Liberalism
...R. The conflict between both these trends of thought has become an important line that separates areas of control in modern IR theory. Liberal theorists believe that peace can be seen in the ‘Zone of peace’ as outlined by Tim Dunne (in the The Globalisation of World Politics, Baylis and Smith). Doyle believes that Liberal Democracies are unique as they show a preference for peaceful relations between themselves (the zone of peace) but maintain a healthy degree of conflicts with authoritarian states. However Doyle’s theory clashes with Rawls and Fukuyamas belief that Liberal Democracies are less likely to go to war with non liberal and authoritarian states because of the existence of a zone of peace. It is believed that a group of States that form the zone of peace will behave in a manner to prevent the strategic vulnerability of isolated liberal States, such as Israel, additionally it will allow for the pooling of strategic resources such that each state will contribute according to its developed strength. Whilst at the same time the development and expansion of one security umbrella-NATO, will take place. The zone will also inevitably be economically interdependent, this (according to Doyle) will underpin Liberal societies and help to minimise loss from world markets. Most liberal theorists believe that economic interdependence is a key factor in the establishment of the zone of peace. The binding trade agreements and close co-operation between liberal States were reinforced after the Second World War. With the USA who provided significant finance to establishment the Marshall Plan to aid Europe in its economic and structural revival. This was preceded by the setting up of the coal and steel community in 1942 and was followed and cemented by the Treaty of Rome in 1957- the effective start of the EEC (European Economic Community), which was in effect the first common market in 1958. This community (now the European Union) has paved the way for fifty years of peace within member States. The collective security system the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) has supported peaceful relationships within member States along with the United Nations (UN). However the predecessor to the UN, the League of Nations, failed in its objective to maintain peace with the outbreak of World War II. In terms of explanation it is believed that this was not due to a failure of Liberalism but was directly a consequence of the manner in which this crisis was handled. The League of Nations had become a talking shop for satisfied powers (Doyle-International Order and The Future of World Politics,p44), the war was also largely down to the treatment of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles after WWI. The active security controls established during the cold war remain largely in place in the liberal democratised world. With the end of the cold war in the late 1980’s a new form of security has been needed. Now instead of countering the USSR, NATO and the UN has changed its focus to those countries which are seen as ‘rogue’ nations. That is countries that are not Liberal Democracies that are totalitarian or oligarchic regimes and do/may harbour movements or groups that have unfriendly intentions to the democratised world. The collective security systems have also made peace among each other, with different roles outlined by each so there can be no trampling on toes. NATO who establishes the peace is complimented by the UN who maintains that peace. These security bodies are themselves products of the liberal system; each member has the right to express their opinion on what should be done, with the addition of a veto if the course recommended is oppositional to the member states interests. This change in focus represents a change in thinking to the original Liberal thought that Liberal Democracies must not crusade their way to forcing other states to adopt a Liberal Democracy. Despite this, other means of persuasion are still being used to encourage other States to adopt a liberal democracy. Institutions like the EU are expanding their boarders (admitting new countries) frequently. The list of new states wanting to join Europe is growing constantly; with the inclusion of Turkey on this list it could well be that Europe will gain a foothold on the East. The attraction of the EU for other states are various but mainly consist of the need for economic expansion and as the EU is the potentially the largest economic force to date, non European states, that are never the less in the euro zone, wish to stabilise their economies by adopting the euro currency and thereby achieving a higher level of affluence. Another reason (especially for countries like Azerbaijan and Belarus who are ex Soviet satellites) is security. As mentioned earlier the countries who are members of the EU have been at peace for fifty years, to increase this peace and to increase trading markets the EU must expand. The countries wishing to join Europe must adopt Liberal principles; they must have had at least two national elections (witnessed by independent observers), adopted at least the more basic human rights and incorporated them into their constitutions. Are the Liberal democracies actually Liberal. Liberal Democracies exude pathos of being the only way forward for a society and therefore being inherently right. However when examined in detail these Democracies have only a thin veneer of Liberalism. There are several examples that expose just how thin that veneer is. Liberal democracies export the virtues of liberalism in the following ways, through economic stability, security and diplomatic pressure. Those large Liberal democracies, who are reliant to some degree on the big transnational businesses for the employment of their citizens, seem to find it hard to reconcile their need for big business with their desire to export liberal ideals. Globalised big business is supposedly aiding developing and third world countries by offering them trading agreements. An admiral achievement you might say, that is, until you realise that these trade agreements stipulate that the third world developing countries must privatise their national industries. This means that developing countries which are already heavily in debt (some have debts per year which a...