How does international politics work? Why do things happen the way they do and what factors influence decision-making? How can we explain developments on the international stage? Different movements have their own answers to these questions, and so does the movement of realism. You can read more about realism in another article of mine on this website. In this article I discuss the liberal and radical alternatives to the view of realism. I have already typed this in the article about realism, but it is useful to repeat it. On the stage of international politics, three different types of solutions can be distinguished when there is a risk of political conflict:
- Solution through dominance: When one or more states clearly have a dominant position, that state or group can function as a kind of world government.
- Solution through reciprocity: Reciprocity is based on the principle of give and take, rewards, agreements and reciprocity. The advantage here is that all interests are represented. The disadvantage is that reciprocity can lead to lengthy negotiations. There is also a chance of a downward spiral (for example in the Cold War, with the arms race).
- Solution through identity: An example of this is the formation of the European Union, which functions as a unit. Within this group, everyone is committed to each other in pursuit of the common interest. The disadvantage here is that the world outside the group can sometimes be forgotten or disadvantaged.
While realism focuses on the core concept of dominance, the liberal alternative movements are mainly based on the concept of reciprocity. The radical alternative movements are mainly based on the concept of identity.
(Neo)liberalism
Liberalism or neoliberalism is based on collective commitment. Sharing everything will yield major collective benefits in the long term. This movement is also mainly focused on the long term. It is believed that instead of focusing on relative power, states should focus on collective advantage. States must learn to trust each other to achieve things together. Without trust you achieve nothing. For example, if the Netherlands did not rely on other countries to do something about the greenhouse effect, it would rationally make little difference if the Netherlands itself invested a lot of money in cuts because such a small country would make little difference. If people trust each other and make collective decisions, great goals can be achieved. The European Union and the UN are examples of this.
Economic independence
Cooperation in the economic field is also important according to liberalism. Instead of investing a lot of money in weapons to maintain the relative balance of power or to obtain a dominant position, liberals find it much more important to achieve full economic cooperation. By not investing in weapons but by far-reaching economic cooperation, economic cooperation can be used to eradicate insecurity in international politics.
This far-reaching international cooperation can lead to institutions and regimes such as the EU, the UN and NATO. A regime exists if a reasonable degree of predictability has been created through long-term cooperation.
Foreign Policy Making
According to the liberal model, several factors influence foreign policymaking:
- Individual decision makers: in the liberal movements it is assumed that within states the only decision makers are ultimately individuals. Decisions are still made by people, and the question is how rational they are. People are always only rational to a certain extent, for example due to cognitive limitations and personal opinions. The decision maker’s personal conviction generally trumps rationality. Dangerous here is misperception of the decision maker, but also cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance can occur when a person receives new information that does not match his or her view of the subject in question. When cognitive dissonance occurs, he or she only takes small pieces of information and in this way transforms the new information until it fits the existing image.
- Groupthink and crisis management: People who find themselves in groups are generally more likely to go along with the commonly held opinion. This is due to a deeply rooted democratic belief in the majority. Decisions made by groups are therefore generally more rational than personal decisions.
- Bureaucracies (power of the civil service, etc.)
- Interest groups: consider, for example, trade unions and organizations such as Green Peace.
- The military-industrial complex: there is always the question of whether to invest in defense or not, and of course those working in the military industry will always make arguments as to why it is important to invest in this sector. This also includes constantly devising new tasks for defense such as reconstruction and peace missions.
- Public opinion: the opinion of the masses.
Radical Alternatives to Realism
As mentioned earlier, the core concept of identity is central to the more radical alternatives. This does not cover everything, but the concepts of dominance and reciprocity certainly do not apply here.
Postmodernism and Constructivism
These movements involve a deconstruction of the entire story of ‘the State’. States are not seen here as players on the international stage. National interest is the main construct here. Everything revolves around the national interest and not just about power and wealth. Matter means nothing if one does not attach value to it.
Marxism
In Marxism, too, the states are not seen as the major players. In Marxism it is assumed that it is precisely the different classes that international relations are all about. The United States is therefore not powerful as a state, but rather as an embodiment of the powerful capitalist class. All international politics is one big class struggle, with the North-South contradiction as the biggest problem. The Marxist does not think in states but in world regions.
Peace studies
Peace studies are all about peaceful resolution of conflicts instead of militaryism. It is believed that the prevalence of violence between different states is due to the age-old habit of solving problems through violence. A real solution to the conflicts can be found by looking at the world around us differently. Only in this way can positive peace be achieved instead of structural war. And positive peace is not only the absence of war, but also a fair distribution of wealth between countries and globally equal human rights.
Internationalism, pacifism
This movement also assumes that everything should be solved without violence. Everything revolves around the concept of ‘non-violence’. By never taking up arms yourself, you will conquer with the power of nonviolence. Well-known supporters of this movement were Gandhi and John Lennon.
Feminism
Feminism is all about the interests of women. Feminists see war as a form of violence by men against women. They are very much against masculinity and realism. The big goal is to give women more influence in the world. Women as world leaders solve everything based on relationships and friendship.