CHAPTER 7: WHOSE IDENTITY, WHOSE CONSTRUCTS AND WHOSE INTEREST? THE SYNTHESIS OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY DATA IN
3.4 Idealism in International Relations
67
Another possible criticism of realism is that it is “a self-fulfilling prophecy” (Viotti and Kauppi 2012:75), because realists play a part in continuing the international system’s status quo that they analyse. Realists characterize the world as violent, deceptive and prone to war; they then proffer advice on how leaders should act under these circumstances, by employing the means of survival in such a world. Thus, realists preclude themselves from understanding the world in any other way and thus lack resourcefulness in acknowledging alternative conceptions of the world and how they can be achieved.
Furthermore, the realist argument that states are the most significant actors in the international system has been put under increasing scrutiny. Realist arguments have to contend with the fact that non-state actors have increasingly become influential in world affairs that states could actually yield to this influence. The influence of multinational and transnational organisations13 is palpable; so is the influence of terrorist groups and international institutions like the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Realists, to their defence, argue that they focus on state behaviour but do not make any claim that non-state actors are immaterial. A theory of international relations that has always acknowledged the potential of non-state actors to determine state behaviour is idealism, or as some would call it, liberal idealism, to which the chapter now turns.
68
tone for this type of idealism. The destruction that WWI wrought convinced many influential individuals of that time that war was not only morally offensive, but costly and futile. Therefore, further war had to be forestalled and this could be done by establishing international laws and institutions charged with the mandate to maintain peace (Mehmetcik 2014).
Idealists are convinced that the spread of liberal democracy and education is likely to influence the foreign policy and behaviour of actors in the international system. This idea could be linked to Immanuel Kant with his belief that chances of war among democratic nations are remote.14 Idealists appreciate the importance of international bodies like the League of Nations in creating world peace. The implication of this is that states have to surrender some of their inclinations to a broader vision. They have to cede some of their power for the greater good of human community. The fact that idealism talks of central authority above individual states already separates it from the realist emphasis on the primary role of states in international relations. The rise of democratic ideals, international organisations and economic interdependence has created a situation where both state and non-state actors rely on each other to build a more stable international system. Ian Hurd begins the second edition of his International Organizations:
Politics, Law, Practice (2014: vii) with the notion “that international politics cannot be understood without thinking about international organization.”
The formation of the League of Nations was done with the hope that global peace and community could be achieved through an international organization of that magnitude (Mehmetcik 2014). Wilsonian internationalism, a major influence behind the League, believed in the subordination of national interests to international legal fiat, as prescribed by international organizations such as the World Court (Kristol 1990). Contrary to realist views of self-interest, idealists argue that, at the core, there is a convergence of interests in human beings which is often concealed by the aggressive and self-interested way in which states and governments act.
Despite divergences in culture, religion and race, human beings have the same interests; they all desire safety, acknowledgement and other human ideals. Human beings are more or less active participants in the international system rather than objects seeking to fulfill predetermined laws of nature. The Kantian argument that human beings should be treated as ends in themselves forms a theoretical part of idealism.
14 Constructivism, an approach used to for this study, argues that “collective identity” prevents war among democracies (Pouliot 2008:4).
69
Wilbert J. Lemelle (1978) argues that contrary to what has been written about idealism being a discredited theory, after World War II, especially in the United States, idealism continues to play a significant role in foreign policy. Secondly, he also argues that idealism is not mutually exclusive with pragmatic or practical politics. Melakopides (2012) calls this “pragmatic idealism.” The role that the United States played in helping Germany and Japan after World War II displayed in the most glaring fashion the fact that states are capable of transcending tension to help even powers that were erstwhile foes. Even more recently Michael Boyle (2004:83) has argued that “utopianism defined as a religious–political belief in the perfectibility of human experience—is deeply embedded in American religious and political tradition.” He further argues that throughout history, utopian thought has played a seminal influence on how Americans perceive themselves and their country and what they think should be the general mode of state and human conduct.
Idealism recoils from resigning itself to a future that is cynical of human nature and bereft of compassion. Lemelle (1978) argues that idealism bears the concept of “enlightened self-interest”
which continues to be a fundamental component of America’s interests. G. John Ikenberry (2010:1) is optimistic that the future of the international system will be increasingly influenced by “institutions and relationships created over the last 60 years.” Furthermore, he argues that though power dynamics might change in the future, the liberal institutional order will not be replaced in any meaningful way. Thus, prospects for international cooperation will increase rather than diminish.
3.4.1 Critique of idealism
When applied to international relations idealism is seen, mostly by realists, as a theory that argues for what is impossible. The eradication of the nuclear races, the potential of the United Nations to initiate international peace, and the elimination of injustice are often seen as fanciful or idealistic. The assault on idealism comes from a retrospective view of the international system and how prospects for international peace have proven too remote to secure. Secondly, idealism has also been criticized by those who have a pessimistic understanding of human nature.
Idealism is optimistic in its reading of human nature, arguing that human selfishness is not unchangeable. It is also convinced of the possibility of a world that is characterized by genuine
70
peace and harmony (Wilson 2011). The theory has been criticized for its apparent reluctance to read human nature and international politics as they really are. To its detractors, idealism is utopian and in a world characterized by aggressive self-serving politics, idealists could be seen political masochists. Realists present it as a counterproductive theory because human nature can never be perfect and hence idealist hopes are fanciful. For example, the emphasis that the Carter Administration put on human rights in its foreign policy was criticized as being idealist and hence self-destructive.
After the eruption of WWII, the hopes of idealism were dealt a grievous blow. Some argue that idealism had the same optimism after the Cold War that it had after WWI. Realists argue “that post-war periods, whether after 1815, 1918, 1945 or 1989, have been characterized by the emergence of ‘entirely natural’ but misguided, periods of optimism that the future will be less perilous than the past” (Gray 1994:31). Kaplan (2001: xi) argues that post-war optimism is misguided in that there is no substantial change in the international system, save for the fact that
“evil wears new masks.” Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, conflict still characterizes international politics. The communist superpower might have died but scholars of power politics state that the rise of China and, to some extent, Russia, proves that power politics are still at play in the international system. With China’s rise, ideology seems to have taken centre stage in global politics once more. Russia’s seizure of Crimea and China’s more belligerent claims of its coastal regions are apparently an indictment on idealistic views that peace will characterize post- Cold War politics. The emergence of international terrorism is another phenomenon that seems to challenge idealist positions. The arguments seem to be that religious terrorists abhor Western cultures which they see as threatening religious purity, especially Islamic faith.
Furthermore, Layne (1994) argues that prevention of war in the world does not occur simply because states realise the common good. Rather, realist elements of force and deterrence are the main factors. Rational states calculate how much damage they may cause or incur by resorting to war. This is likely to discourage war if the state calculates that war might be counterproductive.
Furthermore, a realistic reading of the capabilities of other states is likely to forestall war if competing states have more chances of winning. To Layne, these are more believable reasons for the prevention of war.
71
As is demonstrated in the ensuing pages of this chapter, constructivism does not utterly repudiate some rationalist arguments. Indeed, rationalists would argue that it is in the interests of rational states to prevent war, if the cost of engaging in it would be incalculable. Furthermore, rationalists would also argue that, by preventing war and forestalling violent confrontation, states act because they believe in certain common interests. This argument is in tandem with constructivism. The point of departure comes because rationalist arguments accentuate the overriding and determining influence of the structure of material power while constructivists contest this argument by asserting that shared interests among states are constructed through ideas and social interaction. The next subsection will look at liberalism as another influential theory of international relations. It is noteworthy that this theory has been charged with resembling certain aspects of idealism.