What has been the contribution of Neoliberal Institutionalist theory on world politics
What has been the contribution of Neoliberal Institutionalist theory on world politics in an age of globalization?
What has been the contribution of Neoliberal Institutionalist theory to our understanding of world politics in an age of globalization?
First, however, what is Neoliberal Institutionalism? Simply put, it is the a framework political theory which holds that institutions play a role in security relations by affecting states’ cost-benefit calculations; by shaping their strategies; by inducing conformity to established conventions and norms; and even, in the long run, by altering how societies view their interests and the mandates that states have to act in world politics. (Haftendorn, Keohane, and Wallander 1999, p. 1) Neoliberal Institutionalism might be viewed as an optimistic, humanistic political paradigm in the sense that it is centered upon the belief that nation-states are inherently predisposed to seek cooperation instead of conflict and absolute gains versus relative gains. This is contrasted with Realist political paradigms, which are framed by arguably more cynical viewpoints that hold that nation-states seek relative gains and are predisposed to conflict.
In the current age of globalization, the supremacy of individual nation-states as the driving forces in international political policymaking, and hegemonic exercise of power therein, is frowned upon by Neoliberal Institutionalists as an antiquated paradigm of past historical eras, the first of which saw any number of colonial world powers arbitrarily and unilaterally exercise their power for generally selfish aims: England, France, and Spain in the 1600s to the 1800s, and the United States in the 1800s and 1900s; the second archaic historical era was one in which international politics were largely framed by the bipolar conflict centered around the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective capitalist and communist forms of government. Other nations were forced to align their international political participation through the prism of the global rivalry between the two superpowers; those who failed to do so were often neglected or caught up in the global web of relativistic Cold War chess. In the post Cold War era, Neoliberal Institutionalists view institutions such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United Nations, or any of the various and sundry other hemispheric or regional trade or security alliances as the venue through which to frame and sort through political issues.
With the twin ascendancy of neo-unilateralist foreign policy under the American government of George W. Bush and the global focus on anti-terrorism efforts to combat the radical Muslim fundamentalist Al Qaida movement, Neoliberal Institutionalists find themselves facing a situation in which global political questions, particularly those of economic and security cooperation, are increasingly framed by George W. Bush’s famous post 9/11 comment, regarding cooperation with the U.S., that nations are either for us, or against us. That moment, though seemingly simplistic in construction, arguably ushered in a second era of global bipolar politics. Nation-states were expected to align their political interests in support of the United States’ pre-emptive policy regarding combating global terrorism, or are considered facilitators of terrorism and suffer the according consequences economically or, in the case of Iraq, with loss of sovereignty. Much as the infamous Henry Kissinger constructed a complex Realist architecture of relativistic foreign policy alliances designed to leverage power against the Soviet Union, George W. Bush is constructing a similar web of relativistic alliances designed to facilitate unilateralist American policy against Al Qaida, a paradigm which fundamentally undermines global historical alliances with the nations of the European Union and NATO, and undercuts the global authority and historical role of other institutions such as the United Nations in resolving political, economic, and military conflicts. Unsurprisingly, the architects of George W. Bush’s foreign policy are dinosaur-ish holdouts from the Cold War era such as 74-year old Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, whose roles in American government date back to the Nixon administration; even the relatively young Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is a product of bipolar global political theory; her area of foreign policy specialization as a professor at Stanford University was U.S. Soviet relations; her world view and indeed, the collective world view of the Bush Administration, seems unavoidably colored in this bipolar fashion. Simply put, they do not understand a foreign policy universe in which there are not two principle superpower-level rivals on the global political stage of absolute good versus absolute evil in which the United States takes an almost (self-perceived) divinely ordained role in setting the framework for global politics.
In this paradigm, there is little room for the Neoliberal Institutionalist faith in the primacy of cooperative economic and security organizations and the complexity of multilateralist diplomatic initiatives. NATO and the United Nations, instead of taking lead roles in solving and anticipating crises, are in the mind of the U.S. functionaries that are useful only when they defer to or are useful to achieving unilateralist American aims around the globe, particularly with respect to combating Al Qaida. Neoliberal Institutionalists believe this sort of hubris will end up seriously weakening the power of the United States in the arena of global politics despite its arguably standing alone as the most powerful nation on earth:
If the United States were to throw off the fetters imposed by the inter-
national institutions it has, so far, willingly created and forcefully pursue its
self-defined goals, it might well drive others into opposition. For the United
States to insist that international institutions serve only its interests undercuts
their legitimacy and effectiveness in regulating international affairs and undermines U.S. policy in the long run. (Lake, 2001, p. 160)
It is worth noting here that the notion of an ‘institution’ is not necessarily a literal one. Neoliberals also believe that institutions can consist of established sets of precedents or traditions that govern nation-states’ interactions with one another; Robert Keohane, a political scientist considered one of the chief architects of Neoliberal Institutionalism, viewed institutions not merely as official organizations, but persistent and connected sets of rules (formal or informal) that prescribe behavioral roles, constrain activity, and shape expectations. (Keohane, 1988) As such, an institution can be an ad hoc alliance formed for a specific geo-political purpose. One notable example, which also serves as a useful contrast in the behavior of the United States towards Iraq under George H.W. Bush vs. George W. Bush, the former’s son, is the international coalition formed to drive Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in the wake of the Iraqi invasion of 1991.
Bush Sr. painstakingly solicited the cooperation of the United Nations and then, sensitive to concerns of United States imperialism in the primary Muslim Middle East; Bush Sr. and his Secretary of State James A. Baker III exerted intense and personal diplomatic negotiations to secure an international coalition of nations, which included the major Arab nation-states, to both shoulder the financial and military burden of the massive logistical enterprise of removing Saddam Hussein’s armies by force from Kuwait. While the wisdom of leaving Saddam Hussein in power after the one-sided military triumph, as well as the moral lapse of Bush Sr. in encouraging the Shiite population to rise up against Saddam Hussein without providing any military support, have been the subject of heated debate since 1991, the point is that the first Gulf War perfectly embodied the application of a Neoliberal Institutionalist framework to solve a political-military problem. The approach was meticulously multilateral and relied on the formation of a new political-military alliance where none had previously existed in order to achieve a goal shared by nations of vastly different economies and societal structures: the reigning in of Saddam Hussein’s arbitrary expansionism.
In contrast, George W. Bush’s approach to Iraq the second time around was one of impatience and unilateralism. The United States made a pre-emptive decision to go to war with Iraq in early 2002, and only sought the cooperation and blessing of the United Nations belatedly and grudgingly after the repeated exhortations of the sole moderate voice in the Bush administration, Colin Powell, who was unsurprisingly a key player in the shaping of the first Gulf War policy.By then it was too late for Bush to receive any significant international cooperation other than that of Great Britain, much less construct a true Neoliberal Institutionalist coalition. The staggering economic cost, the loss of life, and resulting public relations disaster speak for themselves.
It is clear that in the current global political era, with technology shrinking and eroding borders, that the unilateralist, realist, and bipolar political paradigms of the past are no longer relevant. The notion of the individual nation-state is itself slowly becoming irrelevant, not only because of digital technology, but also because of the supremacy of multinational corporations who have no borders and no nation-state politics allegiances to speak of. The only forces that can regulate and focus these multinational corporations towards the common good are international institutions with similar global reach, power, and influence as the multinationals themselves, political institutions who represent the interests of not a single nation-state or narrow political ideology, but the common security and economic interests of large groups of peoples. For this reason, despite the Bush Administration’s alarmingly anachronistic political tendencies in the global stage, the philosophies of Neoliberal Institutionalism must be developed and adhered to in order to maximize peace and prosperity around the globe.
Tags: forms of government, nation states, neoliberal institutionalism, political paradigm, security relations
