Nuclear Orientalism and Authority: How the West Constrains the Third World

In our last module, we discussed Ken Waltz’s views on the structure of the international order and dissected his position on nuclear weapons, which he argues, serve to reduce the likelihood of conflict between sovereign powers.  That said, he made sure to articulate that this decreased likelihood really only applies for ‘great’ powers.   The orientalism exhibited by Waltz in his piece is consistent with other major authors we’ve read for this course, including Max Weber, and serves to illustrate the point made by Guterson in his work titled: “Nuclear Weapons and the Other in the Western Imagination”.  From a constructivist perspective, this ‘us’ versus ‘them’ dichotomy plays a considerable role in how the international system (assembled primarily by Western actors) manages itself in matters ranging from economic policy to nuclear weapons and everything in between.  This week’s reading has made me cognizant of this orientalist structure, which I will outline further in my post.

In discussing the “game-changing” effects of nuclear weapons, Waltz says, “Although the possibility of war remains, the probability of a war involving states with nuclear weapons has been drastically reduced” (Waltz, p.626).  He goes on to argue, “The probability of major war among states having nuclear weapons approaches zero” (ibid).  He admits that historically more wars have been fought between major states than “minor” ones, but believes that “because of a change in military technology, a change at the unit level, waging war has increasingly become the privilege of poor and weak states” (Waltz, p.627).

This brings us to this week’s Guterson reading.  Guterson contends that there are orientalist tendencies at play, which cause the West to regard third world nuclear weapons as more of a threat than those in possession of their Western counterparts.  He refers to this situation as “nuclear orientalism”.  On page 114, he states, “In Western discourse nuclear weapons are represented so that ‘theirs’ are a problem whereas ‘ours’ are not”.  This notion exists, he argues, despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary.  Before India and Pakistan had nuclear weapons, similar fears existed, yet today neither state has used a nuclear weapon.  Indeed ironically, the only state to have actually done so is the United States, a western power.

Why then, does the notion of the ‘third world nuclear threat’ described by Guterson exist?  The likely cause is deeply rooted into the Western psyche and embedded into its identity.  A Hobbesian-like fear of the other seems to guide much of the West’s actions.  “According to the literature on risk in anthropology,” Guterson writes, “shared fears often reveal as much about the identities and solidarities of the fearful as about the actual dangers that are feared.” 

This perception is referred to as “Orientalism” and according to Edward Said, is defined as a construction of “the world in terms of a series of binary oppositions that produce the Orient as the mirror image of the West: where ‘we’ are rational and disciplined, ‘they’ are impulsive and emotional”  (Guterson, p. 114).  Our Max Weber reading served as an example of this orientalist ideology. “Science,” Weber stated in his piece, “developed to the stage that we today recognize as ‘valid’, exists only in the West” (p.149).  He goes on to say the same about art, architecture, and the economy.  Indeed, according to Weber, the very concept of “rationality” is unique to the West.  With an idea like this at its core, the West constructs governing institutions that inherently harbor these same biases against non-Western, third world, “minor” states. 

Before concluding this week’s readings, this bias had never occurred to me, specifically when it comes to nuclear weapons proliferation.  While Guterson did not outline a “fix” to this problem of orientalist policy, he did a good job of drawing attention to it and it will be interesting to further explore how it impacts Western perceptions of minor state authority in the international system.

Gusterson, Hugh. “Nuclear Weapons and the Other in the Western Imagination,” Cultural Anthropology 14:1 (1999).

Waltz, Kenneth. “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18:4 (1988).

Weber, M. (2002). Prefatory Remarks to Collected Essays in the Sociology of Religion. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Retrieved May 18, 2018, from https://au-mir.s3.amazonaws.com/prod/Jackson International Relations/Readings/Weber - Prefatory Remarks.pdf