Liberal Cooperation Between States

Cooperation or anarchy? Put 'em to the test.

INTRODUCTION
Cooperation between states is not only practical but also necessary for mutual ensured survival. Complaints are laid against multinational and nongovernmental organizations, that they maintain the status quo and are hesitant to go in, guns blazing, to affect change within a rogue nation. However, without the levels of social and international understanding and cooperation that exist today, the world would be full of nations ruthlessly attacking one another, waiting for another nation to let its guard down in order to strike. It is the multi-national organizations that keep the despots and conquerors in line. It is the consensus that creates peace, not the solo actor in an anarchic system. It is sensible and crucial that nations cooperate in order to keep the world working.

THE REALIST SCHOOL OF THOUGHT
The realist camp believes that all nations work for their own benefit, for their own gain, without pause regarding their own safety and security. "The central tenet accepted by virtually all realist theorists is that states exist in an anarchic international system" (Mingst 67). This requires states to act to their own advantage, all the time, without fail, otherwise the nation state would be constantly hamstrung by competing outside interests that were not central to the state. Realism "assumes that mankind is not inherently benevolent and kind but self centered and competitive" (Wikipedia, "Realism in International Relations").
States are also rational and goal-oriented. Each nation makes assumptions and guesses as to others' intentions while choosing a path that directly benefits itself. Joseph Grieco summarizes, "Realists assume that states are goal-oriented. Although realists diverge in certain important respects with regard to the primary ends they ascribe to states... they assume that states have such goals and devise strategies specifically aimed at their achievement" (Doyle and Ikenberry, 165). The realist school of thought "also fundamentally assumes that the international system is anarchic, in the sense that there is no authority above states capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity" (Wikipedia, "Realism in International Relations").
The question of security is paramount to the realist. Without security, the state cannot function. Collective security as defined by the liberal thinkers is an absolutely untenable position, since, by its rational, state-centric nature, each state is looking out for number one. The great classical realist observer, Niccolo Machiavelli, saw that his native Florence had become an amoral dynamic force, buried in its own perpetuation and survival. He saw the Macedonians and the barbarians as threats to the state, among others, and advocated doing whatever was possible against those threats, thus sending the message that the ends justify the means. The state's principal role is to make war, says the realist, since the state must protect its citizens from threats that originate outside its walls. "...[T]he state and the practice of warmaking are entangled in an inextricable and unique relationship" (Keegan 34).
In short, realists deify power: the power to maintain the state, to perpetuate the state, and to push forward the state's interests onto the anarchic international playing field.

THE LIBERAL MINDSET
How does this differ from the liberal worldview, and which is more accurate? Which has better credibility when it comes to the perpetuation of the state?
Liberalism believes that state inclinations, rather than state capabilities, primarily determine the behavior of the state. As opposed to realism, in which the state is perceived as a solo force, plurality of action is the cornerstone of liberalist thought. Varying aspects like economic system, government type, or culture will shape preferences for a state's practices. A state with a dearth of oil, for example, needs to import oil by the billions of barrels a year. It is inclined to kowtow and accede to the price demands of states that have a surplus of oil. Conversely, the state that has plenty does not need to import oil, and will deal differently with oil-producing states than will one who must go, hat in hand, to an OPEC nation for negotiations. Clearly this small example shows that the liberal belief has some merit: not all nations are created equal.
Instead of relying on one's own intrinsic power to ensure security, cooperation for mutual security is a linchpin of liberalist thought. In 1917, Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points envisioned a multinational postwar stage with many players, interacting and working towards a common good. His idealism created the League of Nations, which existed between the World Wars of the 20th century and was the predecessor to the current international forum, the United Nations. The League failed, since "it did not have the political weight, the legal instruments, or the legitimacy to carry out the task" of preventing all future wars and policing the international players (Mingst 36). Throughout the Cold War, the United Nations stood for all nations to have their say in the world forum. The UN's peacekeeping operations have been plentiful, from combat operations in Korea to current nation building in the former Yugoslavia. Following the lead of the multinational force patrolling the Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia-Montenegro regions of the Balkans, the European Union has recently fielded a European Rapid Reactionary Force, commonly dubbed the "EuroArmy", which would be deployed to stem internal civil chaos. (Reid 177) Liberal thought is concerned with collective security, not independent security.
Liberalism believes that "instead of an anarchic international system, there are plenty of opportunities for cooperation and broader notions of power, such as cultural capital" (Wikipedia, "Liberal International Relations Theory"). On cultural capital and other forms of soft power, Joseph Nye posited that soft power truly makes the world go around. "Nye has defined his concept of 'soft power'. The ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion is cultivated through relations with allies, economic assistance and cultural exchanges with other countries, showing that U.S. behavior corresponds with rhetorical support for democracy and human rights and, more generally, maintaining favorable public opinion and credibility abroad" (Spear)

THE FORMATION OF REGIMES
Regimes are an essential part of enforcing mutually agreed-upon policies and agreements. Institutionalists, however, believe that cooperation is not only desirable and achievable, but also necessary. The world inevitably becomes interdependent and relationships must be cooperative; this need to cooperate necessitates the development of institutions and rules. Through the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, anti-land mine activists have affected change on a global scale. First came the policy that land mines were still being laid and they injure fifteen to twenty thousand civilians and non-combatants per year. So the community of states who are involved with landmine planting assembled and formed an international ban on their emplacement and deployment. All existing landmines were to be unearthed and destroyed. The mutually agreed upon set of instructions were carried out and most every nation on earth climbed aboard. This is an example of how nations may act in harmony in order to affect beneficial change.

LIBERAL THOUGHT'S CONVINCING MERITS
The liberal international relations school, as opposed to the realist school, has its merits. The idea that we all have to work together in order to ensure mutual security is wonderful. Though the international community may hold up unilateralist leanings, and therefore be perceived as vacillating or concessionary towards rogue states, proceeding with the blessings of liberal, multinational institutions are definitely more appealing than going it alone. As recent history attests, the Iraq invasion has been very expensive and the nation is still in chaos. Though the U.S. was accompanied by a "coalition of the willing", it was without mandate from the United Nations. In part attributable to the lack of UN help, the invasion has been costly, in both lives and dollars. The convincing aspects of liberal thought are the requirements that all states work together, or at least in consensus, in order to affect change that is mutually beneficial.

THE EUROPEAN MODEL
The relatively recent formation of the European Union is an example of the grand liberal design. These "United States of Europe" banded together to ensure mutual security and economic cooperation. From the adoption of the Euro as mutual currency and the abolition of tariffs throughout the European continent, the EU has been a sterling success. Though some growing pains remain, the European Union is a model of liberal civilization for the world to adopt.

CONCLUSION
The world has need of mutual understanding. The liberal mindset may have shortcomings and failings, but it is only through cooperation and communication that we can abolish war and engender peace.

WORKS CITED

Doyle, Michael W. and G. John Ikenberry, ed. New Thinking in International Relations Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997.

"What's the Problem?" International Campaign to Ban Landmines. Internet: International Campaign to Ban Landmines, accessed 30 April 2006.

Keegan, John. War and Our World. London, Vintage Books, 1998.

"Liberal International Relations Theory." Wikipedia. Internet: Wikipedia, accessed 28 April 2006.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. New York: Signet Classic, 1999.

Mingst, Karen A. Essentials of International Relations, 3rd Edition. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 2004.

"Realism in International Relations." Wikipedia. Internet: Wikipedia, accessed 25 April 2006.

Reid, T. R. The United States of Europe. New York, Penguin Press, 2004.

Schifferes, Steve. "US names 'coalition of the willing'." BBC News, 18 March 2003. Internet: BBC News, accessed 30 April 2006.

Spear, Joanna. Global Challenges 2015: New Players. Lecture at Anne Arundel Community College, Hanover, MD. 24 April 2006.

"Week Seven: Theories of International Relations." Lecture notes, Norwich University.

international

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

FOOD FOR THOUGHT:
The problem is not can we cooperate long enough to get something accomplished.

The problem is do we want to? Is there enough common interest out there to inspire a move towards mutual action? And do we need other nations in the first place?

Successfully updated karma reason!