THE RESTRAINTS OF COOPERATION
The Restraints of Cooperation: Neoliberal Intentions versus Realist Capabilities Zachary J. Adams Norwich University
1
THE RESTRAINTS OF COOPERATION
2
Introduction: As WWII came to a close, realism reigned supreme as the dominant theory defining the international system. And since the end of the Cold War, the international system transitioned towards liberal institutionalism hoping to prevent future outbreaks of conflict. Western powers relied on the installation of international institutions in Europe and throughout the rest of the world as means of stability. This in effect rejected balance-ofpower principles of international politics that presupposes state behavior. The false belief that international institutions (Mearsheimer, 1995) are “key means of promoting world peace” (p. 5) disregards the influence of fear and uncertainty as dominant factors overwhelming the international system. “Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state's need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy, whereas liberals suggest that cooperation can be made more tenable through formal or informal institutions” (Mowle, 2003, p. 561). As neoliberalism aims to discern the necessity of realism’s militaristic power and move towards other forms of cooperation by social and economic means, realist capabilities remain evident as a last resort security mechanism which overshadows the international system. This paper’s framework expresses the preference of liberal economics and institutions throughout the international system, but through closer analysis, neoliberal inclinations become secondary to realism’s ultimate necessity of security. As a result, realist principles regarding security are prioritized over economic affairs.
THE RESTRAINTS OF COOPERATION
3
Conventional Neoliberal and Realist Principles and the Anarchic System: Without an overarching authority or entity enforcing order, world politics is left in a state absent of international governance. From the beginning, the Greeks believed world politics (Dunne et al, 2013) were “conducted in a condition of anarchy: not chaos, but without a ruler” (p. 94). Realist theory (Dunne et al, 2013) affirms that “every country is potentially an enemy of every other-intentionally or not, a threat to their security and very existence. In the absence of a world state, they are caught forever in this precarious condition of freedom and risk” (p. 94). Liberal institutionalism attempts to resolve the realist security dilemma through means of democracy, commerce, and international organizations. The Kantian perspective states that democracies rarely war other democracies, but also proclaims that democracies can be more peaceful. The former is much more feasible than the latter. Both schools of thought stem from the belief of the anarchic system. While realism embraces anarchy, liberalism contends with anarchy by attempting to construct an international contract, a consensually-established set of rules, among states. Both realists and liberals believe in norms but to different extent. Realists believe that states should be internally founded on moral principles whereas liberals believe that states, through democracy, accept and uphold universal norms of morality. Liberalism asserts that democracy is the primary function by which states prevent conflict through peaceful means of compromise and negotiation. By exercising restraint, democracies are less likely to war one another; democratic restraint does not apply regarding authoritative regimes. Neoliberalism and realism are two views of the same approach. Both assume similar positions regarding the international system: states are main actors, they act rationally, and international anarchy determines their behavior. Realists are primarily concerned with
THE RESTRAINTS OF COOPERATION
4
security, whereas neoliberals are more focused on economic matters. Essentially, the main contrast separating the two theories is decided by intentions versus capabilities. Peacekeeping through Commerce and International Organizations: International organizations are agencies that directly specialize in areas (Dunne et al, 2013) such as: “military security, promoting international commerce and investment, health, environmental concerns, or human rights” (p. 102). Realists disregard international organizations on the notion that sovereign states are the main actors within international relations. This is apparent because realist perspective asserts that competition and selfinterest are inherited through human nature. States are intrinsically aggressive and obsess over security from an internal perspective. Realists intend on using pragmatism, not organizations, to ensure security. Neoliberalism assumes that through promotion of actors’ intentions, international organizations are effectively able to mediate conflict by reducing fear and uncertainty between states. Mearsheimer, opposing these claims, alleges (1995) that “Institutions are not a form of world government. States themselves must choose to obey the rules they created. Institutions, in short, call for the decentralized cooperation of individual sovereign states, without any effective mechanism of command" (p. 9). As neoliberalism assumes that international institutions promote cooperation, falsities arise as realist capabilities surmount neoliberal intentions. The quandary concerning this assumption is that institutions are constructed by states to assist their interests. On this notion, complications between state and institutional autonomy become a prominent issue for neoliberal logic: Why not study the state itself if international institutions are already fulfilling state interests? For instance, realism affirms that international institutions are merely organizations provoking
THE RESTRAINTS OF COOPERATION
5
states’ power, thereby fulfilling the realist prophecy of an inherently-anarchic international system that places self-interest over international cooperation. Neoliberalism's core principles are based on prosperous economies. Neoliberalists recognize military power as a means to achieve goals, but tend to disregard force as a rational approach because of its costs and uncertainties. Neoliberalism intends to interchange the use of military force with economic means as a primary source of power and international dominance. Neoliberalism believes, if at all, the use of military force is a last resort option and should only be used in political bargaining (Dunne et al, 2004) situations: Each superpower continues to use the threat of force to deter attacks by other superpowers on itself or its allies; its deterrence ability thus serves an indirect, protective role, which it can use in bargaining on other issues with its allies. (p. 514) As neoliberalism (Dunne et al, 2004) attempts to underscore the prevalence of military force and rely on economic cooperation as its primary stabilizing method, realist principles remain fixed in its study; "Militarily and economically strong states dominate a variety of organizations and a variety of issues, by linking their own policies on some issues to other states' policies on other issues" (p. 516). Regarding international economics, realism acknowledges that military strength alone is insufficient achieving hegemonic status alone and that a strong economy is essential, but only to supplement states’ overall power. Neoliberal logic concerning trade expectations fails to divide relative and absolute gains. Neoliberalism attempts to establish peaceful trade relationships elaborating a form of deterrence (Mearsheimer, 1995), but fails to recognize “how well the other side (state) fares in the process” (p. 19). This conundrum alone reiterates realist capabilities of relative gains as an underlying issue concerning all states. The relative size of a state’s economy has
THE RESTRAINTS OF COOPERATION
6
significant impact on the world stage for categorizing and balancing military power, thus cooperative economic means are only acceptable until state security or economic matters are at risk which overarching realist capabilities are then exerted. (Collective) Security and International Cooperation: It is clear within international relations that states’ ultimate goal is fulfilled by achieving their most desired outcomes at minimal cost. Neoliberalism is concurrent with realism’s assumption that international relations are shaped by an anarchic system. Because fear and uncertainty are still prevalent factors affecting relations, cooperation among states can be difficult to obtain. The transition from the (old) system founded on the preponderances of power to one of collective security, liberalism (Kaufman et al, 2004) affirms that such a (new) system would “discourage any potential aggressor without placing a dangerous concentration of power at the disposal of any states or combination. Thus, a break was contemplated in the vicious circle in which one state’s security is another state’s insecurity” (p. 366). The neoliberalist school (Dunne et al, 2013) believes that “it is possible for human beings to design international institutions that substantially mitigate the negative impact of anarchy on international collective actions” (p. 115). Although, neoliberalism argues that international interdependence (Kaufman, 2004) has become status quo, “Complex interdependence is often mistakenly said to eliminate a role for military force…Military force serves as a last resort, but military forces are often a major player in policies of engagement and integration” (p. 501). According to neoliberal collective security theory, validity why states are minimizing their use of force is strong, but the argument disdaining military power as an effective tool for achieving outcomes is weak. As economic cooperation (Kaufman, 2004) malfunctions, “We can expect, however, that as the interests at stake become more
THE RESTRAINTS OF COOPERATION
7
important, actors will tend to use power resources that rank higher in both dominance and cost” (p. 509). Depending on the value and desirability of any given goal, actors may still use force as a necessary means to reach outcomes. It may be true that military force is becoming less preferable in the current era of world politics, but that does not mean it should be disregarded as inefficient. Realism challenges that neoliberalist assertions such as collective security and international cooperation are ineffective means of attaining peace. Realism points to bargaining, defection, and autonomy as examples where cooperation is likely to become impotent through the assumptions that states with greater power have more influence over lesser states (Mearsheimer, 1995) and that “A collective security system allows states little freedom of action” (p. 29). Generally, the more actors involved within negotiation the less likely a consensual agreement will be obtainable because of converging resources and interests among all involved states. Conflicting interests (Dunne et al, 2013) include ambiguities which evolve from absolute trust and confidence within coalitions and leads to possible defection; “states fear that their cooperative partners may fail to live up to mutual agreements and states may be discouraged from engaging in cooperative projects in the first place” (p. 122). Again, realist capabilities remain preeminent because cooperative intentions may never be fully understood and equitable for all enduring actors. Conclusion: It is evident that new-era policymakers have turned to liberal institutionalism as an alternative to realism intending to resolve international conflict, but modern liberal institutions have failed more times than not. Looking back, the League of Nations failed to address German and Japanese aggression in the 1930s, in effect, igniting the Second World War. More recently, NATO, a conglomerate alliance driven by U.S. aspirations, has many
THE RESTRAINTS OF COOPERATION
8
disengaged and free-riding members who scarcely contribute. It is clear states have become more cooperative, or at least have made an effort, but that does not rule out the sheer influence of force as a means of state security. “It is widely accepted—even by neoliberals— that realism has great explanatory power in national security affairs. However, international political economy would appear to be neoliberalism’s preserve” (Grieco, 1998, p. 504). States adjoined by more common interests than not may have greater hopes for absolute gains through joint action, but division of relative gains among adjoined states hinders cooperative means. Ultimately, a strong economy can generate international influence and prestige, but it cannot promise protection from force. A prosperous economy will facilitate a state’s overall military power, but economies do not ensure protection from invasion. It may be evident that states are less military aggressive than before, but that does not factor out the influence that force employs as a crucial component of the international system.
THE RESTRAINTS OF COOPERATION
References: Dunne, T., Kurki, M., & Smith, S. (2013). International relations theories: Discipline and diversity, 3, Oxford University Press, pp. 94-122. Grieco M. J. (1988). Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism. International Organization, 42(3), pp. 485-507. Kaufman, D., Parker, J., Howell, P., & Doty, G. (2004). Understanding international relations: The value of alternative lenses, 5, McGraw Hill, pp. 366-509. Mearsheimer, J. J. (1994-1995). The false promise of international institutions. International Security, 19(3), pp. 5-49.
9