realism vs Liberalism

• Liberalism rejects realisms essentially pessimistic interpretation of human nature
• Liberals are much more optimistic about human nature and humans are much more co-operative. - states come together to achieve their goals as it's beneficial for our common humanity.
• Karl Marx and Friedrich argues that humans naturally co-operate and that a collectivist interpretation of society better reflects human nature than struggle and selfishness
• Communist manifesto talks about how selfishness has artificially created to exploit working class
• John locke and Rawls reject Hobbes belief that mankind will regress to a state of nature if authoritarian structures are not constructed. humans are rational and co-operative - Mills argues that state is to provide freedom to self expression so people will not act antagonistically towards each other.
• 3 principles of liberalism

  • Human rights
  • Regional and global co-operation through IGOs
  • Free trade and democracy
• Human rights for liberals

  Gladstone argued that moral foreign policy would protect the rights of vulnerable - due to seeing Disraeli government ignoring the Bulgarian horrors,

  Human rights needs to be central importance in determining a states foreign policy.
• Human rights for liberals

  Franklin D roosevelt - UN establishment "strength to maintain international peace and security"

  Blair articulated this positive vision of liberal internationalism during the Kosovo war - liberal focus on common humanity - "Acts of genocide can never be purely internal matter"
• The liberal approach to international is thus founded on the belief that human beings are not naturally selfish, hostile and self-seeking and that nation states can work closely together in order to achieve a collective solution to shared problems.  JD BOWEN uses the analogy of international relations being like an enormous college campus where more can be achieved by working together than by acting in hostile isolation.    
• According to the liberal interpretation of global politics, HUMAN RIGHTS needs to be of central importance in determining a state’s foreign policy.  Such LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISM focusing on the centrality of human rights in global relations played a major part in the thinking of FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT during the Second World War and the establishment of the UNITED NATIONS. 
• INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANS OF GLOBAL CO-OPERATION  

  Liberals do not believe that it is wise policy for states to concentrate on the accumulation of power as the best way of protecting yourself and putting pressure on other countries to co-operate with you but on your terms.  This will not resolve the SECURITY DILEMMA; instead it is more likely to lead to the instability of an ARMS RACE. 
• Instead states must be prepared to put more of their faith in MULTILATERAL INSTITUTIONS which can provide COMMON SECURITY FOR ALL and a basis for non-conflict based crisis resolution.
• In other words, a state will achieve more for itself through CO-OPERATING rather than COMPETING with others. Liberals, therefore stress the importance of LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS OF GLOBAL GOVERNANCE.  
• WOODROW WILSON thus advocated, in his 14 POINTS, a LEAGUE OF NATIONS to resolve disputes by creating an international forum for open debate between nation states, while a world war later, FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT was a firm advocate of the UNITED NATIONS, as was his successor HARRY TRUMAN.    
• In practical terms Liberals therefore support the establishment of MULTILATERAL ORGANISATIONS that bring countries together through a SELF-INTERESTED DESIRE TO SHARE IN THE ADVANTAGES OF MEMBERSHIP. 
• The way in which membership of the UNITED NATIONS can provide security is nicely illustrated by the fact that when, in 1990, SADDAM HUSSEIN invaded KUWAIT he was expelled by a UN led coalition, while it is interesting to note that most nations of the world have signed up to the NUCLEAR NON PROLIFERATION TREATY [1968] since they know that if they put their own desire for the security provided by nuclear weapons first they would destabilise the world, thereby, ultimately, making themselves less secure.  
• The EUROPEAN UNION is a REGIONAL EXAMPLE of liberalism as it encourages countries to work together for their common good by POOLING THEIR SOVEREIGNTY. 
• According to Liberalism states should, therefore, not act purely out of self-interest and should instead seek to co-operate with other states in protecting and extending peace and stability and the human rights of all. 
• Liberalism and respect for human rights are thus inseparable and so liberal politicians have often argued, as Gladstone did, that morality has to inform foreign policy rather than simply state self-interest and state egoism. As we have seen, TONY BLAIR, like Gladstone, thus argued that in a globalized world the centrality of human rights is vital in the development of what his first Foreign Secretary, ROBIN COOK, termed an “ETHICAL FOREIGN POLICY”.    
• Free trade

  Liberals believe in spreading free trade
• Democracy

  Liberals believe in spreading democracy
• Democracies trade together

  The risk of war is reduced
• Francis Fukuyama: 'The End of History'
• Republican liberalism

  As more states embrace democratic liberalism and freely trade with each other, zones of peace will be enlarged at the expense of zones of conflict
• This theory is closely linked to THOMAS FRIEDMAN’S “DELL THEORY” of global peace and cooperation and has been called the DEMOCRATIC PEACE THESIS.    Indeed, as early as the 1860’s the great free trade liberal, RICHARD COBDEN, had argued that free trade liberalism would extend “the bonds of eternal peace”, while as FREDERICK BASTIAT agreed, “if goods do not cross borders armies will”.  
• Complex interdependence

  • Reduces the risk of war
• REALISTS POSSESS A PROFOUNDLY PRACTICAL / NON-IDEALISTC VIEW OF WHAT MOTIVATES STATES. Realists argue that human beings and, consequently, states have a marked tendency towards strife and violence and so states must build up their defences in order to protect their people, since institutions of global governance cannot be relied upon to provide the necessary protection to provide security.  
• In CLASSICAL REALISM conflict happens because people suck. In NEO / STRUCTURAL realism, however conflicts happens because the anarchical structure of the international system sucks
• This very negative interpretation of global politics has roots in TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY which has focused on the importance of protecting people from themselves by building structures of authority which will provide stability and security and protect us from violent insurrection.     
• THOMAS HOBBES, writing “LEVIATHAN” in 1651 is a KEY THINKER in UNIT ONE CONSERVATISM and argued that a strong state is the most certain way of guarding against mankind’s tendency towards violence.  Like Hobbes, realists thus focus in practical ways of protecting the nation state, rather than attempting to achieve peace through, what they regard as being, hopelessly idealistic, liberal organs of global governance. 
• Realism thus provides a pessimistic interpretation of global relations which is reflected in the conservative thinkers we have studied in unit one who are acutely aware of the threat to society if order breaks down. Just as conservatives want to protect the nation state from threats from within, so realists focus on the importance of protecting the nation state from external threats. 
• Morality does not come into this. MICHAEL OAKESHOTT, a twentieth century core conservative thinker, like Hobbes, thus prized security over idealism which connects him to the realist emphasis on the maintenance of global order.     
• However, realists would argue that their pessimism actually accords with the facts.  According to MACHIAVELLI in “THE PRINCE” [1513] human beings are “insatiable, arrogant, crafty and shifting, and above all malignant, iniquitous, violent and savage” and since states comprise the ruthless ambition of human beings other states can only hold them in check by being equally strong, or preferably superior
• Realists thus argue that they follow human nature as it is and so realism bases itself on the premise that SOVEREIGN STATES SEEK POWER IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE BEST DEAL POSSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES IN A DANGEROUSLY ANARCHIC WORLD IN WHICH CONFLICT IS INEVITABLE.  
• STATES DO NOT THEREFORE ACT OUT OF ALTRUISM or MORALITY, but instead approach international relations from the premise that they require the best possible outcome for themselves and, in order to achieve this they need as MUCH POWER AS POSSIBLE.  States must, therefore, be POWER MAXIMISERS since this alone provides their people with security.  
• Hans Morgenthau 1904-1980

   

  “The social world is but a projection of human nature onto the collective plane”. 

   
• HUMAN NATURE, STATE EGOISM and GLOBAL ANARCHY thus create a TOXIC RECIPE for a highly dangerous world so to survive this “SECURITY DILEMMA” states must build up their power militarily, economically and diplomatically.  
•  

  Thus realists argue that the best way of achieving peace is for states to protect themselves as well as they can through military build-up and alliance building which can, if sensitively handled, achieve a BALANCE OF POWERnecessary for peace.  

  THUCYDIDES has been referred to as the first scholar of realism; noting, for example, in the MELIAM DIALOGUEthat, in international relations, “the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept”.  
• The STATE, motivated by RATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS OF SELF INTEREST, thus remains the KEY PLAYER in global politics rather than multilateral organisations, based on a shared GLOBAL VISION, such as the United Nations, or on a mistaken assumption that adherence to the principles of INTERNATIONAL LAW can provide states with the protection they crave.    

  In short, the key elements of REALISM can be summarised as the

  ·       STATE

  ·       SURVIVAL

  ·       SELF HELP
• Realism

  Focuses on the nation state as the principal actor in international relations, and its central proposition is that since the purpose of statecraft is national survival in a hostile environment, the acquisition of power is the proper, rational and inevitable goal of foreign policy