Liberalism, institution and international cooperation Cooperative Realist theory The fear of a common enemy ?Balancing? vs ?bandwagoning? Some other state more feared than each other More afraid of Soviet Union than of U.S. (weapon stationed in Germany) Realists say: join smaller many states other than big states (balance with the big powers) Balancing is the safest: smaller weaker state- powerful. But if one defects, they still can defend themselves If allied with strong states, there?s just strong state and you. The strong state defects and takes over you. (No one left to turn to)?Stalin joined forces with Germany and Germany turns around on USSR NATO will break off bc the common enemy (USSR) is gone. Power/ Hegemony Enforce cooperation on other countries Monitor and establish the rule on our own. Ie US can enforce embargo on Iraq (bomb oil tankers if you cheat) punishment larger than the possible gains. Is this ?cooperation? or threatening? Everyone is still better off. What is Pakistan doing for the War on terror? They knew what would happen if they declined the offer to cooperate? ?Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age. I think it was a rude remark.? Musharraf Balanced Agreements Relative gains not worried Equal benefits amongst actors Non-security issues Issues are not related to security Realists think everything is a security issue (trade alignment has security implications) Most issues are still not relevant to security of a sates Humanitarian issues, environmental missions People cooperate and help out Still the issue of collective cooperation Price of participating is so low, so it doesn?t matter i.e. 1% of US GDP, other states not doing their share but whatever so insignificant realists don?t consider this as selfless cooperation The intellectual origins of liberalism Enlightenment- John Jacque Rousseau, John Locke, Immanuel Kant Pessimistic assumptions Violent greedy beings as a nature Ability to reason*** (liberal theory core) use this ability to overcome our savage instincts and do the right thing Basic human goals security and prosperity not mutually exclusive with others Independence and the compatibility of goals All can strive for prosperity and survival. When interests conflict, people will not cooperate. But states do overlap interests sometimes. Common interests cooperate Sate of Nature (Hobbes) life will be solitary and poor; people could not trust each other. -> people won?t be solitary No choice but to trust other people. You have to depend on some other people if you want to prosper. Interdependent: blacksmith make iron, farmer makes food and hunt trade in return for each others?, may be stronger than my neighbor but I want the neighbor to survive and prosper (depend upon each other) Interdependency trust peace The power of reason can structure interactions to facilitate cooperation Structure states to somehow overlap interests and cooperate easier Kant: state of nature- state of war, states can work together and overcome ?nature? and ensure perpetual peace. Neo liberal institutionalism: states can overcome barriers by joining together in international institutionalism. ?Institution? concept broader. Any set of rules that states agree upon to structure their relationships together: institution, trade agreement, informal bilateral, anything,.. Institution and International Cooperation Providing a forum for repeated interactions Prisoner?s dilemma only in place because it happens once (no punishment, she is locked away for life) What if the states will get to play many times Get you back and punish you. Punishment makes cooperation look more rational Come up with different strategies. Look at what he did in the previous round and redo it. 1t round cooperate, then you do exactly what your partner did last round until your partner cooperates do unto others and they do to you reward your cooperation. cooperation is rational, we can cooperate in stages and make it work because each step was so small, the risk is small (al decreased nuclear weapons for botth sides Link disparate issues together If you cheat in one area,, the partner will cheat you on some other Even if its not the state, in some other issues your cheater reputation may be harmful incentive to act well distributing the gains of cooperation- facilitating ?side payment?side payments: additional incentives to sweeten one side of the negotiations to join. Equally distribute cooperation and power Russians can roll over the money and make firearms. Russia better off bc they saved 1 mil. Pay US 4.5 mil. 11 for the entire thing. Okinawa American soldiers why are we paying so much for Japan to protect their own selevs. Japan side payment Japan will pay for the forces to be stationed there. (US not losing relative growth Providing information (transparency and verification) Arms strategy ?strategic arms reduction treaty? (SART) They wouldn?t be truthful. Nuclear advantage on one end, he others Reason came up with two things to make cooperation possible Provision of on sight interaction Actually watch that the other side is doing whatever they need to. National technical means (spy satellites) Verification (chopped hangers) Reducing transaction costs Transaction costs: hiring all the lawyers, all the costs involved in cooperating If the costs are too high, its not worth agreeing upon. SART took over a decade, spy satellites, international lawyers, etc If you have a treaty, you have the rules lines out, the next treaty will be easy If you want to cooperate on lots of small issues, lots of benefit but small benefits in each Liberalism and Realism agree: IR is anarchic States are the primary actors States are rational and self-interested (doing it because of themselves) Wealth and power in question Only disagree on cooperation Liberalists: building upon themselves the more we cooperate, the better it will get?. Realists: don?t really buy it
Want to see the other 3 page(s) in jan_11_liberalism.docx?JOIN TODAY FOR FREE!