Global Change Threatens the Liberal Order - Assignment Example

Global Change threatens the liberal order of the of Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 International Liberal Order 3 Threats to the Liberal Order 4 Antithesis 6 Conclusion 7 References 8 Introduction The liberal order of the world in the past has been organised and upheld by the United States leadership. The system is now facing some sort of a crisis where there is confusion regarding power roles in maintenance of the international liberal order. The economy needs to undertake a rebalancing act in order to sustain the global order. In terms of economic situation, countries with surplus have to work towards improving their domestic demand in comparison to their potential outputs so as to open up to the global economy. If the domestic demand does not measure up, global economy might face with a complete breakdown (Nathanson, 2002). The world economy has been working in quite a complex way in the past decade. The critical role has been played by the global financial crisis and breakdown of the American rule and power (Groody, 2002). The paper is an analysis of present situation of the international liberal order and trends that have threatened its presence in the current context. The paper also analyses an antithesis that supports the previous order and concludes on a choice between the two opinions. International Liberal Order Liberal order in the context of liberal internationalism assumes that governments and people have a shared common interest towards establishment of the global cooperative world, despite the existence of restrains, sovereign equality and reciprocation. The optimist view for international liberal order goes forth to discuss that all states have the ability to overcome constraints with a view to cooperate, thereby resolving security issues, working towards collective action and consequently, developing a stable and open system (Steins, 2004). United States of America was deemed to be the champion of international liberal order until the twentieth century. The sponsor, function and role of United States have undergone a major change over the recent years. Facts such as, those pertaining to geo-political position of the United States, have been responsible for shaping up America’s liberal order, but more important aspects are the logic and character of this very liberal order placed within the global context. The political system of the western world, including currency, technology, alliances and markets, has been fused with the liberal order for providing a base for liberal internationalisation. During the Cold War, the United States developed towards becoming operator of the global capitalist form of liberal political order (Ikenberry, 2011). Threats to the Liberal Order With closure of the Cold War, peaceful terms that emerged were more in favour of the western nations and international liberal order. The geopolitical rivals and ideological challenges to American control over the world order appeared to be vanishing. The power that was vested with these rivals in over the past 4 decades was now entering into the unipolar territory of United States. This was perhaps ascent towards the supremacy of America and has been referred to as one of the biggest global challenges for position that is enjoyed by the United States of America. Nature and characteristics of leadership in relation to the United States was under the scanner with doubt and disputes only after fall of the last superpower (Burchill, 2001). The inherent troubles and insecurities that came through with unipolarity of power centralisation were considered as the grand strategy by Americans. The country’s foreign policy under the leadership of George W. Bush was considered as a deterrent towards American global leadership in the liberal international order. This weakening of power was further worsened by attacks of September, 2011. Bush administered a so-called world strategy in order to transform America into security provider of the world. This was done through deployment of armed forces across the globe and in manner of working unrestrained by any multilateral rules of the world liberal order over and above all other nations (Walter, 2002). United States was, hence, sending clear indications to the international community that America was above any law and out there fighting for itself and its position. Examples of validation for this statement was the Iraqi invasion, which was made without seeking required permission from the United Nations Security Council and the problems raised with and over the multilateral agreements and rules. This was a clear domination and displacement of existence of an international community (Mearsheimer, 2001). Such attitude towards unilateralism provoked close and old allies of the country to rethink over their merits of being associated with the United States and bearing their domination. The allies gradually began to come together in rejection of cooperation with the unilateral power and rejected the administration strategy being pursued by Bush (Deudney, 2007). As a result, the strategy was rendered unsustainable. Cooperation was highly desired by the country for combating terrorism, attaining financial stabilisation, ensuring environment protection, Chinese rise to power and nuclear proliferation. The alienation of the international community emerged as an antidote to the nation’s ascension to power and worked contrary to American interests. The limit to perform and function out of the international liberal order was reached and powerful nations were no longer tolerant towards such a ruling. It is unquestionable that the USA was itself powerful enough to `challenge all normative and institutional constraints, but all were aware of the fact that price for such an attempt would be phenomenal. In other words, America was responsible for making the rules and acting against those who did not abide by those. The United States might have had sufficient military power to establish a global empire, but nations in the world held tremendous economic power that would require America to face the consequences of such an act. The challenge to the global liberal order came through with a worldwide response to Bush’s administrative regimes and disagreements over policies and virtues of the American organization. In order to retain its leadership role, the US had to lose out on certain powers and authorities for the purpose of sustaining the world liberal order. However, the United States was not quite successful in its attempt towards materializing the strategy because of the global financial crisis that brought the economy to a standstill. Antithesis The American antithesis to itself, being the major threat to the global liberal order, has come forth with proposition of the idea that their actions are universal and act as strength for all the nations that have been threatened and plagued by immigration, terrorism, foreign influence and racial minorities. This, they believe is the core element in respect to their participation in demolition of the world international liberal order (Anatol, 2004). The recent trends that shook the global economic scenario, have brought the American culture of protectionism and economic strength to a standstill and also worked in a downward trend of its globalisation impacts, socio-economic position and economic mobility. This is also seen in America’s attempt towards revival as observed in the election campaign speech of Bill O’Reilly, where he wanted to revive the old and white population into power while lamenting over the loss of power (Brown, 2005). American leadership is desired by most nations for restoration of their strategic objectives, American commitment towards social security and stability in regional security. This implies that the United States military and its capabilities and strengths cannot be replaced by any form of alternative budgetary arrangements for East Asian and Middle East countries who seek military help from America. Negotiating over this issue with America shall again strengthen the global strength and position of the latter in event of successful negotiations. Middle East might lose out on American military as it is withdrawing troops and military actions in order to shift to a rule based system. The reversal in trend can be assured with the winning of Iran nuclear deal. Conclusion The above arguments point towards existence of and threats towards the global liberal order with the presence of America and also highlight strength of the argument that is put forward in favour of the statement. It is evident that the Americas has started to show revival signs through their disinterest in foreign policies and roll back of funds from international defence, foreign policies and foreign aid. The foreign challenges for the country are on a rise, but there are definite chances of threat from the nation again through the Iranian nuclear weapon deal. One might say that the world need leadership, focus and energy to remain free from any kind of dangers that might be lurking around the corner; but, the need of the hour is to establish a system that facilitates appropriate distribution of roles and power for sustenance of liberal international order while maintaining the role of America as a leader in critical areas. However, given the present economic situation, the United States might adjust to the new realities and has low chances of returning as a leader and to power because of domestic constraints. References Anatol, L. (2004). America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism. NewYork: Oxford. Brown, C. (2005). Understanding International Relations. London: Palgrave. Burchill, S. (2001). Theories of International Relations. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Deudney, D. (2007). Bounding Power Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village. New Jersey: Princeton. Groody, D. (2002). Border of Death, Valley of Life. UK: Rowan and Littlefield Publishing. Ikenberry, J. G. (2011). Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. New Jersey: Princeton Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton. Nathanson, S. (2002). Idealism World Book. UK: Pearson. Steins, J. (2004). Introduction to International Relations, Perspectives and Themes. London: Longman. Walter, R. M. (2002). Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World. New York: Routledge. Read More