The conclusion that Bush and Fukuyama draw to is that liberalism will mean there will be essentially no conflict between one and another. This is because democracies do not go to war against each other, and with the huge growth of democracies in the post cold-war years this would mean therefore peace should be more likely than that of war. Furthermore peace will be maintained by the role of multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, the World Bank etc. they would bring together different states and countries, again contributing to the foundation of peace. The role of the United Nation’s is significant for a liberalist as it would act as a forum for negotiation in making collective agreements and the Treaty of Locarno and the Kellogg-Briand Pact demonstrate that it can be a success.
Peace in the liberalist theory prevails through the operation of the modern international economy. Liberals believe as world trade grows, financial ties would develop meaning those countries would rely on each other therefore there would be materialistic incentives and a need to maintain peace with other states. This is essentially free trade, as liberalism encourages states to have a common interest then conflict would be removed. This would encourage states which traditionally resolved their differences militarily, such as France and Germany, to co-operate within a commonly agreed economic and political framework for their mutual benefit. States would have a joint stake in each others’ peace and prosperity (cited in Burchill et al, 2001, 39). The element of free trade originally came about in the post-war years with especially the United States showing an interest in it as they wanted to re-construct the world economy so American business could trade, operate and profit without restrictions everywhere (cited in Burchill, 2001, 53). America’s aim was to open the world economy so they could freely exchange goods and raw materials with all nations.
However, this does not mean that liberalism is the dominant theory in the post cold-war years as it is certainly ironic how President George Bush talks of a ‘new world order’ after Iraq had invaded Kuwait and illustrates a sense of inconsistency to whole idea of peace that is campaigned by liberals. Furthermore, we must realise that the role of multilateral institutions is paramount to the ideal of liberalism, however it is very likely that institutions such as the League of Nations would not be dominated by the more powerful states such as the USA, Britain and Germany. Equally there will be problems with the concept of free trade and relying on other states and neighbours as there are many examples where nationalities have not got on with there territorial neighbours such as the Balkan’s and Kurd’s. It should also be noted that there have been many more conflicts during the post Cold-War period indicating that the liberalist argument could well be undermined. There have been conflicts in the Persian Gulf, the Balkans and demonstrates the volatility between nations and that war is still prominent. On the other hand, we must realise that in fact none of these countries are democracies, but nonetheless this is still a little disconcerting in maintaining peace in the world order. Similarly the notion of free trade has been criticised by Marxists as free trade would be of benefit to the capitalist economies and free trade in the 1930’s especially for Britain benefited the aristocrats and the landed interests. They argue that America wanted to take up the role that Britain once had and wanted to do this by opening the regions of the world. Marxists have the right to condemn this approach as free trade has never been embraced as enthusiastically in developing societies as it has by the elites in wealthy industrial states. They tend to see free trade as a weapon used by dominate players to open up societies to resource exploitation, foreign investment, access to raw materials and the repatriation of profits (cited in Burchill, 2001, 54). Although there are some rather obvious troubles with the liberalist view we should not underestimate the development of liberalism during the post Cold-War years.
The realist argument is somewhat different to that of liberalism, as there is not the same thought of a secure and stable environment but rather of chaos and conflict. Realism as its name suggests seeks to explain international politics as it is rather than how we might like to see it. Similarly as Francis Fukuyama campaigns for liberalism many commentators also argue the case for realism. There are a lot of differences between liberalism and realism for instance; liberals believe that any nation that behaves in an aggressive way i.e. threatening peace is wrong. However, according to H.E. Carr this is merely nothing more than upholding the ‘status quo’, thus illustrating how different they are.
Hans Morgenthau is a great realism theorist in international politics and deems the key to understanding international politics to be the notion of power. It is generally considered the purpose of international politics is the rational pursuit of power in order to perpetuate the survival of the state in a hostile environment which would agree with Morgenthau. Morgenthau also draws to the idea of ‘national interest’ and he thinks that this should be achieved by strategic interest and that of economic potential gain. This can be linked to the idea of sovereignty. This is the belief that the sovereign state has ultimate authority over its own territory, taxation and the making of laws and with this the ‘national interest’ can be realized. This though could be argued by liberals to have been undermined by Globalisation as states have found it increasingly difficult to control the political loyalties of its citizens because of the increasing popular awareness of the problems faced by the entire human species (cited in Burchill, 2001, 64). The problem is with globalisation many issues such as the environment, economy etc. all become internationalised and this means that the national government often plays a much less important role than transnational political co-operation (cited in Burchill, 2001, 64). Realists will obviously argue that this is not the case and although they argue that only the nation-state has the power do things such as tax its citizens, globalisation has certainly weakened the authority of nation states and indicates that liberalism is certainly growing in the post Cold-War period.
Realists argue that since there is the absence of one single sovereign ruler and essentially numerous sovereign nation-stares the international system is somewhat anarchical. The theorist Kaplan builds on the experience of what he terms the ‘dying regions’ of the world-like parts of Africa-and asserts that the West ignores what is happening in these areas at its risk (cited in Baylis and Smith, 2004, 117). Kaplan goes on the explain that he thinks post-cold war the world is rapidly dividing in to two, one of ‘healthy, well fed and pampered by technology’ and those whose people were condemned to a Hobbesian life where conditions were ‘nasty, brutish and short’ (cited in Baylis and Smith, 2004, 116). This is certainly apparent in many areas of the world as you could put the UK and the USA very easily in the first bracket whilst as Kaplan said countries such as Africa are evidence of being in the latter. Liberalists may try and dispute this point and claim that countries such as Africa are only anarchical because they are not liberal democracies and if they were then this would not be the case as they would engage in free trade and the Hobbesian life alluded to above would not be evident as they would have a materialistic motive to trade and maintain peace.
It obvious that liberalism is extremely apparent in the post Cold-War years and equally had a momentous effect. The fact so many countries have the made the transition to a liberal democracy surely strengthens Fukuyama’s claims that liberalism is the dominant ideology in the post Cold-War years. This view is reinforced by President George Bush who talked of using the United Nations to maintain peace and try and prevent conflict between countries and the many countries now ruled by civilians and not militaries. Significantly too, the growth of globalisation has undermined the nation-state and meant that the creation of creating a market society is in sight. Globalisation has meant that now there are very few obstacles to international trade and the decline of national economic sovereignty shows that the influence of the state is briskly deteriorating. It is therefore easy to see what liberalism has achieved in the post Cold-War years and what is still trying to attain.
Bibliography
-
J. Baylis and S. Smith (1997), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 1st Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press
-
J. Baylis and S. Smith (2001), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 2st Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press
-
Burchill, S. et al. (2001), International Relations: Perspectives and Themes, 2st Edition, Longman
-
Saull, R. (2001), Rethinking Theory and History in the Cold War: The State, Military Power and Social Revolution
-
Jackson, R. and Sorensen, G (1999), Introduction to International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press
-
Olson, W. C (1991) The Theory and Practice of International Relations, 8th Edition, Prentice Hall