Study Notes on Liberalism and the International Order

Liberalism Doomed the Liberal International Order

Authors and Context

The article "Liberalism Doomed the Liberal International Order" is authored by Stacie E. Goddard, Ronald R. Krebs, Christian Kreuder-Sonnen, and Berthold Rittberger. Published by the Council on Foreign Relations, it reflects on the decline of the liberal international order and argues for a less legalistic and more pragmatic approach to global governance.

Decline of the Liberal International Order

The authors argue that the liberal international order is in decline, with its transatlantic supporters grappling with this reality. Responses within this community vary:

  1. Denial and Anger: Some blame former U.S. President Donald Trump for undermining the order, aspiring to convince him to restore commitments to global institutions. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock has called for defenders of the rules-based order to stand firm against rising authoritarianism.

  2. Despair: Others acknowledge the order's decline but cannot envision a viable alternative, indicating a lack of acceptance of the order's end.

Misdiagnosis of the Crisis

The authors contend that the crisis cannot be attributed solely to Trump, neoliberal policies from the 1990s, or the emergence of illiberal powers like China and Russia. Instead, the fundamental issue lies in the postwar order's structure, which was rigid due to its firm grounding in liberal principles. The institutions meant to provide public goods, promote inclusion, and uphold the rule of law turned out to be unyielding, allowing forces against it to thrive. Thus, a revival of the multilateral, cooperative international order requires abandoning rigid liberal principles in favor of a more pragmatic and pluralistic form.

Historical Narratives of the Order’s Demise

There are several overlapping narratives that explain the decline of the postwar international order:

  1. Hypocrisy Narrative: Claims that the order was hypocritical; inequalities persisted as the powerful nations manipulated the global system to serve their interests, leading to a failure to deliver on the anticipated public goods. The remedy suggested is to eradicate power disparities within the order.

  2. Triumphalism Narrative: This perspective holds that the post-Cold War pursuit of liberal ideals was too aggressive, imposing high standards of governance too rapidly, leading to backlash against institutions perceived as unaccountable. Restoring a less dense network of institutions like in the immediate post-WWII era is proposed as a solution.

  3. Sabotage Narrative: This narrative points to the inclusion of illiberal states such as China and Russia in the liberal institutions with the hope they would liberalize. Instead, their participation led to the weakening of the order. The suggested solution is to exclude states that do not share the same values.

Commonality in Narratives

Despite these differing opinions, they share a wish to revert to an earlier, more functional state of affairs. However, the authors argue that the decay of the order was inevitable due to its liberal foundations.

Core Principles of the Liberal Order

The postwar international order, predominantly shaped by American power, relied on liberal rhetoric to frame its purpose and legitimacy. Some key points include:

  • The belief that an international order would meet universal human interests and enable freedom by eliminating economic and political impediments.

  • The notion that institutions would supply essential public goods, apprehending that many nations preferred others to bear the costs of these goods.

  • The establishment of rules that would govern international conduct and curb power politics, envisioning a transparent, law-abiding international landscape.

Hypocrisy and Failure to Deliver

The authors point out that unlike the aspirations of the order, real practices often contradicted the claims of neutrality and equality. The architects of the order, while advocating for a liberal landscape, often resorted to power politics, and failed to genuinely deliver the promised equality and prosperity.

Challenges and Reform Failures

The article elaborates on the contested nature of the international order. Despite its intention to accommodate grievances, the reality saw the suppression of valid criticisms in favor of reinforcing the established liberal principles. Consequently:

  • Critics from the Global South faced dismissals as uninformed or immoral, and their visions for reform were rejected in favor of procedural solutions that supported existing structures rather than fomenting actual change.

  • This perpetual rejection of substantive critiques pushed aggrieved factions to seek recourse outside conventional frameworks, exacerbating disillusionment with the order.

Legalism and Increasing Rigidity

As the focus shifted towards legalistic frameworks and precise regulations within international institutions, the order became more brittle. Certain negotiations saw major powers dominate institutional agendas, notably hindering equitable participation from smaller states, which led to further disenchantment with the system.

Implications of Liberal Legalism

Increasing legalism within international protocols diminished the flexibility historically available to states in negotiations, with ambiguity in agreements being increasingly removed:

  • The consequences of rigid regulatory stipulations gave rise to perceptions of hypocrisy among powerful states, which undermined the legitimacy of established norms and institutions.

Examples of Failed Agreements

Agreements lacking nuanced approaches, such as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), inadvertently solidified inequalities among states while failing to generate adequate momentum toward disarmament. This has fostered sentiments of resentment among non-nuclear states, further challenging the authority of these agreements.

Call for a New International Order

Asserting that the liberal international order’s authority was already fragile even before political shifts like Trump’s presidency, various articles call for robust reforms to rethink the approach towards global governance:

  • A shift from legalistic frameworks toward pragmatic, politically engaged solutions is essential.

  • Flexibility in accommodating national interests while fostering eventual consensus is crucial for widespread acceptance of global initiatives.

  • Empowering regional organizations and recognizing their role in negotiations can help align differing national interests with global commitments.

Embracing Pragmatism

The authors encourage a focus on shared challenges such as climate change and nuclear safety, advocating for pragmatic agendas that can foster broad collaboration instead of ideological rigidity. Acknowledging the necessity of political engagement fosters a network of commitments that can avert potential conflicts and enhance global stability, particularly emphasizing the importance of national political contexts in global agreements.

Conclusion

The proposed shift toward a pragmatic approach does not equate to a withdrawal from liberal values. Instead, it recognizes the complexity and plurality of global political realities, advocating for cooperation that genuinely acknowledges differences while still promoting democracy and human rights through adaptable and realistic strategies. A pragmatic and pluralistic international order could yield cooperation on pressing global challenges while allowing the cultivation of liberal democratic values.