Liberal Internationalism - A wolf in sheep's clothes?

In his 1986 piece entitled ‘Liberalism and World Politics’, Michael W. Doyle talks about the elements of liberalism that encourage and discourage states from going to war. He analyses three facets of liberalism; liberal pacifism, liberal imperialism and liberal internationalism. He introduces the explanations of these three through the eyes of three political theorists; Schumpeter, Machiavelli and Immanuel Kant.

Schumpeter talks about liberal pacifism in which he argues that a liberalist mix of capitalism and democracy will be the ultimate deterrent for war. Doyle aligns these views with those of Ronald Reagan; economic interdependence and a true democracy will promote wide ranging peaceful  interests rather than the war mongering of a few. Most of Schumpeter’s arguments are based on imperialism being the complete antithesis of capitalist democracies. He talks about the three reasons behind imperialism and how they encourage war and strife in the international system. The first reason is the concept of the war machine which raises the classic ‘who will guard the guards’  paradox as described earlier by Plato and Juvenal. Armies are created to end wars but in order to continue their own life, armies will also influence the state to pursue more wars through imperialism. Another is the inherent warlike disposition of states and the international system. Last and most important for Schumpeter is export monopolism. States pursue imperialistic goals for economic reasons to expand their markets. Capitalist democracies want peace because it is the interest of the state to focus on economic profit rather than war making, even though sometimes it is the same thing.

Machiavelli on the other hand argues that republics are best suited to expanding their influence. He has a very classical realist perspective in some ways. He does not believe in a completely democratic state but instead argues for a mixed state that has all the social equality and liberties of a democracy but not in the traditional way. He believed in a Roman system where the consuls served as executive kings, the senate as a bureaucracy and the assembly as a source of strength. It is a threadbare version of the modern system of checks and balances whereby the consuls threaten with tyranny and the masses threaten with their veto power. Free citizens show strength by equipping large armies and providing soldiers for national glory through expansion. Political survival is only guaranteed through expansion of power.

Liberal internationalism as presented by Kant is an explanation of Kant’s theory of growing peace among liberal states which signaled a coming ‘perpetual peace’. A burgeoning ‘pacific union’, said Kant, is proof that liberal states are the true champions of peace in the international system. Liberalist states usually side with each other when all-out war breaks out but they have a tendency to wage war against bellicose and undemocratic states. Kant argues that this is usually when the non-liberal states pose a certain threat or outwardly display aggression, even though liberal states like Britain were openly pursuing expansionist wars till the 20^th century. The three definitive articles of peace that will widen the pacific union and lead to the eventual  perpetual peace are a theory presented by Kant as a vital condition for international peace. The first article states that the state should be republican in its ideals; this guarantees the rights of its citizens and provides a system of checks and balances that helps prevent wars. The second article posits that the pacific union will guarantee the rights of its members and this will maintain peace. The third article says that a cosmopolitan law among this union will ensure that no state oversteps its bounds. Kant argues that the international system needs a teleology; a specific goal oriented outlook for there to ever be a hope for peace. International law adds a guarantee of respect for the rights of all the liberal states. Furthermore, asocial sociability creates a need for men to come together and leads to the formation of republican governments to make the peace. Interference in other countries will require an executive free from checks and balances.

Doyle’s article is very well-structured and he presents good arguments for liberalist policies to create even a modicum of peace. However, the lack of original ideas makes the impeccable structure thoroughly uninteresting and  highlights rather than distracts from the gaping holes in liberalist pacifism and internationalism. These holes, such as the aggressive interventionist policies of the United States in the late 90s and onwards, as well as British colonial expansion, present a starkly different view to liberalism and its apparently pacifist nature. The presence of any original arguments for these ideologies makes liberalism a hard pill to swallow.