What is the Significance of the Disagreement between Neo-Realists and Neo Liberals?

‘when rulers use this complex of ideas or hegemony to gain consent for their legitimacy and to keep their subjects in line’ – Gramsci

Whereas neo realists suggest that the states are the most important actors in international relations as they control the military which will help them monopolise power, neo liberals argue that world politics is institutionalised, with the most important actors being international institutions and regimes (such as treaties like SALT, air traffic control, and even the postal service), conventions like reciprocity and formal cross national non governmental organisations (such as the United Nations or the World Trade Organisation). As Robert Keohane, quotes:

‘I believe that conventions in world politics are as fundamental as the distribution of capabilities among states’

This could be confirmed through numerous examples in our contemporary world today: for example, the United Nations have been a very significant actor in the United States Vs. Iraq dispute by sending UN inspectors to examine Iraq’s weapon supplies – this move encourages long term cooperation between the two states. Neo Realists, on the other hand, do not accept the importance of international institutions and conventions, and would argue that the UN is basically an American dominated institution and it is being used in a way to gain more power from other states such as Iraq, and to prevent the latter from attempting to reduce their power. This is a significant difference between the neo realists and the neo liberals as it questions how important and beneficiary the United Nations is.

The concept of power is very important in the debate between neo realists and neo liberals; the former argue that states are only concerned with relative gains, that is states being satisfied with the idea that some states have more power than others (as long as they are the states dominating others) and power being the fundamental drive for world politics:

‘the fundamental goal of states in any relationship is to prevent others from achieving advances in their relative capabilities’ - Grieco

Whereas neo liberals argue that absolute gains and long term mutual gains are better than individual short term gains as it better for all states all round – for example the absolute gains of human rights would be beneficiary to the world as a whole rather than only some states acknowledging the need for human rights. Relative power is only a concern when gains in one period alter power relations in another and if one state tries to abandon cooperation and attempts to monopolise power. This idea can be seen in many recent wars and interventions: for example America has intervened in Iraq due to their belief that Saddam Hussain wants to gain more power and upset the international structure. Of course neo realists would argue that America is only intervening in Iraq to decrease their threat and maintain their monopoly of power, however these two conflicting views on the nature of power in the international structure is significant because it poses questions on how legitimate the reasons are war.

Anarchy is also a very important issue for conflict between the neo realist and neo liberal thinkers as anarchy is considered an important structural property of the international system. While both neo realists and neo liberals do believe that there is an anarchic system, realists argue that there is an anarchical international system due to the fact that there is no central world government, and neo liberals criticise neo realists by suggesting that anarchy isn’t as deterministic and strong as neo realists think, and cooperation under anarchy is possible. Neo liberals also differ from neo realists on the issue of anarchy as they believe international institutions and conventions allow cooperation under anarchy and so it is problematic. There is also the subject of the ‘security dilemma’ in world politics; realists say that the anarchical nature of the international system requires the acquisition of military power which leads to other states insecurity and constantly increasing need to increase states’ security- an example of this could be the Cold War where America and the USSR competed in an arms race due to their need for security, or the Strategic Defence Initiative. Neo liberals would argue that the security dilemma is not so acute, and anarchy doesn’t necessarily create conflict, in fact it ‘permits a variety of patterns of interaction among states’, which can lead to cooperation. Overall, neo realists see anarchy as placing more restraints on state behaviour than neo liberals do, and in my opinion I believe neo realists have more of a feasible explanation of anarchy as states in anarchy are more preoccupied with power and security and I believe all states would prefer to have some military security than none- that is if the international structure is in a state of anarchy at all.

Both neo realists and neo liberals put forward feasible arguments for explaining international relations and I believe that the difference between their viewpoints is significant in that while the neo-neo debate offers a myopic view of human relations, the state and the international system, both theories have been acknowledged as dominant theories and have had an impact on many states’ foreign policy. With globalisation ever increasing, individual state political activity is gradually being overshadowed by international political activity and both the neo realists and neo liberals put forward significant explanations which may be essential in understanding world politics. I personally believe that the current international structure is one which is put forward by neo realists, as I think that states who intervene and cause conflict are doing so for their own interests and maybe use the neo liberal reasons for war as an excuse. For example, I believe that many US presidents have engaged in war simply to advance their own status in the international structure, as many people would agree that George Bush is the most powerful person in the world (more so in foreign affairs than domestic affairs), despite the fact that this view is very cynical and is open to dispute. I consider the neo liberal argument of international relations to be a very good theory if it was possible to implement; I think a world in cooperation isn’t necessarily a utopian one and I think it would be a good goal to aim for, even though it would be hard to convert all world leaders into this train of thought, it would be hard to prevent states from ‘cheating’.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Baldwin, D.A. (Ed.), Neo Realism and Neo Liberalism: The Contemporary Debate, New York: Columbia University, 1993

• Baylis, J., and S. Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University, 2001

• Goldstein, J., International Relations, New York: Longman, 2003

• Waltz, K., Theory of International Politics, Reading:Addison-Wesley, 1979

• Grieco, Joseph M.. – Anarchy and the limits of Cooperation: A realist critique of the newest Liberal Institutionalism, New York: Columbia University, 1993

---