“Liberal foundations of the American great strategy, ultimately

 “Liberal
internationalism is the doctrine of foreign policy, which claims that liberal countries
must intervene in other sovereign countries so as to gain liberal and common
goals. In other words, such interference may include military intervention and
humanitarian assistance. The idea is contrasted with the isolationist, realist
or foreign policy­­­ doctrines of a non-interventionist policy advocate. Actually,
the history of liberal internationalism developed throughout the nineteenth
century, especially because of the auspices of the British Minister of Foreign
Affairs and Prime Minister Lord Palmerstone and was developed in the second
decade of the 20th century under US President Woodrow Wilson. Theoretically, the
main purpose of liberal internationalism is to obtain worldwide structures
within the global system that are prone to supporting a liberal world order. Alternatively,
all are encouraged by global free trade, the liberal economy as well as liberal
political structures. Additionally, liberal internationalists are devoted to a supporting
democracy to emerge internationally. Once accepted, this will lead to a ‘peace
dividend’, since liberal states have relationships that are characterized by a
rejection of violence and that, the relations between democratic states are
characterized by a democratic peaceful thesis.”

Over the past two decades, political polarization has
shaken the domestic foundations of the US strategy. External events, the end of
the cold war, the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq – were the main sources of strategic change. However,
internal processes also influenced the formation of US foreign policy. Indeed,
political polarization has shaken the domestic foundations of the American
great strategy, ultimately testing the bipartisan support for liberal internationalism,
the great strategy that guided the United States from the period of World War
II to the end of the Cold War. First, an open and law-based system corresponds
to the fundamental interests of the growing states. Straightforwardness enables
the growing states access to other communities in terms of trade, investment and
exchange of new potential ideas. For example, the development of China and
other emerging powers without a flow of unlimited investments from the US and
Europe in the past few decades would have been much slower. The further growth
of these countries will inevitably cause protectionist and discriminatory
measures on the part of states with slower rates of expansion, as they will
face the threat of losing jobs and markets. As a result, for the growing
powers, rules and institutions that support non-discrimination and equal access
will prove to be critically critical. The WTO is the most developed institution
of a liberal international order that protects these rules and norms. That is
why the power-gathering powers were so eager to join the WTO and obtain the
rights and guarantees that it provides to its members.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Liberal internationalism claims that, along with
multilateral organizations such as the UNO, it can be avoided the worst
surpluses of “power politics” in relations between countries. A
number of scientists claim that it is power – diplomatic pressure and a group
of troops which ultimately prevails. Liberal internationalists may be given as
an example:  former British Prime
Minister Tony Blair. In the US, it is frequently connected with the American
Democratic Party; however, many neoconservative supporters in the U.S started
using such proofs like liberal internationalists as well as, to the extent which
the two ideologies have become more identical. The liberal world order is not a
group of liberal-democratic countries, yet the global community of mutual aid
is such a global political group which ensures its members with tools of
economic along with political expansion. In addition, all members are provided
with trade facilities, dispute settlement instruments, a framework for team
action, normative treaties along with security warranties and resources during
crisis. If there are many reasons why the growing states are interested in
strengthening the liberal international order, then there are many obstacles to
those who want to overturn it. For example, in Brazil, China, India and other
countries, the influence of internationally-oriented elites is growing, thereby
promoting at the global level the growth of supporters of an open and law-based
international order. These elite states did not attend in the big deals to
create a liberal order in the initial post-war times, and they are willing to
review their states’ position through the system. Although they are eager to
see their countries position within the system, they still accept the
regulations and institutions of the old order. They are interested in the
security and rights that the Westphalia sovereignty protection provides, built
into the existing international order. They need the power of great powers.
They need protection and rights with respect to trade and investment. Furthermore,
they are focused on using the regulations and intuitions of liberal
globalization as a platform for rising impact and distinguishing their
legitimacy both inside the country and abroad.   

 

In my opinion, at present, analysts and experts
give different forecasts about the future of the global geopolitical order. In
recent years, a number of circles have come to the conclusion that the liberal
order is failing and has no prospects. Instead, a new system of international
relations may be formed, dictated by some rapidly developing countries. Its
main features will be the existence of various opposing blocs, the geopolitical
environment in which the United States is not a leader, the realities of the
historical stage of aggravation of rivalry between different regions. However,
according to most analysts, this is an incorrect forecast. At the present time,
a system alternative to the liberal world order has not yet been formed. In
addition, there are differences between the liberal theories of the twentieth
century and the global liberal order. In this context, it is impossible to
identify American hegemony with the liberal order. 

Comments are closed.