dealism_and_Liberalism (1).ppt

Mohamud Ainab Ali Basic Assumptions State is recognized as the main actor democracy International Law International security/world peace Free Market Economy/Capitalism economic cooperation International Organizations Human Rights MNCs Main Points Overview basic principles strengths and...

Mohamud Ainab Ali Basic Assumptions State is recognized as the main actor democracy International Law International security/world peace Free Market Economy/Capitalism economic cooperation International Organizations Human Rights MNCs Main Points Overview basic principles strengths and weaknesses  proponents/scholars of the theory sub-classifications of the theory Overview Liberalism is generally considered the second great body of theory in contemporary international politics, although technically it is the first (the first generation of international relations scholars in England after the First World War were predominantly what we would now call liberals). Note that this body of theory does not necessarily bear any significant relationship to people described as "liberals" in contemporary American politics; while some idealists are politically liberal peace activists, the theory also technically incorporates American neoconservatives who see the mission of the United States as spreading democratic systems around the world. Effectively, where realists see competition and conflict, liberals see opportunities for cooperation. This is particularly so in their defence of international law, economic cooperation, and the spread of democracy as the most important mechanisms for building world peace.  There are also further differences between realism and liberalism. Basic Principles According to idealism, a state's foreign policy is not determined entirely by the international system around it, but rather by its own internal order - democratic, communist, dictatorial, etc. In general, liberals have observed that the least aggressive states tend to be ones with democratic governments and capitalistic economies -- the so- called "liberal democracies," most of which are industrialized countries. The controversial claim that no democracy has ever truly gone to war against another democracy lies at the heart of the Democratic Peace Theory. Another insight drawn from the linking of internal and external affairs is that non- state actors, like civil society, multinational corporations, and international organizations, also play important roles in world politics. Reflecting its origins in the post-World War I period, liberals have argued that the chief goal of foreign policy should be to promote world peace (although many accept that wars can be just if world peace is the ultimate goal). One mechanism for doing this is to promote the growth of international organizations and international laws, which, according to liberals, should be generally effective provided that they reflect existing balances of power. Important liberal projects have included the promotion of universal human rights and conflict prevention in the United Nations, and market liberalization through the World Trade Organization. Some branches of liberal theory insist that domestic and international reforms must be linked, and that world peace will require democratization of currently authoritarian states. Liberalism does not deny that serious international conflicts occur. The recent rise of American neo- conservatism under the late Clinton and Bush administrations owes much to liberal idealism. Strengths and Weaknesses In its idealist variant, liberalism is the first major body of international political theory to focus explicitly on the problem of war and peace with the goal of implementing sufficient reforms to end war and create a democratic world peace. In its neoliberal and trade-oriented variants, liberalism offers a powerful but still traditional body of theory that allows for the analysis of non-state actors like corporations and social movements. The democratic peace theory, while still unexplained in specific terms, is one of the strongest claims to truth in all of international relations theory. At the same time, critics allege that liberalism suffers from theoretical incoherence and a Western-centric perspective. Realists argue that liberals are naive to think that world peace is achievable, and wrong to include corporations and international organizations as important actors in international politics. More radical scholars argue that liberalism ignores the frequently violent foreign policies of imperial and hegemonic democracies (like the British Empire and, arguably, the current United States), as well as the limitations of concepts like "human rights," which are merely Western rather than truly universal. Important Scholars Contemporary liberal academics tend to search for their intellectual antecedents in the European Enlightenment, when philosophers first concerned themselves with international peace and human rights. Important inspiration is drawn from such sources as Immanuel Kant (Perpetual Peace), John Locke (Two Treatises of Civil Government), Hugo Grotius (On the Law of War and Peace) and Emerich de Vattel (The Law of Nations). Several prominent neoliberal scholars currently form the intellectual leadership of idealism. These include Robert Keohane (After Hegemony) and Joseph Nye (Soft Power). Neo-functionalists, focused on international unity through international institutions, include Ernst Haas (The Uniting of Europe). The neoconservative movement includes influential scholars as well as non-scholarly journalist commentators. The latter include Robert D. Kaplan (The Coming Anarchy) and Max Boot (The Savage Wars of Peace). Neoconservative intellectuals include Robert Kagan (Of Paradise and Power). At different times in their careers, Samuel P. Huntington (Clash of Civilizations and Who Are We?) and Francis Fukuyama (The End of History) both identified as neoconservatives. Several prominent neoconservatives played a role in the creation of the Project for the New American Century, which formed the basis for early Bush Administration foreign policy. Soft Perspective on ‘Liberalism’ Liberalism manifested a tempered version of idealism in the wake of World War I. Cognizant of the failures of Idealism to prevent renewed isolationism following World War I, and its inability to manage the balance of power in Europe to prevent the outbreak of a new war, liberal thinkers devised a set of international institutions based on rule of law and regularized interaction. These international organizations, such as the United Nations and the NATO, or even international regimes such as the Bretton Woods system, and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), were calculated both to maintain a balance of power as well as regularize cooperation between nations. Classical Liberalism Classical liberalism - Limited govt. in the economy and social sphere (the ideas of Adam Smith about the self- regulating market and of Locke about the 'night watchman state'.) Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization. Neo-liberalism  Neo liberalism - Synonym for Social liberalism (the Liberal govt of 1906 - 1915. Brought in welfare reforms in order to alleviate the problems of the poorest in society. )  Belief in the free market, more prevelant in the 80s and 90s (refers to the rebirth of classical liberal economics in the 1970s onwards. Often even more extreme than the ideas of Adam Smith i.e. belief that public goods can be provided by the market)  Neoliberalism is a market-driven approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that emphasises the efficiency of private enterprise, liberalized trade and relatively open markets, and therefore seeks to maximize the role of the private sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the country. Modern American Liberalism Modern American liberalism is a form of liberalism developed from progressive ideals such as Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. It combines social liberalism and social progressivism with support for a welfare state and a mixed economy. American liberal causes include voting rights for African Americans, abortion rights for women, gay rights and government entitlements such as education and health care.[ Institutional liberalism Institutional liberalism or liberal institutionalism is modern theory of international relations which claims that international institutions such as the United Nations, NATO and the European Union can increase and add cooperation between states. The theory can be compared to idealism, the international relations theory which emerged after the First World War when the League of Nations was founded. Soft Perspective on ‘Neo- conservatism’ Neo-conservatism drew from Liberalism its intense focus on the promotion of "universal values", in this case democracy, human rights, free trade, women's rights and minority protections. However, it differs in that it is less wedded to the importance of preserving international institutions and treaties while pursuing assertive or aggressive stances which it deems morally worthy, and is willing to use force or the threat of force, unilaterally if necessary, to push for its goals. Neoconservatives argue that the United States is a unique wellspring of classical republican liberalism, and that its special destiny is to achieve the revitalization of American culture as well as the creation of a stable, peaceful international order by spreading this vision of democracy to other countries, including through military interventions in the role of "world police." Softer Perspective on ‘Democratic Peace Theory’ Democratic peace theory (or liberal democratic theory or simply the "democratic peace") holds that democracies, rarely, or even never, go to war with one another. Some critics argue that it will be more accurate to label it the "democracies do not fight each other "hypothesis”.  DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA why democracies rarely fight with each other? Several explanations have been offered why democracies rarely fight with each other: that democratic leaders must answer to the voters for war, and therefore have an incentive to seek alternatives; that such statesmen have practice settling matters by discussion, not by arms, and do the same in foreign policy; that democracies view non-democracies as threatening, and go to war with them over issues which would have been settled peacefully between democracies; and that democracies tend to be wealthier than other countries, and the wealthy tend to avoid war, having more to lose. So, What Now: Would you prefer ‘Liberalism’ or ‘Realism’ THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION