International_Stability

Introduction The past 25 years of decision making has led to our current state of relative peace. Aside from turmoil in the Middle East, the rest of the world is enjoying peace outside of its own borders. No threats, no worries, no great military engagements; the world has become a place of warring indifference. Interstate and intrastate wars have both significantly declined in the last 25 years and there is also a great rise of trade in the global network (Liberalism, January 14, 2010). Countries are beginning to realize that having economic and social stability is far more important than engaging in unnecessary wars with others. With that in mind, we must beg the question: what will decision makers do in the next 25 years to not only stabilize, but strengthen international peace' Through critical analysis of the Liberalist point of view, the goal of this paper will be to determine what decisions must be made, based on Liberal principles, to stabilize the international network. This will be developed through the idea of complex interdependence and the importance of rights and freedoms, democracy and global economy in a 21st century world. The evaluation of Liberalist principles will begin with the term coined by Keohane and Nye: complex interdependence. Complex Interdependence Interdependence in international relations has several key characteristics that help describe the nature of Liberalism in our world. The availability of multiple channels in a society broadens the ability for foreign affairs to be interrelated with domestic affairs. Large foreign companies are finding ways to implicate themselves in domestic economies which forces domestic policies to take into consideration foreign policies. Also, the absence of hierarchy amongst issues is vital in order to understand complex interdependence. The old major issues such as war and territory are on par with other issues such as economy and environment. Finally, the minor role of the military is probably the most shocking aspect of complex interdependence. There is a major decline in conflict due to interdependence which in turns belittles the role that the military plays in politics. (Keohane & Nye, 1977) Maintaining international peace goes hand-in-hand with the characteristics of complex interdependence. If we look at the three main characteristics individually, there are ample examples proving their utility in establishing peace. Firstly, multiple channels allow for corporations and transnational companies to penetrate borders and establish a business and social relationship with the country on a domestic and international level. (Keohane & Nye, 1977) Take a company such as Toyota in the United States. Toyota has built factories in the US and has stimulated the American economy in a significant way. US domestic policies must adapt in order to meet the requirements of Toyota as well as the other car industries that are locally bound to the US. The foreign policy on car importation/exportation will have to reflect both the domestic policies of the US as well as Japan in order to keep a successful business partnership between company and country, country and country, and citizens and country. This is good for all sides because US-Japanese relations will be enhanced despite their turbulent past and on the domestic front, more jobs will have been created which keeps the population happy. This will lead to various forms of stability not only for international cooperation, but domestic cooperation as well. Secondly, the absence of hierarchy among the issues concerning foreign diplomacy will create a more collaborative environment between the hegemons and the smaller countries. The issues of concern for the next 25 years are very central to each and every country in the world. The economy, the environment and population growth have replaced issues pertaining to war, ideology and territory. (Keohane & Nye, 1977) And with very strong ties to NGO obligations, domestic and foreign policies must act responsibly together in order to meet both domestic demands as well as foreign promises. It is the classic example of the two-levelled game that best exemplifies this phenomenon. (Putnam, 1988) Due to all these concerns and obligations, we see a rise in international peace simply for the reason that countries do not have the funds to support a highly mobilized military attack over little issues such as ideology or even race now. And even if these countries could carry out an offensive, they wouldn’t because they may anger some other countries directly implicated in their own markets or society. Peace may not be the desired outcome, but it is the inevitable outcome of complex interdependence. This leads in to the final aspect, which is illustrated by a minor role for the military. It was once believed that he who has the biggest guns will dominate the actions of the rest of the world. This was the premise for the nuclear arms race between the USSR and the US. In post Cold War era now, military threat in international relations is scarcely used, especially amongst democratic states. Economic disruptions or environmental commitment breakdowns (notably the Kyoto Agreement) that produce tension amongst states are often reconciled simply through more international discussions and collusion. There was no military action taken by the other countries who signed the Kyoto Protocol on Canada, when Canada decided not to fulfill its commitments because military action would not help the situation. Military force is playing a lessened role in decision making which in turn lays the foundations for a more stable world for the future. (Keohane & Nye, 1977) Theoretically, living under complete and total interdependence would make for an interesting arrangement. The phenomenon of globalization would be at full force and nations will soon resemble an ensemble of country-states in a world economy. There would be a considerable amount of peace, but there would also be inner state turmoil as well due to all the foreign implications on domestic policies. (Rosecrance, 1986) A realist theory however cannot be a better choice, due to its self-interested nature. Preservation of nationalism and military ideal will remain in a realist world, but there would always be a recurring threat amongst nations. Policy breakdowns and difference in ideas might escalate to higher conflict or higher threat levels. In a realist state, there is no true collaboration because a state would only look out to beat all its competitors. Signing international agreements would only be made possible if there were a clear cut advantage to the realist. This type of theory will leave countries always teetering on the brink of threat and utter destruction. (Realism, January 7, 2010) The ideas of complex interdependence are also complimented by the Liberal views on democracy, freedom and the global economy. Democracy, Rights and Freedoms and Global Economy Placing Liberalist ideals on a pedestal would probably lead to a more responsible and secure international environment. Through the promotion of democracy, there will definitely be warring at first, but this will lead to the beauty of peace. Liberals come to terms with this and engage in “crusades” not necessarily in search of power, but more to lubricate the relations between democratic states. Freedom is a key principle of Liberalism and is necessarily the most important point in hopes of keeping stability. Nations that are repressed are often the nations that have the most turmoil domestically and internationally. Applying freedom will not only remedy this ailment, it will lead to the establishment of rights. The global economy in the 21st century has been a focal point in international relations. Establishing a strong global economy will lead to greater ties amongst all countries around the world. Democracy is one of the most important aspects of Liberalism because it essentially gives the right to the individual to change the way he or she lives. The right of self governance, the right of a vote and the right of fair trials are essential ingredients to establishing this democracy. (Wilson, 1918) However critics of Liberalism will claim that Liberals commit warring against other countries and destabilize the politics of the world. Liberal “Crusading” is an essential part of establishing democracy in areas cursed by tyranny and it is also a preventive measure against other countries who wish to convert to this type of governance. (Liberalism, January 19, 2010) The most vital part of Liberal crusading is actually what happens after the conflict has ended. In the aftermath of the First World War, Woodrow Wilson’s (1918) 14 points justifies Liberal crusading by expressing the desire to give democracy back to the Germans and stabilize North-Atlantic relations. Wilson’s 14 points were a success because they carried the ideas of democracy and assured that Europe would be a safer place in the future. The current stability of Europe is not only characterized by democracy, but also freedom to the individual. This freedom, in the words of Doyle (1983) “…is a belief in the importance of moral freedom, of the right to be treated and a duty to treat others as ethical subjects and not as objects or means only.” Doyle goes on to say that freedom to the individual will lead to demands by the individual to the state, which in turn will lead to the creation of rights for the individual. With rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of press, opportunity for education and employment and right of representation and voting, the individual is in control of his own freedom. When the individual is given such gifts, he treasures them and defends them against any threat. This idea of protection of rights and freedoms tells us that the individual will not wish to cause war and infringe upon others rights and freedoms, because he or she values these things to the utmost. Wars against democracies as Kant (1964) puts it, cannot be brought upon by other democracies. The turmoil in the Middle East is characterized by ultra-nationalism, terrorism, religious totalitarianism and tyranny. Freedoms have been lost and the population fears for their lives in face of their governments. This fear creates instability which results in wars, as we see in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Israel. Finally, the creation of a global economy will have positive effects in terms of restoring peace and stability in the world. The idea of global economy can be considered a result of Liberalist actions. Countries that allow for freedom and democracy to flourish are rewarded by the business that their citizens partake in with other people naturally from other democratic countries. (Doyle, 1983) Through this trading, automatically states are bound together by the connection of their citizens with the other citizens around the world. This will enable governments to negotiate foreign policies with other governments to allow for economic development on both sides, creating international prosperity. However, when two sides are implicated as such, they are also bound to one another’s economy for good. This is the case for Canadian-American relations and the free trade agreement. Both Canadians and Americans have enjoyed a very long period of peace, considering they are bordering countries. If Americans chose to attack Canada randomly, the American economy (more specifically to the Northeast, their energy) would suffer greatly. It is for this reason, plans of invasion on both sides are highly unlikely and some would consider impossible. It is as Montesquieu puts it: “Peace is the natural effect of trade.” (Doyle, 1983) Rosecrance (1986) supports Montesquieu’s claim by saying that open borders could put away warring forever, but it would in turn lead to a single state for mankind. As stated earlier, this would cause a lot of peace, but could also lead to domestic turmoil. Applying the three Liberal ideals to any country will create a peaceful environment both domestically and internationally. The only problem is the issue of globalization. With freedom, democracy and rights, individuals have the freedom to open themselves up to the rest of the world. Already we have established English as the international language of business, which is the first step to making the world a single nation state. Having free trade agreements such as the one signed between Canada and the US has led to a crisis in Canadian national identity. Realists will say that the relationship between the US and Canada is exploitive by nature. (Realism, January 7, 2010) The US will always seek to dominate Canada in the trade agreement and they will because of their political and economic superiority. Canada would have to always be on the lookout of the US. This may not be the case though, as Liberals would point out that relations between Canada and US have been without problems. Inevitably, Liberalist countries will have the last laugh in terms of economic and political development because realist would not be able to seek out the absolute gains. They would also enjoy a greater chance of stability. Conclusion Due to the ideas of complex interdependence and the essence of Liberalist theories, that is rights and freedoms, democracy and global economy, it can be agreed upon that a Liberalist approach is ultimately necessary to preserve the stability of our economy in the next 25 years. Other approaches such as realism and constructivism would rattle the cage and destabilize the economic and political state that is currently in place today. Works Cited Collection of works from: Bloodgood, E. & Schoefield, J. eds. (2004). Introduction to international relations. Pearson Custom Publishing: Canada. Includes: Keohane & Nye (1977), Rosecrance (1986), Doyle (1983) Collection of works from: Bloodgood, E. (2010) Course Pack. Intro to international relations. Concordia University. Includes: Wilson (1918), Kant (1964), Putnam (1988) Bloodgood, E. (2010). Course Lecture and Slides. Introduction to international relations. Concordia University. Includes: Liberalism (January 14, 2010), Liberalism (January 17, 2010), Realism (January 7, 2010)