Liberalism is generally seen as the historic alternative to Realism We have previously talked about the rise of what is now called Idealism after WWI There was also a brief revival of liberal thinking after WWII -the birth of the UN - but extinguished due to cold war politicking Liberalism seemed resurgent during the 1990s -Western leaders proclaimed “new world order” in which liberal ideas were held up But 9/11 saw the end to that -US and allies sought to consolidate power -punish terrorists and states harbouring them According to Hoffman -“The essence of Liberalism is self-restraint, moderation, compromise and peace -whereas the essence of international politics is exactly the opposite: -troubled peace, at best, or the state of war” (in Baylis 2008: 110) Belief in the possibility of progress is central to liberalism Doyle outlines four key dimensions to liberalism (in Baylis 2008: 110) (1) all citizens are equal – possess basic rights to education, free press, religious toleration (2) those who set a country’s laws (legislative assembly) gain authority from the people -and it is not allowed to abuse those people’s basic rights (3) individual liberty, including the right to own property and their productive forces (4) market-driven economic exchange is most effective -not one submitted to either domestic or international bureaucratic regulation and control Broadly, liberal values include: -individualism, tolerance, freedom and constitutionalism In contrast to conservatism: -priority on order and authority; individual liberty sacrificed for stability of the community
A general goal of liberal thinking is -the attempt to take the domestic model of politics to the international realm -as a means to establish a just order -the idea is that states, like people have ‘natural’ rights -such as the right to non-intervention into their internal affairs Liberals do not think that anarchy is the cause of war -but rather blame imperialism -or the failure of the balance of power -or problem of undemocratic regimes structuring international relations Ideas to solve this include collective security, commerce, or world government
Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham – leading liberal thinkers of the Enlightenment Enlightenment -associated with rational thinkers of the 18thC -secularism, progress, reason, science, knowledge and freedom Motto: “Sapere aude” – have courage to use your own understanding – Kant (p580) Both Kant and Bentham rejected savagery of earlier times -new ideas of rights, citizenship and constitutionalism -the belief that reason could deliver freedom and justice in international relations Kant – perpetual peace could be achieved through -transformation of individual consciousness -republican constitutionalism -federal contract between states to abolish war [a permanent peace treaty rather than world government] One of Kant’s key ideas was revived in the 1980s – the idea of “democratic peace” -i.e. liberal states have peace with other liberal states Doyle: two key elements (1) restraint amongst liberal states (2) ’international imprudence’ in relations with non-liberal states Seems to hold true, but there are limitations -the explanation for why war should be unthinkable between liberal states unclear (1) Kant thought would be less wars if people had to make the decision to fight -but then why are there so many wars between liberal and non-liberal states? (2) perhaps because liberal states tend to be wealthy, and less to gain/more to lose from war (3) most convincing – liberal states tend to get along with other liberal states -US/Canada are ‘friends’ – economic and political convergence -but friendly relations seem to be the key (Mexico/Cuba, despite different economic ideologies) Already mentioned Francis Fukuyama – “end of history” -triumph of liberalism yet liberal democracies just as aggressive as anyone with authoritarian regimes and stateless people
There is, however, a key tension within liberal thinking -commitment to economic and social freedom leads to minimalist government -democratic political culture to protect freedom requires interventionist institutions The key question, irrespective of the size or scale: -freedom to retain property and privilege paramount? -or equality greater than liberty – resources redistributed to the weak? In the international arena, inequalities are great and mechanisms to counter it are small -due to globalisation the power of the state govern is diminished
central to 19thC liberalism -the idea that free trade would create a more peaceful world -trade brings mutual gains to all – irrespective of size or nature of economies It was strongly supported in Britain -free trade brings disproportionate gains to the hegemonic power -it also leads to relations of dominance and subservience between countries at different stages of development The idea of a harmony of interests between states challenged in early 20thC -before WWI Germany and Britain had highly interdependent economies Liberals needed to accept that peace and prosperity was not a natural condition -but required active work
Woodrow Wilson -suggested peace could be secured through an international organisation -peace should not be left to secret bilateral diplomacy and faith in balance of power The League of Nations depended on the idea of “collective security” -”each state in the system accepts that the security of one is the concern of all, -and agrees to join in a collective response to aggression” (Roberts and Kingsbury, in Baylis et al 2008: 114) The League of Nations Article 16 -cease normal relations with offending state, impose sanctions, if necessary commit armed forces to LoN LoN constitution also based on self-determination of all nations But practical and moral problems were exposed -what about minorities who felt no allegiance to self-determine state? who decided who could vote? -what if self-determining state rejected liberal democratic norms? The League of Nations was a disaster -a lot of idealist talk, but still followed self-interest -US didn’t join; USSR boycotted for ideological reasons -became “talk-shop” for satisfied powers -Hitler reoccupied demilitarised Rhineland; holocaust destroyed Idealism’s optimism But liberal ideas remained -UN replaced LoN -but with awareness that great powers needed to be included in major decisions -hence Article 27 of UN Charter –veto for 5 permanent members of Security Council -although it did not work until after cold war (US/USSR vetoed each other)
If we think about the four key aspects of liberalism -judicial equality, democracy, liberty, free market -these key values can actually be pursued by very different political strategies -these can be called neo-liberalism and radical liberalism Following WWII, the US sought to ‘embed’ certain liberal principles in international society -contrary to realist thinking, Us gave up short-term gains -in return for a durable settlement that benefited all states (1) US had an open political system – allows different voices to be heard -foreign policy closely scrutinised by media, public opinion, committees, opposition parties (2) US advocated a global free-trade regime -on assumption that free trade brings benefits to all (also cheap for hegemon to manage) (3) US seemed a reluctant hegemon - did not exploit its power and political advantage (4) Most imp- US created / maintain international institutions that constrained it power neo-liberal argument - post 1945 order durable and successful because US is liberal hegemon -if we accept this then we’re also accepting a conservative idea -that there no alternative but to work within the existing system -this is a system that the Western states paid start-up costs for -but are reaping significant returns on this institutional investment -but the current system is highly unresponsive to weaker states/peoples -richest 20% of people hold 75% of income; poorest 20% hold only 1.5% (UNDP in Baylis et al 2008: p117)
So it’s not surprising that the hegemonic power is interested in this status quo -preserving and extending its control of institutions, markets and resources When it came under challenge (9/11) -response uncompromising -George Bush mobilised the language of liberalism against al-Qaeda, Taliban, Iraq -2003 Iraq War called ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ to ‘liberate’ Iraq -Bush’s speeches often about the use of force to promote freedom -’we fight, as we always fight, for a just peace’ -’the Great Powers share common values … [including] a deep commitment to human freedom’ -’our aim is a democratic peace’ But also have to be skeptical of supposed liberal principles underpinning US foreign policy -neo-conservative ideology underpins Bush presidency Indeed liberalism can also be closely tied to imperialism -we’ve already heard Machiavelli's argument about expansion as one means to security -but current US foreign policy is in some ways expansionist – at least in terms of economics -few current liberals would advocate imperialism -but there is a fine line between intervening to defend liberal values and privileges vs. imperialism Given democratic peace thesis, Doyle argues (in Baylis et al 2008: 118) -trying to directly convert non-liberal states into liberal states could be dangerous -esp. given nuclear-armed non-liberal states Therefore dual-track process (1) form alliances between liberal states to preserve liberal community (eg. balance of power) (2) Use economic and diplomatic instruments to expand ‘ inspiration’ – hope people will struggle for liberty ‘ instigation’ - peace building / economic restructuring ‘ intervention’ – if other’s citizens widely dissatisfied, or basic rights systematically violated
These strategies to preserve / extend liberal institutions often criticised This collective of arguments can be loosely called radical liberalism Radical liberals challenge neo-liberals view that international institutions are indeed liberal -they say the real purposes of these institutions are often overlooked Consider effects of economic liberalisation advocated by Western financial institutions -in particular on economically impoverished countries -this frequently comes into conflict with liberal norms of democracy and human rights The more Western state organise developing states’ politics and economics -the less these governments are accountable to their people -but link between people and government is central to modern liberal representative democracy (2) To qualify for Western aid and loans, state must meet harsh economic requirements -leads to cuts in welfare programs–children in poorest parts of Africa pay for primary school -but this is a breach according to (the liberal’s) Universal Declaration of Human Rights -economic liberty and political equality often opposed (3) International financial institutions’ inflexibility to crises in world economy -has led to a broader backlash against liberalism
(1) Radical liberals argue that -the institutional order has fallen prey to the neo-liberals’ aim to reduce public sector welfare -and leave ‘the market’ as the means to allocate resources, investment, and employment (2) Radical liberals argue that these international structures are in fact not liberal (a) essentially, there is a democratic deficit at the global level -international issues of people and security are decided by just 15 members of the UN Security Council -only five of these exercise veto power [ China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States] -that leave up to 200 states who might want to take military action, but can’t because of one of those 5 (b) In terms of political economy -Western leaders and financial institutions push free trade -but the way they do this perpetuates structural inequality -e.g. West pushes free trade in manufactured goods/financial services, where has comparative advantage -but not agriculture and textiles (where it stands to lose) (c) Radical liberals worry that all statist models of governance are undemocratic -political elites are generally extremely self-serving Many radical liberals argue that global politics must be made more democratic -David Held (p119) argued that the modern state system is the problem (‘Westphalian order’) -we’ve seen growing democratisation throughout the world -but not amongst international society -this is especially important due to globalisation – deforestation in one state affects all people Although since 1945 series of UN human rights conventions limited individual states’ sovereignty -not always followed in practice -and the Westphalian order largely intact: -hierarchy [eg. P5 security council], unequal wealth between states, minimal role of non-state actors (3) Held proposes “cosmopolitan model of democracy” (a) creation of regional parliaments -extend authority of regional bodies (eg. EU) (b) Human rights conventions entrenched in national parliaments -monitored by new International Court of Human Rights (c) Reform or replace UN with genuinely democratic and accountable parliament
Radical liberals emphasise the civilising capacity of global society -rule of law and international democratisation important -but also need citizen’s networks to monitor and push these institutions -need to link individuals, states, and global institutions This may all sound utopian -but there have been many achievements so far -international humanitarian law -human rights groups like Amenity International and Human Rights Watch -global protest movements raise environmental awareness This ‘ globalisation from below’ (Richard Falk) – antidote to neo-liberalism’s status-quo worldview But if imperialism is a danger of complacent liberalism of privilege -the naivety is a danger for radical liberals -how can we actually go about transforming international institutions to reflect ordinary people? -what if ‘people’ are just as indifferent to global injustice as state are? Radical liberals seem to want to turn the clock back to an idealised past -were local farmers produced organic food and watch street theatre in the evening -but maybe people just prefer cheap supermarket food and Astro television -
![International Relations Week 3 [read Baylis et. al. (2008) chapter 5 and 6] Brendon Tagg [email_address]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/week3a-110206203257-phpapp02/85/international-relation-1-320.jpg)
![LIBERALISM ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()