Lecture notes: Liberalism

Narrative genres

• how stories always are told in a certain genre — it is a story of a certain kind
• this is true for the kinds of stories that we tell about international relations too
• since classical times four genres — tragedy, comedy, romance and satire

but note: this is my way of talking about IR theory — not what others do

• still, I find it to be a good pedagogical tool
• we did tragedy, and Realism, last week, and today we are doing …

Comedy

Comedy today:

• funny, ha, ha, a question of making people laugh
• sit-coms with a laughing track

But, as a narrative genre

• comedies of Moliere etc

The plot turns on a misunderstanding of some kind

• there is some kind of obstacle that must be removed
• there are mistaken identities — misunderstood intentions —
• things that seem a certain way to a certain person are actually quite different
• this is where the laughs come in — people don’t understand the situation they are in
• comedy of errors

Romantic comedy from the 1940s

• young, talented, but poor engineer working in a car company
• falls in love with the daughter of the boss
• they young lovers cannot have each other — the father won’t accept it
• the engineer makes an innovation — there is a car race that he wins
• the father comes around
• there are a lot of laughter because there are a lot of misunderstandings

Sort out the problems — come to realize that is wrong

• they all unite together to sort it all out

The last scene is often a meal

• everyone comes together to celebrate their unity — they all have a toast
• problems averted — everyone will not “live happily forever after”

Applied to international politics …

• there are no fundamental conflicts between states
• problems are due to misunderstandings
• the obstacles can be removed
• in the final analysis we can learn to live together — we must work towards a greater understanding

More information is needed

• exchange programs — learn each other’s languages
• the whole idea behind “dialogue”

We can imagine …

• in the end all the leaders of the world will gather in one place and make a toast to their unity —
• and all problems will disappear — we will “live happily forever after”

In terms of IR theory

• liberals
• idealists

Europeans —

• the ability to compromise — “reasonable” people — sit down together, talk it through, open up
• take the warring factions from Yemen to Sweden and give them coffee and cakes and surely they can work something out
• I made fun of this, but it seems to have worked really pretty well — there is now a sort of peace in Yemen, brokered with Swedish involvement

The importance of international institutions

We need institutions where we can talk

• UN General Assembly
• “just a lot of talk” — but a lot of talk is important

Cooperation is possible

• we can actually cooperate on a lot of things

Institutions that can do things

• deal with various world problems
• the UN system, etc

Institutions that can change minds and interests

• set agendas — COP
• provide expertise
• determine vocabular

Cf. Hedley Bull: “anarchical society”

If the Realists emphasize anarchy

• liberals emphasize society — norms, institutions, law

Cf. the tragic understanding of the Realists

• conflicts are fundamental
• it is not a matter of a misunderstanding — we can’t just discuss it away

Maybe counter-productive

• the more we get to know one another, the less we like each other

There is no eventual solution to our problems

• there will always be conflicts and wars

Which story is true?

Not so easy to say

• it is not just a matter of “facts” — not so easy to test the theories
• it is often possible to rewrite history to fit one or another of the narrative genres
• both might be true, but from different perspectives — but one might be a bit more true than the other

Liberalism in IR

“Liberalism”

• slippery word — one definition in contemporary political discussions
• American usage … meaning basically “left-wing”

The Turkish use of the term …

• basically meaning “the West” or “secularism”
• but this ignores how complex the Western tradition is
• not just liberal ideas

How this is the modern world

• how this is us
• capitalism
• rationalization
• disenchantment of the world

History of ideas

• the character of the ancien régime
• the French Revolution
• égalité, fraternité, liberté

The role of Reason

• human beings use their reason to make the world better

Civil society captures the state

• reason captures the state
• a political community that rules — not just a state machinery
• nationalism as a liberal ideology

United, but also diverse

• open to the future
• the idea of progress

Our modern society

• universal rights
• economic freedom
• individualism
• economic growth, social change

In terms of IR theory

• organize the world in a rational way
• the people will decide
• individuals as the basic unit of the world

Democratic peace theory

Immanuel Kant on Perpetual Peace, 1795

• the peace after the first revolutionary wars

War as a king’s hobby

• wars are caused by the whims of kings

Ordinary people do not want war

• they all have the same interests
• nothing to do with “reasons of state”

Reason in history

German idealism and the emphasis on history

• Hegel and Marx
• but also Kant

The “cunning of reason” etc

• wars as becoming ever more destructive — finally become unthinkable
• one of the ways in which history is “a story of progress”

Peace between democracies

Bruce Russett:

• “There is no better established law in IR or in the social sciences”
• democratic states do not go to war with each other

Some very marginal exceptions

• Russia and Georgia in 2006, etc.
• Russia and Ukraine today?

Maybe the crucial variable in not democracy

• but instead liberalism, rights
• the crucial point is to empower a civil society

QED:

• the more democracy spreads, the more peaceful the world will be

Why is this?

• they share values — this is just not how we relate to each other

Cf. Amartya Sen

• how there are no famines in countries with a free press
• in open, free, societies media will react and there will be pressure for political action
• cf. perhaps iliberalism is the real problem

Methodological problem:

Democracy overlaps with a number of other things — being European, for example

• difficult to separate out the democracy aspect

“Illiberal democracies”

• map
• table of countries

Democracies often go to war with non-democracies

• cf. all the US interventions

The process of democratization in Europe in the 19th century a time of intensified wars

• the traditional elite could use war as a way to get people to rally behind them
• way to keep themselves in power

Cf. the power of nationalism ever since

• ordinary people are not necessarily more peaceful than kings
• at least, they can be manipulated to go to war

Norman Angell on peace, 1913

The first era of globalization

• more here

The 19th century as “the first era of globalization”

• European colonialism

The creation of a world market

• centered in London
• guaranteed by the Royal Navy

Few limits to investments abroad — resource extraction — global sales

• women in the Indian countryside dressed in saris made from English-made cloth — cotton from the American South
• shows you the power of industrial capitalism

International finance

• gold as an international currency
• walk into a bank in London and invest in shares in a railroad company in Argentina — or Malaya

Peace movement in the decades before WW1

Development of international law in the 19th century

• peace conferences in the Hague etc
• various millionaires investing in peace

Bertha von Suttner

• died just before the outbreak of the First World War
• friend of Nobel’s

Nobel:

• only give out the peace prize a couple of times — and then there will be no use for it
• Peace Prize winners

Carnegie:

• peace foundation — and then when peace is achieved, the money can be distribute to his descendants
• I gave you a short article of his to read

Politics vs. the economy

Economic or political imperatives

• what to do when they conflict?
• which logic determines which?
• security vs. economic welfare

Liberals:

• you can trade economic benefit against reduced sovereignty
• you can be secure and prosperous

Realists:

• sovereignty always comes first
• better to be poor and safe, than insecure and rich

Critique of a mercantilism

The economy does not work this way —

• you are not rich because you have much stuff
• you are rich because you are productive
• makes no sense to take stuff
• you need markets — you depend on others

The riches countries often have no natural resources

• Singapore, Japan
• but natural resources play a marginal role in other countries too

Instead, we are dependent on the world economy

• we make money through specialization

Decentralized self-adjustment

• vs. authoritative allocation

This is why wars will not happen

• we are all dependent on the same global system

The logic is very convincing actually

• and then war broke out in 1914 …
• something must be wrong

Interdependence

• sensitivity
• vulnerability

Cf. the logic of the world market

• division of labor
• global supply chains

Specialization

• there are no shoe makers left in Sweden — what happens if there is a war?
• Turkey seems to be making all the TV sets

Globalization

No unified “national interest”

• instead all kinds of group interests
• they often go against each other

Make alliances with groups across borders

• much more in common with people on social media than with people you see on the street
• the similarity between cities — and how different they are from the surrounding countryside
• new communities — overlapping in complex ways

Neo-medievalism

• these kinds of overlapping communities were typical of the European Middle Ages
• that is, before the system of sovereign states was established
• a return to the past?

Collective action problems

Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action, 1965

people do not act together even if it is in their interest to do it, as long as …

• their own contribution is small
• their non-contribution is not noticed

examples

• pollution
• national defense
• voting
• trade union
• organizing a party

Rationale for state intervention

• only the state can deal with these problems — the state pays for defense
• state regulation — rules against pollution

international organizations

collective action problems in international relations — constant, everywhere

• peace as an example
• this was the Realists’ point — tragedy of international relations is an unsolvable collective action problem

many others

• environment
• natural resources
• trade

Liberal view — some of these problems can be solved — or at least mitigated

• creation of norms

The whole UN system set up in 1945

• General Assembly
• and all specialized agencies — IMF, World Bank, WTO, Unesco, WHO, etc

organizations like the EU

“Regimes”

• there was a lot of talk about “regimes” back in the 1980s …
• norms and practices and ways of doing things — not all social organization comes with an actual international organization

international politics as made up of many different regimes

• they follow different logics
• power in one cannot straightforwardly be translated into power in another

require different power resources

• an economically powerful country like Germany or Japan has far less political power
• North Korea has a lot of political power, but no economic power
• small islands in the Pacific has a big voice in climate negotiations
• Jamaica, Turkey, Korea as important cultural powers

“Hegemony”

a large power is required to establish these regimes

• modeled on the US in 1945 — a state that can completely dominate and impose its will

what happens if the power of the hegemon is eroded

• this was much discussed in the 1970s — “the United States as a normal country,” etc
• but it is also much discussed today … a multipolar world

the “rise of China”

• will they play by the existing rules — the existing regimes?
• or will they try to set up their alternative ones?

can China do this?

• NYT, “Alliance of autocracies” — apparently Turkey is invited too

my suspicion:

• China benefits too much from the existing system …

the continuous intervention of a hegemon might not be needed once the regime is set up

• cf. reiterated games, see below

Liberalism and international organizations

This is the liberal view of international organizations

• manage common affairs
• constrain sovereignty in our common interest
• bring about positive change — progress

Realist critique

international organizations only play the role which independent states allow them to play

• they are tools of statecraft, but ignored when they no longer serve the interests of the state
• power politics by another means

How realistic is this critique?

but international organizations surely play an independent role — actors in their own right

• WHO, IMF, WTO etc

not just what they do, but the agenda they set

• what counts as “a problem”
• terminology, standard operational procedures
• a group of experts and international civil servants

The War in Ukraine

Game theory

• Prisoner’s dilemma
• Game of Chicken
• Battle of the Sexes