International Relations Theories: Assumptions and Problems
Idealism/Liberal Internationalism and Francis Fukuyama: Analyzing Assumptions, Contradictions, and Problems
Introduction
Liberal internationalism, rooted in idealism, supports a global order based on democratic governance, multilateral cooperation, and the rule of law. It draws on the belief that democracies, driven by shared values and institutions, are more peaceful and cooperative in international affairs. Francis Fukuyama’s famous thesis in The End of History and the Last Man (1992) builds on this tradition, claiming that liberal democracy represents the endpoint of humanity’s political evolution, with the triumph of liberal democratic governance marking the “end of history.” Despite the optimistic nature of both liberal internationalism and Fukuyama’s thesis, they contain assumptions, contradictions, and significant real-world problems that have been exposed, particularly in the post-Cold War era.
Assumptions of Liberal Internationalism and Fukuyama’s Thesis
Democratic Peace Theory: One of the central assumptions of liberal internationalism is the Democratic Peace Theory (DPT), which suggests that democracies are naturally more peaceful toward one another. This belief supports much of the liberal internationalist project, promoting the idea that the spread of democracy will lead to a more peaceful world order. Fukuyama’s thesis resonates with this idea, suggesting that as liberal democracy spreads across the globe, the incidence of major conflicts will moderate, leading to an era of global stability.
End of Ideological Conflict: Fukuyama’s most provocative assumption is that liberal democracy represents the “final form” of political governance, the culmination of human ideological development. According to Fukuyama, the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union marked the victory of Western liberal democracy over competing ideologies like fascism and communism. He argued that the ideological controversy that had defined much of the 20th century was over, leaving liberal democracy as the universally accepted model.
Economic Interdependence and Global Peace: Liberal internationalism also assumes that economic interdependence, facilitated by globalization, fosters peace between nations. By engaging in trade, countries develop mutual economic interests, reducing the likelihood of war. This “commercial peace theory” holds that interconnected markets and economic cooperation incentivize states to maintain peaceful relations, as war would disrupt these economic benefits. Fukuyama’s work aligns with this belief, suggesting that liberal democracy and market economies are symbiotic, further contributing to global stability.
Strength of International Institutions: Liberal internationalism holds that international institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are essential for fostering cooperation, resolving disputes, and promoting global governance. These institutions are seen as the enforcers of international law and norms, providing mechanisms for conflict resolution that help prevent the outbreak of wars.
Contradictions in Liberal Internationalism and Fukuyama’s Thesis
Liberalism vs. Nationalism and Identity Politics: One of the most obvious contradictions is the resurgence of nationalism and identity politics in the 21st century, which directly challenges the assumption of the universal appeal of liberal democracy. Fukuyama initially underestimated the enduring power of national identity and ethnic, religious, and cultural differences. In countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, populist leaders have risen to power by emphasizing national sovereignty and anti-globalization, reflecting deep-seated frustrations with liberal internationalism’s cosmopolitan ideals. These movements reveal that national and identity-based conflicts remain potent forces in global politics, undermining the liberal assumption that rational economic interests and democratic norms would prevail.
Persistence of Autocratic Regimes: Contrary to Fukuyama’s thesis, the 21st century has seen the persistence and resurgence of authoritarian regimes. Countries like China and Russia have rejected the liberal democratic model in favor of state-driven capitalism and authoritarian governance. China, in particular, represents a direct challenge to Fukuyama’s prediction, as it has grown into a global superpower while maintaining strict one-party rule and centralized economic control. The success of these autocratic regimes, especially in delivering economic growth and technological advancement, challenges the notion that liberal democracy is the inevitable “end point” of political development.
Fragility of International Institutions: Liberal internationalism’s reliance on international institutions has also been called into question. Institutions like the United Nations and the WTO have faced criticism for their ineffectiveness in addressing global conflicts and economic challenges. For example, the United Nations has struggled to resolve major conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and Ukraine. Furthermore, the WTO has faced increasing resistance from both developing and developed countries that feel its rules disproportionately benefit certain powers. The liberal internationalist vision of a rules-based global order governed by robust institutions seems increasingly fragile, particularly in the face of rising protectionism and unilateralism.
Liberal Interventionism: Liberal internationalism’s tendency toward interventionism, justified by the belief that democracy promotion will lead to global peace, has often led to unintended consequences. The U.S.-led interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan were supported in the belief that imposing democracy would bring stability to these regions. However, the resulting chaos, insurgencies, and civil wars have illustrated the limits of liberal interventionism. These failures expose a contradiction within liberal internationalism: the imposition of democratic norms through force often contradicts the very principles of sovereignty and self-determination that liberalism seeks to uphold.
Problems with Liberal Internationalism and Fukuyama’s Thesis
Eurocentrism and Western Bias: Liberal internationalism often reflects a Western-centric view of the world, assuming that Western liberal democratic values are universal and applicable to all cultures and societies. Fukuyama’s thesis, while visionary, has been critiqued for its Eurocentrism, as it assumes that non-Western societies will naturally converge toward Western models of governance. This assumption overlooks the historical, cultural, and social differences that shape political systems in regions such as Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The failure to account for these differences has led to strained relationships and resistance in regions where liberal democracy has been perceived as a Western imposition.
Global Inequality: One of the overlooked problems in both liberal internationalism and Fukuyama’s thesis is the role of global inequality. While globalization and liberal internationalist policies have led to economic growth in many parts of the world, they have also contributed to widening inequalities both within and between nations. The rise of populist movements in many democracies can be partially attributed to the economic dislocations caused by globalization, which has often left working-class citizens feeling disenfranchised. Fukuyama’s optimistic vision of global liberal democracy does not adequately account for the social and economic disparities that undermine democratic institutions.
Emergence of a Multipolar World: Fukuyama’s thesis assumed a world in which liberal democracy, led by the United States, would dominate a global order. However, the rise of new powers such as China and the resurgence of Russia have led to a multipolar world, where power is more distributed and the influence of liberal democracy is increasingly challenged. This shift toward multipolarity exposes the limits of liberal internationalism’s assumption of a stable, rules-based global order, as competing great powers fight for influence, often outside the framework of traditional liberal institutions.
Technological and Cyber Threats: Another problem that neither liberal internationalism nor Fukuyama fully anticipated is the rise of technological threats to liberal democracy. The increasing use of cyber warfare, disinformation, and surveillance technologies by authoritarian regimes poses a serious challenge to the liberal democratic order. Autocratic governments have been able to use technology to suppress opposition, manipulate information, and undermine democratic processes in other countries, demonstrating that the digital age is not necessarily conducive to the spread of liberal values.
Conclusion
Liberal internationalism and Fukuyama’s The End of History provide a hopeful vision for a peaceful, democratic global order. However, their assumptions about the universal appeal of liberal democracy, the power of international institutions, and the irreversibility of democratic progress have been challenged by real-world developments. The resurgence of nationalism, the persistence of authoritarian regimes, and the growing fragility of international institutions reveal the contradictions and problems in this optimistic worldview. While liberal democracy remains a dominant form of governance, the challenges it faces suggest that history is far from reaching its endpoint.
Realism and Neo-Realism and Samuel Huntington: Assumptions and Problems
Introduction
Realism and neo-realism are two prominent schools of thought in international relations theory, focusing on the anarchic nature of the international system, the role of power, and the inevitability of conflict. Realists argue that states, driven by national interests, are inherently competitive, while neo-realists emphasize the structural constraints imposed by the international system. Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations (1996) introduces a distinct but related framework, arguing that future conflicts will be shaped not by ideological or economic factors, but by civilizational and cultural differences. This essay examines the assumptions, contradictions, and problems of realism, neo-realism, and Huntington’s thesis.
Assumptions of Realism and Neo-Realism
Anarchy and the Self-Help System: At the core of realism and neo-realism is the assumption that the international system is anarchic, meaning that there is no principal authority to govern states. This anarchy forces states to rely on self-help, as their survival is not guaranteed by any external force. Realists argue that this condition leads states to prioritize their security, often through the accumulation of power, military capabilities, and alliances.
State-Centrism: Realism and neo-realism emphasize the state as the primary actor in international relations. Non-state actors such as international organizations, terrorist groups, or multinational corporations may have an impact, but they do not possess the same agency or influence as sovereign states. The state, in realist thought, is a rational actor that seeks to maximize its power and ensure its survival in a hostile international environment.
Power and the National Interest: Realists contend that states are motivated primarily by the pursuit of power and their national interest. Power, in this context, is often understood in terms of military and economic capabilities. Neo-realism, particularly as articulated by Kenneth Waltz, adds a structural dimension to this assumption, arguing that the distribution of power in the international system—whether unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar—determines the behavior of states.
Pessimism about Cooperation: Realists are deeply skeptical about the potential for sustained international cooperation. While alliances or agreements may form temporarily, they are seen as fragile and contingent upon the interests of the states involved. Neo-realists, in particular, argue that the structure of the international system creates a “security dilemma,” where states, in seeking to increase their security, inadvertently provoke insecurity in others, leading to an arms race or conflict.
Assumptions of Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations
Civilizational Identity as Primary: Huntington’s thesis diverges from traditional realism by focusing on civilizations rather than states as the primary units of analysis. He argues that future conflicts will be defined by clashes between different civilizations, such as the West, the Islamic world, and the Sinic (Chinese) civilization. These civilizational identities, rooted in culture, religion, and history, are seen as more fundamental than the political or ideological differences that characterized the Cold War.
Incompatibility of Civilizations: Huntington assumes that civilizations are inherently incompatible in terms of their values, beliefs, and worldviews. For example, he argues that the values of Western liberalism are fundamentally at odds with those of the Islamic world or Confucian-based civilizations. This cultural incompatibility makes conflict between civilizations inevitable, particularly as globalization brings them into closer contact.
Contradictions in Realism, Neo-Realism, and Huntington’s Thesis
State vs. Civilizational Focus: A major contradiction between Huntington’s thesis and traditional realism is the focus on civilizations rather than states. Realism is fundamentally state-centric, assuming that states act as rational actors pursuing their national interests. Huntington, on the other hand, shifts the focus to broader civilizational groupings, which may not align neatly with state boundaries. This creates tension with realism’s assumption that states are the primary actors in international relations.
Realism’s Emphasis on Power vs. Huntington’s Emphasis on Culture: While realism and neo-realism focus on the distribution of power, particularly military and economic capabilities, Huntington’s thesis emphasizes cultural and civilizational differences as the key drivers of conflict. This shift from material power to cultural identity introduces a contradiction. Realists argue that power is the ultimate determinant of state behavior, whereas Huntington suggests that cultural factors can override the logic of power politics, leading to conflicts driven by identity rather than strategic interests.
Short-Term Alliances vs. Long-Term Civilizational Divides: Realists view alliances as temporary and transactional, formed based on immediate strategic interests. Huntington, however, posits that civilizational divisions are long-lasting and deeply ingrained, making alliances between civilizations difficult or unsustainable. For example, the realist explanation for the U.S.-Saudi Arabia alliance is based on strategic interests (oil, security), while Huntington would argue that this alliance is inherently fragile due to the fundamental cultural and religious differences between the West and the Islamic world.
Problems with Realism, Neo-Realism, and Huntington’s Thesis
Overemphasis on State Conflict: Realism, with its focus on state conflict and competition, often overlooks the growing importance of non-state actors and transnational threats. Issues such as climate change, cyber warfare, and global terrorism cannot be adequately addressed within a purely state-centric framework. Neo-realism’s structural focus on the distribution of power also struggles to account for the influence of non-state actors like terrorist organizations (e.g., ISIS) or multinational corporations, which can wield significant influence over international affairs.
Inflexibility of Huntington’s Civilizational Divides: Huntington’s thesis has been critiqued for its rigid view of civilizational identities. His assumption that civilizations are monolithic and internally cohesive overlooks the complexity and diversity within civilizations. For instance, the Islamic world is far from unified, with significant sectarian divisions (Sunni vs. Shia), cultural differences (Arab vs. non-Arab), and varying levels of modernization. Similarly, the “West” is not homogenous, with significant political, cultural, and ideological differences between Europe and the United States, as well as within these regions.
The Erosion of State Sovereignty: Realism assumes that states are the ultimate arbiters of power and sovereignty. However, in an increasingly globalized world, state sovereignty is being eroded by transnational forces such as multinational corporations, international organizations, and global civil society movements. Realism and neo-realism struggle to account for the ways in which globalization has diminished the absolute sovereignty of states. Huntington’s civilizational model similarly fails to account for the ways in which globalized economic, technological, and environmental interdependence transcends cultural or civilizational boundaries.
Failure to Address Cooperation on Global Challenges: Both realism and Huntington’s thesis are pessimistic about the potential for sustained cooperation between states or civilizations. However, this pessimism fails to address how global challenges such as climate change, nuclear proliferation, and pandemics require cooperative, multilateral responses. Realism’s focus on power competition leaves little room for addressing global collective action problems, while Huntington’s emphasis on civilizational conflict seems to preclude the possibility of cross-civilizational cooperation on shared challenges.
Misreading Post-Cold War Dynamics: Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations was written in the aftermath of the Cold War, a time of great geopolitical uncertainty. While his prediction that cultural and civilizational conflicts would come to the fore has some validity, particularly in the context of Islamist terrorism, his thesis has been critiqued for overemphasizing cultural divisions while underestimating other drivers of conflict, such as economic inequality, state weakness, and resource competition. Many contemporary conflicts, such as those in Syria, Ukraine, or the South China Sea, are driven as much by strategic and economic factors as by cultural or civilizational divides.
Conclusion
Realism, neo-realism, and Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations offer valuable insights into the nature of conflict in the international system, emphasizing the role of power, security, and identity. However, their assumptions often fail to capture the full complexity of contemporary global politics. Realism’s state-centric focus and skepticism of cooperation overlook the influence of non-state actors and transnational issues. Huntington’s civilizational model, while insightful, is overly rigid and fails to account for internal diversity and the potential for cross-civilizational cooperation. Both realism and Huntington’s thesis, while influential, must be adapted to better understand the challenges of an increasingly interconnected and multipolar world.