international-relations
[2] Ibid.
[3] Budhaditya Ghosh, “Kautilya’s Mandala Theory,” The West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, n.d., https://ia600508.us.archive.org/30/items/the-philosophical-traditions-of-india-an-appraisal-raffaele-torella/Kautilyas_Mandala_Theory.pdf; also see P.K. Gautam, “Understanding Kautilya’s Arthasashtra”, World Affairs: The Journal of International Issue, 17/1 (Spring January-March 2013), pp. 30-37, https://www.jstor.org/stable/48535489
[4] He Lei, “Thoughts in The Art of War Inspires Contemporary China’s Defense Policies”, Global Times, November 01, 2023, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202311/1301002.shtml
[5] P K Gautam, “Kautilya’s Arthasashtra and its Relevance to Contemporary Strategic Studies”, United Service Institution of India, n.d., https://www.usiofindia.org/publication-journal/kautilyas-arthashastra-and-its-relevance-to-contemporary-strategic-studies.html; “Chanakya’s Arthasashtra Relevant to Understand Strategic Culture: Shivshankar Menon”, India Today, October 9, 2013, https://www.indiatoday.in/india/north/story/chanakya-arthashastra-relevant-to-understand-strategic-culture-shivshankar-menon-213738-2013-10-08
[6] R. Shamasashtry, Kautilya’s Arthsashtra, 1956, Chapter 2: The Nature of Alliance, https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/kautilya-arthashastra/d/doc366130.html
[7] Fr. Giovanni Carpini and Erik Hildinger, The Story of the Mongols: Whom We Call the Tartars, Branden Books, 2014.
[8] Bolor Lkhaajav, “Marco Polo and the Mongol Empire’s Strategic Diplomacy”, The Diplomat, November 13, 2024, https://thediplomat.com/2024/11/marco-polo-and-the-mongol-empires-strategic-diplomacy/
© Dr. Namrata Goswami
Dr. Namrata Goswami is an author and educator specializing in space policy, international relations, and ethnic identity. Currently, Dr. Goswami teaches at the Schriever and West Space Scholar Programs, the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Thunderbird School of Global Management, Arizona State University, and at the Joint Special Forces University. She is a guest lecturer at Emory University for seminars on Technology, Society & Governance, and India today. She worked as a Research Fellow at MP-Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi; a Visiting Fellow at Peace Research Institute, Oslo, Norway; La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia; University of Heidelberg, Germany; Jennings-Randolph Senior Fellow, United States Institute of Peace; and was a Fulbright Senior Fellowship Awardee. She was awarded the Minerva grant by the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense to study great power competition in outer space.
In April 2019, Dr. Goswami testified before the U.S-China Economic and Security Review Commission on China’s space program. Her co-authored book, Scramble for the Skies: The Great Power Competition to Control the Resources of Outer Space was published in 2020 by Lexington Press; Rowman, and Littlefield. Her book on The Naga Ethnic Movement for a Separate Homeland was published in 2020 by Oxford University Press. She has published widely including in The Diplomat, the Economic Times, The Washington Post, Ad Astra, Asia Policy, Live Encounters Magazine, Cairo Review. She was invited in November 2019 to share about her life and her work at a Tedx event held at the Rosa Parks Museum, in Montgomery, Alabama. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WPNdnahLaY