John Mearsheimer 大錯覺 自由夢想與國際現實

大錯覺：自由夢想與國際現實

https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/the-great-delusion-liberal-dreams-and-international-realities-304268

John Mearsheimer，摘錄 Wajahat QaziU 2020 年 6 月 8 日

故事亮點

這本書必須引發一些靈魂的反省，並在此過程中在現實主義和自由主義之間創造一個中間立場和綜合。

這幾乎是一門精彩的政治理論和哲學速成課程，當然，也是一本清晰緊湊的國際關係手冊，其廣泛的職權範圍和前提是呼籲美國外交政策及其作者、著名的約翰教授的克製。 米爾斯海默稱之為“自由主義霸權”，《大錯覺：自由主義夢想與國際現實》是值得一讀的書。這位好教授以對人性的簡短而清晰的解釋開始了他的著作，提醒人們注意理性的局限性和人類是社會動物而不是原始個人主義者的“事實”，前者對人類“無法達成一致”進行了檢查。關於什麽構成了美好生活”，從而成為“衝突的根源”。

“根據這些關於人性和政治的思想，這位芝加哥大學教授繼續研究自由主義，“他認為自由主義有兩種變體——權宜之計自由主義和進步自由主義”。前者“傾向於對國家應該幹預公民生活的程度持最低限度的看法，而進步自由主義者則傾向於更積極的政府”。那麽，自由主義的兩種變體“對社會工程的有效性有不同的思考”。

政治自由主義有一個“處理衝突可能性的三管齊下的策略”：強調“每個人不可剝奪的權利、提供寬容的規範以及一個淩駕於社會之上並維持秩序的強大國家”。

米爾斯海默教授隨後將注意力轉向民族和民族主義的概念。在提到前者時，他將其描述為“對全世界絕大多數人具有真正意義的最高級別的社會群體”。這融入了民族主義理論，“民族主義理論解釋了世界各地的人們如何在社會和政治上組織起來”。”各國都回避好教授，總是認同具有特定地理空間的領土，他們將其視為神聖領土”[..]，”其主要目的是在與民族身份密不可分的領土上建立主權”。“主權要求其他國家不得故意幹涉其堅定致力於自決的政治”。這裏的推論是，國家需要國家，國家也需要國家

當自由主義成為外交政策的基本前提，重點關注不可剝奪的權利和社會工程時，米爾斯海默教授的觀點就是自由主義霸權——“一種高度幹預主義的外交政策，涉及在全世界各國進行戰爭和社會工程”。世界”的最終目標是創造一個完全由自由民主國家組成的世界。它還將致力於培育開放的世界經濟並建立處理經濟和安全問題的國際機構。”根據米爾斯海默教授的說法，這種邏輯會直接導致政權更迭”。

對比自由主義的外交政策和現實主義的外交政策，自由主義的支持者認為“自由民主國家不會互相開戰”，而現實主義則堅持認為“國際政治是一項危險的事情，國家會爭奪權力” 因為一個國家擁有的權力越多，它就越有可能生存下來，其推論是，“國際政治是一項危險的事情，各國爭奪權力是因為一個國家擁有的權力越多，它就越有可能生存”，教授 米爾斯海默認為，”在自助和無政府主義的世界中，各國必須盡其所能來提供安全”

相反，米爾斯海默教授認為，自由主義霸權會帶來代價，這些代價始於自由國家為保護人權和在全世界傳播自由民主而進行的無休止的戰爭。“一旦在世界舞台上被釋放，自由主義單極就會沉迷於戰爭”。單極國家的軍事化使外交發生了短暫的變化，其中“戰爭一旦開始就變得更有可能、更難結束”。例如伊拉克、利比亞、敘利亞和阿富汗的戰爭。 此外，“自由主義破壞了主權這一世界政治的重要規範，造成了體係的不穩定”。另一個重大成本是忽視地緣政治，這在烏克蘭危機中得到了體現，這位好教授認為，”問題的根源是北約的擴張，

這是一項更大戰略的核心要素，旨在將包括烏克蘭在內的整個東歐國家趕出俄羅斯的軌道並融入西方。”

米爾斯海默教授認為，自由主義外交政策的悖論在於“它最終可能會侵犯作為自由社會核心的個人權利和法治”。

這位優秀教授補充道，“自由主義霸權是圍繞三個使命建立的：增加世界各地自由民主國家的數量、促進開放的經濟秩序和建立國際機構”。但是，這些方法都存在缺陷：”米爾斯海默教授認為，核心問題是缺乏更高的權威來可靠地懲罰違反規則的國家。國際機構不是自主行為體，不能強迫一個國家在認為這樣做不符合國家利益時遵守規則”。因此，“在一個自助的世界中，控製盡可能大的全球力量是非常有意義的”。

作為結論，米爾斯海默教授通過“提出克製的理由”來總結他的論文，並建議“美國應該放棄其自由主義霸權的宏偉野心”，“華盛頓應該采取基於克製的克製外交政策”。 對現實主義和對民族主義的清醒認識限製了大國的回旋餘地”。這位好教授補充道，”雖然現實主義不是永久和平的公式，但與自由主義指導的政策相比，以現實主義為指導的外交政策將意味著更少的美國戰爭和更多的外交成功”

  米爾斯海默教授提出的論文是一篇引人注目的論文，非常值得與時俱進，其定義是流動性、變化性和“未知的未知數”。 從這個角度來看，這位芝加哥大學教授為美國提供了非常有用的標記和路標，讓美國能夠通過由現實主義告知或補充的民族主義原則來駕馭複雜、不確定的世界。從“自由霸權”到無休無止、代價高昂的戰爭以及隨之而來的混亂和不穩定，這一因果鏈是驚人的完美，因為幾乎不可能在好教授的論文中探尋裂縫，可以這麽說，它是由一個範圍定義的，學術的深度和廣度將政治理論、政治哲學、曆史、國際關係理論和實踐整體結合起來，所有這些都以強有力的分析為基礎。

但整個論文也存在一些明顯的問題。 例如，米爾斯海默教授似乎認為文化及其身份是給定的、不變的和靜態的。 但曆史表明情況並非如此。 先天與後天的觀念在現實生活中比比皆是。 如果文化和延伸的身份都是可塑的，那麽這就會對民族主義產生影響，民族主義既不是有機的，也不是原創的，而是一種平淡無奇的結構，是現代性的產物。 這樣一來，民族主義、文化和身份就沒有界限了——所有這些都是可滲透、可滲透的概念。 如果這一論斷成立，那麽國家的身份也可能會在一段時間內發生變化，而忽視以現實主義和民族主義為基礎的外交政策。 在體係和結構領域，米爾斯海默教授寄希望於中國的崛起來製止或削弱美國的單極格局，從而遏製美國的自由霸權反應，這種希望是令人擔憂的：它輕易地忽視了修昔底德陷阱，該陷阱粗略地認為，一個崛起的大國可以成為美國的挑戰者。 可能導致戰爭的主導國家。

此外，雖然確實不存在總體層麵上的國際社會，但歐洲聯盟過去和現在都是一個接近於存在真正的安全共同體並符合民主和平理論的結構， 實現普遍和平。 最後但並非最不重要的一點是，如果在主權的庇護下對侵犯人權行為不敏感，世界將變成一個黑暗的霍布斯世界，除其他外，可能會隨之而來對人權的自下而上的挑戰。 國際體係和結構以及米爾斯海默教授想要維持和維護的現狀（即權力平衡）可能會磨損和破壞。 總而言之，《偉大的錯覺：自由夢想與國際現實》是一本很棒的讀物，它不僅具有深刻的學術淵博，而且還具有莊嚴和清醒的品質，而這些品質在當代美國政治甚至全球格局中都非常缺失。 這本書必須引發一些靈魂的反省，並在此過程中在現實主義和自由主義之間創造一個中間立場和綜合。 兩者本身都會帶來巨大的危險和陷阱，特別是對於像美國這樣的強國來說。

大錯覺：自由夢想與國際現實 

The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities

2022 年 10 月 11 日

https://www.paradigmshift.com.pk/the-great-delusion/ 

進攻性現實主義之父約翰·約瑟夫·米爾斯海默圍繞對美國外交政策中的“自由霸權”和自由主義的批判構建了這部文學作品。 在《大錯覺：自由主義夢想與國際現實》一書中，他有條不紊地解構了上個世紀非常重要的自由主義外交政策範式。

關於作者

賽義德·巴西姆·拉紮 (Syed Basim Raza) 伊斯蘭堡國防大學哲學碩士學者。 他在 NUML 伊斯蘭堡獲得了碩士學位。

自由價值觀

各國為了弘揚自由主義價值觀、促進國際和平，采取自由主義政策。 然而，約翰·米爾斯海默在《偉大的錯覺：自由主義夢想與國際現實》中反對這種自由主義主張，聲稱推動自由主義價值觀涉及幹涉他國事務，這可能會破壞國際和平，導致更多衝突和戰爭。

自由主義者還認為，自由主義將結束弗朗西斯·福山所聲稱的均勢政治，但米爾斯海默在否定這種和平理想方式的同時，堅持認為兩極或多極世界中的國家主要關心的是自己的生存，因為 無政府主義製度使得權力平衡不可避免，這也是現實主義者所堅持的觀點。 這最終使自由主義者建立和平、弘揚自由價值觀的夢想成為一個不可能實現的夢想。

政治理論

《偉大的錯覺：自由夢想與國際現實》一書的作者闡述了他的基本政治理論，解釋了對於理解政治理論至關重要的不同主要方麵。 他關於人性的基本假設是，人類的推理能力是有限的，而且他們本質上是社會動物。

在仔細分析理性的教育、宗教、經濟、哲學和法律方麵後，他得出的結論是，雖然理性有助於我們理解政治世界，但這種幫助是有限的，它不能為我們提供基本問題的答案。 作為社會性動物，社會交往是人類生存、成長和發展關鍵能力的先決條件。

米爾斯海默政治理論的另一個影響因素是文化。 盡管文化可以被拒絕或改變，但它仍然是保持社會完整並在社會群體的個體之間達成共識的強大統一力量。 此外，政治製度和社會群體之間的政治（群體內政治和群體間政治）在米爾斯海默的政治理論中也發揮著非常重要的作用。

由於所有社會群體都有擴張傾向的觀念（這是全球無政府體係的原因），他們在這一過程中可能會麵臨難以逾越的障礙或障礙。 他在總結自己的政治理論時說：“自由主義、現實主義和民族主義的偉大主義並不是在數學抽象的狀態下運作：它們以它們的方式運作，因為人性就是這樣的。”

政治自由主義

作者回顧了政治自由主義的概念，回顧了約翰·洛克定義的自由主義的基本理想和對個人主義的強調。 政治自由主義者采用三管齊下的策略來維護秩序和減少衝突，即強調每個人的權利、寬容、在寬容失敗時國家的需要，以及非常強調促進經濟發展 自由主義與資本主義非常相似。

另請閱讀：Covid-19 背景下的巴基斯坦經濟現狀

在政治自由主義的主要悖論中，寬容是非常突出的悖論之一。 自由主義者非常不能容忍對其理想和其他政治秩序的威脅。 另一個突出的悖論是，自由主義的核心既包含特殊主義，又包含普遍主義。

然後，作者將權宜之計自由主義者定義為那些相信個人權利不受國家幹預的人。 在解釋不同方麵時，他斷言臨時自由主義在某種程度上是一種悲觀的政治理論。 另一方麵，進步自由主義者認為，如果需要的話，國家必須幹預社會問題並進行一些社會工程。

它比權宜之計更有意義，這就是為什麽米爾斯海默願意詳細解釋兩種類型的進步主義，其中包括無限進步主義者（福山、平克和德沃金），他們認為自由主義思想得到了很好的培育和成熟，可以指導人類 走向共識。 像約翰·羅爾斯這樣的有限進步主義者有不同的想法，他們相信沒有一套真理是可用的，但自由主義者足夠明智，不會為他們的分歧而鬥爭。

進步主義超越了權宜之計，並且在美國政府中與共和黨和民主黨都具有非常顯著的相關性。 進步主義勝利背後的三大力量是工業革命、民族主義和和平時期的強烈軍事需求。

然而，米爾斯海默並不認為自由唯心主義和功利主義是政治自由主義的一部分，因為功利主義與政治自由主義有本質的不同，因為它忽視不可剝奪的權利等，而自由唯心主義也是如此，因為功利主義認為人類是社會動物。

民族國家

作者引用了本尼迪克特·安德森（Benedict Anderson）的話來啟發國家的概念，他將國家描述為一個想象的共同體，因為存在共融和橫向同誌關係。 在國家統一之前，人民的成員身份是以王朝領域的形式來確定的，人們被分為精英和普通民眾，他們根據共同的語言和共同的利益結合成一個國家，從而削弱了國家的地位。 階級差異和促進社區成員之間的平等。

文化、民族自豪感、曆史神話、共同領土和主權是當代民族國家區別於古代社會群體的特征。 一個民族需要一個國家來行使其自決權和生存權。 在多民族國家中，少數群體為了保護自己的文化和語言並防止其人民受到剝削，訴諸於建立自己的國家。

基於人口同質性的民族主義有助於國家培養一支龐大的愛國軍隊、實現經濟目標並使治理有效。 民族主義否定了普遍個人權利的自由主義理論，因為它強調僅生活在一個國家的人們享有一套平等的權利。 盡管存在差異，自由主義和民族主義可以共存，大量自由民族國家和文化厚重、寬容的多民族社會的存在就證明了這一點。

自由主義外交政策

米爾斯海默仔細觀察了強國采取自由主義外交政策（即自由主義霸權）的情況。 權利是自由主義的核心，保護這些不可剝奪的權利的最佳方式是將每個國家轉變為自由民主國家； 就這一點而言，自由主義國家總是會以軍事方式幹預其他國家的事務，並且永遠不會在進行各種社會工程方麵退縮。

這種政策的案例始於自由主義假設，即它將帶來永恒的國際和平，就像在一個充滿自由民主國家的世界中，不會有戰爭。 自由主義者非常傾向於進行政權更迭，以保護國外的權利，促進和平並維護國內的自由主義。

作者認為，無論是在國內還是國際領域，現實主義在未來幾個世紀中一直並將繼續發揮重要作用。 盡管現實主義本質上是一種特殊主義理論，並且現實主義中沒有權利或國際社會的地位，但現實主義和自由主義之間仍然存在著密切的關係。

作者提出了一個大膽的論點：自由主義霸權是一種愚蠢的外交政策，會導致戰爭失敗和外交失敗。 民族主義是增強對自由主義霸權抵抗的強大因素，對於自由主義者來說，民族主義可能在國際層麵上猛烈爆發，這種抵抗甚至可能演變成潛在的恐怖主義。

其他國家也可能出於現實主義動機而抵製自由主義者，並且它們可能有令人信服的理由來製止自由主義者的擴張主義和幹預主義政策。 米爾斯海默明確指出：“……在世界範圍內傳播自由民主注定會失敗，而不是成功”。

現實主義與民族主義

現實主義和民族主義是現代民族國家體係的基石。 由於不可否認的強權政治平衡，對生存和獲得大規模軍事力量的恐懼的現實主義邏輯驅使歐洲轉變為民族國家。 民族主義通過對文化一致性、統一、軍事力量甚至國內管理做出重大貢獻，從根本上強化了這種現實主義邏輯。

本尼迪克特·安德森 (Benedict Anderson) 指出：“自第二次世界大戰結束以來，每一次成功的革命都是以國家術語來定義自己的”。 米爾斯海默補充說，“世界國家”的可能性非常低，即使發生，也不會是一個自由主義國家，它必須用鐵拳統治，並在很長一段時間內保持穩定和存在。 是值得懷疑的，因此無政府狀態將繼續存在，大國別無選擇，隻能按照現實主義原則行事。

自由民主

自由民主建立國際和平的公式可以用三種理論來解釋：民主和平理論、經濟相互依存理論和自由製度主義。 然而，由於其範圍有限，這些理論在國際無政府狀態下實際上都不可行。

民主和平論

民主和平理論認為，考慮到自由主義價值觀，自由民主國家不會互相發動戰爭。 然而，民主和平理論的核心思想是有缺陷的，一戰等民主國家之間的戰爭就證明了這一點。 民主國家還在戰爭期間殘害平民，無視它們所擁護的人權。

此外，這一理論並不能解釋民主國家與以均勢為導向的非民主國家之間的對抗。 因此，隻要存在戰爭前景，各國的關注重點就仍將是確保生存，在此之前自由主義方法就無法取代現實主義邏輯。

另請閱讀：針對伊姆蘭·汗的不信任動議：巴基斯坦的政治苦難

經濟獨立論

經濟相互依存理論認為，國家之間的經濟相互依存使得戰爭成本更高，因此排除了任何戰爭的可能性。 然而，作者認為，當生存受到威脅時，不可能實現繁榮，因此仍然有可能發生一場經濟成本可控的有限戰爭。

此外，各國可能會發動戰爭，期望在勝利後獲得戰略和經濟利益。 此外，經濟相互依存本身有時會加劇國家之間的緊張關係，特別是在經濟緊張時期。 例如，歐元危機期間歐洲民族主義的複興。

自由製度主義理論

自由製度主義是最弱的理論，它認為國際機構規定的權利和義務阻止國家發動戰爭。 然而，這些規則大多符合強國的利益，而機構由於無政府體製而缺乏執行機製，因而力量薄弱。

自由主義者認為，機構的主要目的是加強合作，但作者反駁了這一觀點，認為隻有當國家利益重疊時，通過國際機構的合作才有可能，因為利益衝突可能導致國家之間的競爭，最終可能導致暴力 。 因此，作者自稱為現實主義者，斷言國家由於無政府主義製度和自由主義和平理論的局限性而不得不訴諸現實政治。

結論

米爾斯海默在《大錯覺：自由夢想與國際現實》的總結中提出了一些預測和建議，他斷言美國應該采取基於現實主義理想的政策，並認真考慮民族主義如何限製大國在國際舞台上的機動性。

毫無疑問，從理論上講，現實主義認為戰爭是一種強有力的工具，但有足夠的證據表明現實主義學者表現出更多的克製。 同樣，民族主義也是迫使大國采取克製政策、阻止其幹預別國事務的主要因素。

正如作者預測，未來可能有兩種情況：一是世界走向多極化，中國崛起，俄羅斯複活；二是世界走向多極化，中國崛起，俄羅斯複活。 在這種情況下，美國將不得不放棄自由主義外交政策，采取現實主義政策。 第二種情況是，如果中國經濟增長緩慢，美國將繼續奉行自由主義霸權的外交政策。

米爾斯海默作為一名溝通者是非凡的，他的想法和表達的清晰度無與倫比。 本書圍繞三大主義之間的關係展開； 現實主義、民族主義和自由主義，他為美國未來的外交政策前景提出了精彩的最佳建議。

作者關於現實主義的相關性以及民族主義和現實主義對自由主義的勝利的想法非常實用，當人們沉迷於國際政治舞台時，可以明顯地看到它們的應用。

The Great Delusion: Liberal dreams and international realities

https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/the-great-delusion-liberal-dreams-and-international-realities-304268 

By: Wajahat QaziU Jun 08, 2020

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

The book must lead to some soul searching and, in the process, create a middle ground and synthesis between realism and liberalism.

Almost in the nature of a brilliant crash course in political theory and philosophy, and of course, a lucidly compact International Relations handbook, whose expansive remit and the premise is to call for restraint in American Foreign Policy and what its author,  the eminent Professor John Mearsheimer calls 'liberal hegemony',  The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities' is the book to read. The good professor begins his tome by a brief but lucid exegesis on human nature, calling attention to the limitations of reason and the'fact' of humans being social animals instead of raw individualists, with the former imposing check on mankind's, 'inability to agree about what constitutes the good life' and thereby being 'the taproot of conflict'.

‘In the light of these ideas about human nature and politics, the Chicago University professor goes onto examining liberalism ‘which he suggests comes in two variants- modus vivendi liberalism and progressive liberalism’. The former, ‘tends to have a minimalist view of how much the state should intervene in the lives of its citizens while progressive liberals favour a more activist government’. Both variants of liberalism then, ‘think differently about the effectiveness of social engineering'. 

Political liberalism has a 'three-pronged strategy for dealing with the possibility of conflict': emphasis on'everyone's set of inalienable rights, purveying of the norm of toleration and a strong state that sits above society and maintains order’.

Professor Mearsheimer then turns his attention to the concept of the nation and nationalism. While referring to the former, he describes it as ‘ the highest level social group of real significance for the vast majority of people around the world’. This blends into the theory of nationalism which' is a theory that explains how people around the world are organized socially and politically’. ‘ Nations avers the good professor, invariably identify with the territory with specific geographic spaces,  which they treat s sacred territory’ [..] with ‘the principal aim being to establish sovereignty over that territory which is inextricably bound with the nation’s identity’.  ‘Sovereignty demands that other states not purposely intrude into its(states) politics which are deeply committed to self-determination’.  The corollary here is that nations want states and states want nations

Liberalism’s incorporation of when liberalism becomes the foundational premise of foreign policy with a focus on inalienable rights and social engineering, what accrues from Professor Mearsheimer's standpoint is liberal hegemony- ‘a highly interventionist foreign policy that involves fighting wars and doing social engineering in countries throughout the world’ with ‘ the ultimate goal of creating a world populated solely by liberal democracies. It will also work to foster an open world economy and build international institutions to deal with both economic and security issues. ‘This logic, according to Professor Mearsheimer, leads straight to regime change’.

Drawing a contrast between a foreign policy informed by liberalism, whose proponents believe that ‘liberal democracies do not go to war with each other’, and a realist one, which maintains that, ‘international politics is a dangerous business and that states compete for power because the more power a state has the more likely it is to survive and  whose corollary is that, ‘international politics is a dangerous business and that states compete for power because the more power a state has the more likely it is to survive’, Professor Mearsheimer posits that, ‘in a self -help and the anarchic world, states must do whatever they can to provide for their security’

To the contrary, liberal hegemony carries costs which, according to Professor Mearsheimer, begin with the endless wars a liberal state ends up fighting to protect human rights and spread liberal democracy around the world. ‘Once unleashed on the world stage, a liberal unipole becomes addicted to war’. The militarization of the unipole short-changes diplomacy, wherein ‘war becomes more likely and harder to terminate once it starts’.  Examples are wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan. Moreover, ‘liberalism undermines sovereignty- a significant norm in world politics, creating system instability’.  The other significant cost is that of ignoring geopolitics which is reflected in the Ukraine crisis where, according to the good professor, ‘ taproot of the trouble is NATO expansion, the central element in a larger strategy to move all of Eastern Europe, including Ukraine, out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West’.

The paradox of liberal foreign policy, according to Professor Mearsheimer,  is that ‘it is likely to end up violating the individual rights and the rule of law that are at the heart of a liberal society’.

‘Liberal hegemony is built around three missions: increasing the number of liberal democracies around the world, facilitating an open economic order and building international institutions’, adds the good professor. But, each of these approaches is flawed: ‘‘The central problem according to Professor Mearsheimer, is the absence of higher authority that can credibly punish states if they disobey the rules. International institutions are not autonomous actors that can force a state to obey the rule when it thinks that doing so is not in the national interest’. Therefore, ‘ in a self- help world, it makes eminent sense to control as large a share of global power as possible’.

By way of a conclusion, Professor Mearsheimer, wraps up his thesis by,’making a case for restraint’ and suggests that, ‘ the United States should jettison its grand ambitions of liberal hegemony’ and that ‘Washington should adopt a restrained foreign policy based on realism and a clear understanding of nationalism limits a great power’s room to manoeuvre’. The good professor adds that, ‘ although realism is not a formula for perpetual peace, a foreign policy informed by it  will mean fewer American wars  and more diplomatic successes than will a policy guided by liberalism’

 The thesis adumbrated by Professor Mearsheimer, is a compelling one and well worth the times, defined by fluidity, flux and ‘ unknown unknowns’. From this perspective, the Chicago university professor is offering eminently useful markers and signposts for America to navigate a complex, uncertain word through the tenets of nationalism informed by or complemented by realism. The chain of causality from ‘liberal hegemony’ to endless , costly wars and the attendant disorder and instability is breathtakingly perfect in that it is almost impossible to probe for cracks, so to speak, in the good professor’s thesis which is defined by a range, depth and breadth of scholarship that is holistic incorporating political theory, and political philosophy, history, international relations theory and praxis, all underpinned by vigorous analysis.

But there are some obvious issues with the overall thesis as well.  For example, Professor Mearsheimer appears to hold culture and identity thereof as given, immutable and static. But history suggests this is not the case. The notion of nature versus nurture abounds in real life. If both culture and by extension identity are malleable, then this has implications on nationalism which is neither organic nor original but is in the nature of a construct conceived both prosaically and is a product of modernity. There then is no boundary on nationalism, culture and identity – all are permeable, porous concepts. If this assertion holds then states’ identities can also change over a period giving short shrift to a foreign policy informed by realism and nationalism. On the terrain of system and structure, Professor Mearsheimer's hope, banking on China’s rise to check or wither United States unipolarity and thereby liberal hegemonic reflexes is fraught: it conveniently ignores the Thucydides trap which roughly holds that a rising power can become a challenger to the dominant state which can lead to war.

Moreover, while it is true that there is no such thing as an international community at the aggregate level, but the European Union was and is a construct that comes close to being one where a veritable security community exists and in accordance with democratic peace theory, general peace obtains. Last but not the least, if and when there is no sensitivity to human rights abuses and violations, under the shield of sovereignty, the world will become a dark, Hobbessian world where, among other things, there can potentially ensue bottoms up challenges to the international system and structure and thereby the status quo (read the balance of power) which Professor Mearsheimer, so wants to maintain and preserve can fray and fritter. All in all, ‘The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities’ is a great read, informed not only by incisive scholarship but also gravitas and sobriety- attributes that are sorely missing in the American political and even global landscape contemporarily. The book must lead to some soul searching and, in the process, create a middle ground and synthesis between realism and liberalism. Either, on its own, carries great perils and pitfalls, especially for a powerful state like the United States.

The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities

Oct 11, 2022

https://www.paradigmshift.com.pk/the-great-delusion/ 

The father of offensive realism, John Joseph Mearsheimer, constructed this piece of literature revolving around the critique of “liberal hegemony” and liberalism in US foreign policy. In “The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities,” he methodically deconstructs the liberal foreign policy paradigm that has been very relevant in the past century.

About the Author(s)

 

 Syed Basim Raza,  an MPhil scholar at the National Defence University Islamabad. He completed his Master's degree from NUML Islamabad.

Liberal Values

States, in order to promote liberal values and foster international peace, adopt liberal policies. However, John Mearsheimer in “The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities” opposes this liberal claim by asserting that the promotion of liberal values involves interference in the matters of other states which can undermine international peace leading to more conflict and wars.

Liberals also believe that liberalism will bring an end to the balance of power politics as claimed by Francis Fukuyama, but Mearsheimer, while repudiating this peaceful ideal approach, maintains that states in a bipolar or multipolar world are mainly concerned with their own survival due to the anarchic system, which makes the balance of power inevitable, a view also upheld by the realists. This eventually makes the dream of liberals to establish peace and promote liberal values, an impossible dream.

Theory of Politics

Laying out his basic theory of politics, the author of “The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities” explains the different major aspects that are of eminent importance for understanding a political theory. His basic assumptions about human nature are that humans have limitations on their ability to reason and they are social animals to their core.

After carefully analyzing the educational, religious, economical, philosophical and legal aspects of reason, he reaches a conclusion that while reason helps us in understanding the political world, this help is limited and it does not provide us with answers to fundamental questions. Being social animals, the aspect of social interaction is the prerequisite for humans to live, grow and develop critical faculties.

Another influencing aspect of Mearsheimer’s political theory is culture. Despite the fact that culture can be rejected or changed, it is still a strong unifying force that keeps a society intact and brings consensus amongst the individuals of a social group. Besides, political institutions and politics amongst the social groups (intra-group and inter-group politics) also play a very vital role in Mearsheimer’s theory of politics.

Owing to the notion that all social groups have a tendency to expand, which is a reason for the global anarchic system, they might face impregnable barriers or hurdles during this course. He concludes his theory of politics with the remark, “The great isms of liberalism, realism, and nationalism do not operate in a state of mathematical abstraction: they work the way they do because humanity is the way it is.”

Political Liberalism

Taking up the concept of political liberalism, the author goes back to the basic ideals of liberalism defined by John Locke and the emphasis on individualism. Maintenance of order and reduction of conflicts is managed by the political liberals using a three-pronged strategy i.e emphasis on everyone’s rights, tolerance, the need of the state in case tolerance fails, and a very strong emphasis on the promotion of the economy that makes liberalism very alike to capitalism.

Also Read:  The Current Situation of Pakistan's Economy in Light of Covid-19

Amongst the major paradoxes of political liberalism, tolerance is one of the very prominent ones. Liberals are very intolerant towards the threats to their ideals and other political orders. The other eminent paradox is that liberalism at its core contains both a particularist and a universalist strand.

The author then defines modus vivendi liberals as those who believe in individual rights without state interference. Explaining the different aspects, he asserts that modus vivendi liberalism is somewhat of a pessimistic theory of politics. Progressive liberals, on the other hand, think that a state if need be, must interfere in social problems and do some social engineering.

It is more relevant than modus vivendi and this is why Mearsheimer cares to explain in detail the two types of progressivism which include unbounded progressives (Fukuyama, Pinker, and Dworkin) who think that liberal ideas are very well nurtured and matured that they can guide humans towards consensus. Bounded progressives such as John Rawls think differently and believe that no set of truths is available but liberals are sensible enough not to fight over their differences.

Progressivism outran modus vivendi and has been very prominently relevant in US governments both with Republicans and Democrats. The three major forces behind the triumph of progressivism are the industrial revolution, nationalism and a strong military need for peacetime.

Mearsheimer, however, does not consider liberal idealism and utilitarianism as part of political liberalism since utilitarianism differs in essential ways from political liberalism due to its disregard for inalienable rights etcetera and the same for liberal idealism, for they believe that humans are social animals.

Nation-States

Enlightening the concept of nations, the author quotes Benedict Anderson who has described a nation as an imagined community since there exists communion and horizontal comradeship. Before the consolidation of nations, the membership of people was identified in the terms of dynastic realms, where people were divided as either the elites or the ordinary people, who combined into a single nation based on a common language and shared interest, thus diminishing the class difference and promoting equality amongst the community members.

Culture, national pride, historical myths, shared common territory, and sovereignty are the features that distinguish contemporary nation-states from ancient social groups. A nation needs a state for exercising its right to self-determination and survival. In multi-national states, minorities, in order to preserve their culture and language and to prevent exploitation of their people, resort to the urge of having their own state.

Nationalism based on homogeneity amongst the population helps the state to nurture a large patriotic military, meet economic ends and to make governance effective. Nationalism negates the liberal theory of universal individual rights since it emphasizes an equal set of rights only for people living in one nation. Despite the differences, liberalism and nationalism can coexist, as evidenced by the presence of a large number of liberal nation-states with thick-cultured and tolerant multinational societies.

Liberal Foreign Policy

Mearsheimer carefully observes the case of a powerful state adopting a liberal foreign policy i.e liberal hegemony. Rights lie at the heart of liberalism and the best way to guard these inalienable rights is by converting every country into a liberal democracy; for that matter, a liberal power will always intervene in other states’ matters militarily, and will never back off from doing all sorts of social engineering.

Also Read:  The Leverage Paradox: Pakistan and the United States

The case of such policy starts with the liberal assumption that it will bring eternal international peace, as in a world full of liberal democracies, there will be no war. Liberals are very inclined towards bringing a regime change in order to protect rights abroad, facilitate peace and safeguard liberalism at home.

Realism, according to the author, has been and will be relevant for centuries to come whether in the domestic or international realm. Despite the fact that realism is a particularist theory in its essence and that there is no place for rights or international community in realism, there exists a strong relationship between realism and liberalism.

For liberal hegemony to be a foolish foreign policy that leads to failed wars and failed diplomacy is a bold argument made by the author. Nationalism, a strong factor which enhances the resistance to liberal hegemony, can erupt in a viscous manner at the international level for a liberalizer and the resistance may even mold into potential terrorism.

Other states might also resist the liberalizer due to realist motivations and they might have compelling reasons to check the liberalizer’s expansionist and interventionist policy. Mearsheimer clearly states: “…spreading liberal democracy around the world is destined to fail much more often than it succeeds”.

Realism & Nationalism

Realism and nationalism are the building blocks of the modern nation-state system. Realist logic of fear of survival and attainment of large military force due to the undeniable balance of power politics drove Europe to transform into nation-states. Nationalism basically reinforced this realist logic by contributing majorly to cultural coherence, unity, military power and even domestic administration.

Benedict Anderson notes: “Since the end of world war 2 every successful revolution has defined itself in national terms”. Mearsheimer adds that the possibility of a “world state” is remarkably low and even if it happens, it won’t be a liberal state, it’ll have to rule with an iron fist and its stability and existence for a long period of time is questionable so anarchy is here to stay and the great powers have very little choice but to act by the principles of realism.

Liberal Democracy

The formula of liberal democracy to establish international peace can be explained in view of three theories: democratic peace theory, economic interdependence theory, and liberal institutionalism. However, none of these theories is actually workable under international anarchy due to their restricted scope.

Democratic Peace Theory

Democratic peace theory maintains that liberal democracies don’t go to war against one another taking into account liberal values. However, the core idea of the democratic peace theory is flawed as evidenced by the wars between democracies such as WW1. The democracies have also been involved in victimizing civilians during wars, paying no heed to the human rights which they champion.

Besides, this theory does not explain the confrontation of a democracy with a non-democracy which is guided by a balance of power. Consequently, as long as there is a prospect of war, the focus of the states will remain on ensuring survival and until then the liberal approach cannot supersede the realist logic.

Also Read:  The No-Confidence Motion Against Imran Khan: Pakistan's Political Tribulation

Economic Independence Theory

The economic interdependence theory asserts that economic interdependence between states makes war more costly and therefore rules out any chances of war. However, the author suggests that no prosperity is likely to be achieved when survival is at stake and therefore a chance of a limited war with manageable economic costs is still possible.

Also, the states may go to war expecting strategic and economic benefits in case of victory. Furthermore, economic interdependence itself sometimes fuels tension between states, especially during strained economic times. For instance, the reinvigoration of nationalism in Europe during the euro crisis.

Liberal Institutionalism Theory

Liberal institutionalism, the weakest theory, suggests that rights and duties, stipulated upon the state by the international institutes, prevent them from commencing a war. However, these rules are mostly in line with the interest of powerful states and also the institutes are weak since they lack enforcement mechanisms due to an anarchic system.

According to the liberals, the main aim of institutions is to enhance cooperation, but the author contradicting this suggests that cooperation via the international institutions is only possible when states have overlapping interests since conflicting interests can lead to competition between states which may eventually lead to violence. Therefore, the author, by calling himself a realist, asserts that the state due to an anarchic system and limitations of liberal peace theories have to resort to realpolitik.

Conclusion

Concluding “The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities” with some predictions and recommendations, Mearsheimer asserts that the US should adopt a policy based on realist ideals and strong consideration of how nationalism limits the manoeuvrability of a great power in the international arena.

There is no doubt that theoretically, realism considers war as a strong tool, but there is enough evidence that suggests that realist scholars show more restraint. Similarly, nationalism is a major factor that presses great powers to adopt a restraint policy and prevents them from intervening in other states’ matters.

As the author predicts, there can be two future scenarios: one that the world will turn to multipolarity with China as a rising power and the resurrection of Russia; in this scenario, the US will have to abandon its liberal foreign policy and adopt a realist policy. The second scenario dictates that if China faces slow economic growth, the US will continue to follow a foreign policy based on liberal hegemony.

Mearsheimer as a communicator is phenomenal and his clarity of ideas and expression has no match. Revolving the book around the relationship between the three great isms; realism, nationalism and liberalism, he beautifully devises the best advice for future foreign policy prospects of the US.

The author’s thoughts on the relevance of realism, and the triumph of nationalism and realism against liberalism, are very practical and their application can be seen demonstrably when one indulges in the International political arena.