John Mearsheimer 大错觉 自由梦想与国际现实

大错觉：自由梦想与国际现实

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

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

故事亮点

这本书必须引发一些灵魂的反省，并在此过程中在现实主义和自由主义之间创造一个中间立场和综合。

这几乎是一门精彩的政治理论和哲学速成课程，当然，也是一本清晰紧凑的国际关系手册，其广泛的职权范围和前提是呼吁美国外交政策及其作者、著名的约翰教授的克制。 米尔斯海默称之为“自由主义霸权”，《大错觉：自由主义梦想与国际现实》是值得一读的书。这位好教授以对人性的简短而清晰的解释开始了他的著作，提醒人们注意理性的局限性和人类是社会动物而不是原始个人主义者的“事实”，前者对人类“无法达成一致”进行了检查。关于什么构成了美好生活”，从而成为“冲突的根源”。

“根据这些关于人性和政治的思想，这位芝加哥大学教授继续研究自由主义，“他认为自由主义有两种变体——权宜之计自由主义和进步自由主义”。前者“倾向于对国家应该干预公民生活的程度持最低限度的看法，而进步自由主义者则倾向于更积极的政府”。那么，自由主义的两种变体“对社会工程的有效性有不同的思考”。

政治自由主义有一个“处理冲突可能性的三管齐下的策略”：强调“每个人不可剥夺的权利、提供宽容的规范以及一个凌驾于社会之上并维持秩序的强大国家”。

米尔斯海默教授随后将注意力转向民族和民族主义的概念。在提到前者时，他将其描述为“对全世界绝大多数人具有真正意义的最高级别的社会群体”。这融入了民族主义理论，“民族主义理论解释了世界各地的人们如何在社会和政治上组织起来”。”各国都回避好教授，总是认同具有特定地理空间的领土，他们将其视为神圣领土”[..]，”其主要目的是在与民族身份密不可分的领土上建立主权”。“主权要求其他国家不得故意干涉其坚定致力于自决的政治”。这里的推论是，国家需要国家，国家也需要国家

当自由主义成为外交政策的基本前提，重点关注不可剥夺的权利和社会工程时，米尔斯海默教授的观点就是自由主义霸权——“一种高度干预主义的外交政策，涉及在全世界各国进行战争和社会工程”。世界”的最终目标是创造一个完全由自由民主国家组成的世界。它还将致力于培育开放的世界经济并建立处理经济和安全问题的国际机构。”根据米尔斯海默教授的说法，这种逻辑会直接导致政权更迭”。

对比自由主义的外交政策和现实主义的外交政策，自由主义的支持者认为“自由民主国家不会互相开战”，而现实主义则坚持认为“国际政治是一项危险的事情，国家会争夺权力” 因为一个国家拥有的权力越多，它就越有可能生存下来，其推论是，“国际政治是一项危险的事情，各国争夺权力是因为一个国家拥有的权力越多，它就越有可能生存”，教授 米尔斯海默认为，”在自助和无政府主义的世界中，各国必须尽其所能来提供安全”

相反，米尔斯海默教授认为，自由主义霸权会带来代价，这些代价始于自由国家为保护人权和在全世界传播自由民主而进行的无休止的战争。“一旦在世界舞台上被释放，自由主义单极就会沉迷于战争”。单极国家的军事化使外交发生了短暂的变化，其中“战争一旦开始就变得更有可能、更难结束”。例如伊拉克、利比亚、叙利亚和阿富汗的战争。 此外，“自由主义破坏了主权这一世界政治的重要规范，造成了体系的不稳定”。另一个重大成本是忽视地缘政治，这在乌克兰危机中得到了体现，这位好教授认为，”问题的根源是北约的扩张，

这是一项更大战略的核心要素，旨在将包括乌克兰在内的整个东欧国家赶出俄罗斯的轨道并融入西方。”

米尔斯海默教授认为，自由主义外交政策的悖论在于“它最终可能会侵犯作为自由社会核心的个人权利和法治”。

这位优秀教授补充道，“自由主义霸权是围绕三个使命建立的：增加世界各地自由民主国家的数量、促进开放的经济秩序和建立国际机构”。但是，这些方法都存在缺陷：”米尔斯海默教授认为，核心问题是缺乏更高的权威来可靠地惩罚违反规则的国家。国际机构不是自主行为体，不能强迫一个国家在认为这样做不符合国家利益时遵守规则”。因此，“在一个自助的世界中，控制尽可能大的全球力量是非常有意义的”。

作为结论，米尔斯海默教授通过“提出克制的理由”来总结他的论文，并建议“美国应该放弃其自由主义霸权的宏伟野心”，“华盛顿应该采取基于克制的克制外交政策”。 对现实主义和对民族主义的清醒认识限制了大国的回旋余地”。这位好教授补充道，”虽然现实主义不是永久和平的公式，但与自由主义指导的政策相比，以现实主义为指导的外交政策将意味着更少的美国战争和更多的外交成功”

  米尔斯海默教授提出的论文是一篇引人注目的论文，非常值得与时俱进，其定义是流动性、变化性和“未知的未知数”。 从这个角度来看，这位芝加哥大学教授为美国提供了非常有用的标记和路标，让美国能够通过由现实主义告知或补充的民族主义原则来驾驭复杂、不确定的世界。从“自由霸权”到无休无止、代价高昂的战争以及随之而来的混乱和不稳定，这一因果链是惊人的完美，因为几乎不可能在好教授的论文中探寻裂缝，可以这么说，它是由一个范围定义的，学术的深度和广度将政治理论、政治哲学、历史、国际关系理论和实践整体结合起来，所有这些都以强有力的分析为基础。

但整个论文也存在一些明显的问题。 例如，米尔斯海默教授似乎认为文化及其身份是给定的、不变的和静态的。 但历史表明情况并非如此。 先天与后天的观念在现实生活中比比皆是。 如果文化和延伸的身份都是可塑的，那么这就会对民族主义产生影响，民族主义既不是有机的，也不是原创的，而是一种平淡无奇的结构，是现代性的产物。 这样一来，民族主义、文化和身份就没有界限了——所有这些都是可渗透、可渗透的概念。 如果这一论断成立，那么国家的身份也可能会在一段时间内发生变化，而忽视以现实主义和民族主义为基础的外交政策。 在体系和结构领域，米尔斯海默教授寄希望于中国的崛起来制止或削弱美国的单极格局，从而遏制美国的自由霸权反应，这种希望是令人担忧的：它轻易地忽视了修昔底德陷阱，该陷阱粗略地认为，一个崛起的大国可以成为美国的挑战者。 可能导致战争的主导国家。

此外，虽然确实不存在总体层面上的国际社会，但欧洲联盟过去和现在都是一个接近于存在真正的安全共同体并符合民主和平理论的结构， 实现普遍和平。 最后但并非最不重要的一点是，如果在主权的庇护下对侵犯人权行为不敏感，世界将变成一个黑暗的霍布斯世界，除其他外，可能会随之而来对人权的自下而上的挑战。 国际体系和结构以及米尔斯海默教授想要维持和维护的现状（即权力平衡）可能会磨损和破坏。 总而言之，《伟大的错觉：自由梦想与国际现实》是一本很棒的读物，它不仅具有深刻的学术渊博，而且还具有庄严和清醒的品质，而这些品质在当代美国政治甚至全球格局中都非常缺失。 这本书必须引发一些灵魂的反省，并在此过程中在现实主义和自由主义之间创造一个中间立场和综合。 两者本身都会带来巨大的危险和陷阱，特别是对于像美国这样的强国来说。

大错觉：自由梦想与国际现实 

The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities

2022 年 10 月 11 日

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

进攻性现实主义之父约翰·约瑟夫·米尔斯海默围绕对美国外交政策中的“自由霸权”和自由主义的批判构建了这部文学作品。 在《大错觉：自由主义梦想与国际现实》一书中，他有条不紊地解构了上个世纪非常重要的自由主义外交政策范式。

关于作者

赛义德·巴西姆·拉扎 (Syed Basim Raza) 伊斯兰堡国防大学哲学硕士学者。 他在 NUML 伊斯兰堡获得了硕士学位。

自由价值观

各国为了弘扬自由主义价值观、促进国际和平，采取自由主义政策。 然而，约翰·米尔斯海默在《伟大的错觉：自由主义梦想与国际现实》中反对这种自由主义主张，声称推动自由主义价值观涉及干涉他国事务，这可能会破坏国际和平，导致更多冲突和战争。

自由主义者还认为，自由主义将结束弗朗西斯·福山所声称的均势政治，但米尔斯海默在否定这种和平理想方式的同时，坚持认为两极或多极世界中的国家主要关心的是自己的生存，因为 无政府主义制度使得权力平衡不可避免，这也是现实主义者所坚持的观点。 这最终使自由主义者建立和平、弘扬自由价值观的梦想成为一个不可能实现的梦想。

政治理论

《伟大的错觉：自由梦想与国际现实》一书的作者阐述了他的基本政治理论，解释了对于理解政治理论至关重要的不同主要方面。 他关于人性的基本假设是，人类的推理能力是有限的，而且他们本质上是社会动物。

在仔细分析理性的教育、宗教、经济、哲学和法律方面后，他得出的结论是，虽然理性有助于我们理解政治世界，但这种帮助是有限的，它不能为我们提供基本问题的答案。 作为社会性动物，社会交往是人类生存、成长和发展关键能力的先决条件。

米尔斯海默政治理论的另一个影响因素是文化。 尽管文化可以被拒绝或改变，但它仍然是保持社会完整并在社会群体的个体之间达成共识的强大统一力量。 此外，政治制度和社会群体之间的政治（群体内政治和群体间政治）在米尔斯海默的政治理论中也发挥着非常重要的作用。

由于所有社会群体都有扩张倾向的观念（这是全球无政府体系的原因），他们在这一过程中可能会面临难以逾越的障碍或障碍。 他在总结自己的政治理论时说：“自由主义、现实主义和民族主义的伟大主义并不是在数学抽象的状态下运作：它们以它们的方式运作，因为人性就是这样的。”

政治自由主义

作者回顾了政治自由主义的概念，回顾了约翰·洛克定义的自由主义的基本理想和对个人主义的强调。 政治自由主义者采用三管齐下的策略来维护秩序和减少冲突，即强调每个人的权利、宽容、在宽容失败时国家的需要，以及非常强调促进经济发展 自由主义与资本主义非常相似。

另请阅读：Covid-19 背景下的巴基斯坦经济现状

在政治自由主义的主要悖论中，宽容是非常突出的悖论之一。 自由主义者非常不能容忍对其理想和其他政治秩序的威胁。 另一个突出的悖论是，自由主义的核心既包含特殊主义，又包含普遍主义。

然后，作者将权宜之计自由主义者定义为那些相信个人权利不受国家干预的人。 在解释不同方面时，他断言临时自由主义在某种程度上是一种悲观的政治理论。 另一方面，进步自由主义者认为，如果需要的话，国家必须干预社会问题并进行一些社会工程。

它比权宜之计更有意义，这就是为什么米尔斯海默愿意详细解释两种类型的进步主义，其中包括无限进步主义者（福山、平克和德沃金），他们认为自由主义思想得到了很好的培育和成熟，可以指导人类 走向共识。 像约翰·罗尔斯这样的有限进步主义者有不同的想法，他们相信没有一套真理是可用的，但自由主义者足够明智，不会为他们的分歧而斗争。

进步主义超越了权宜之计，并且在美国政府中与共和党和民主党都具有非常显着的相关性。 进步主义胜利背后的三大力量是工业革命、民族主义和和平时期的强烈军事需求。

然而，米尔斯海默并不认为自由唯心主义和功利主义是政治自由主义的一部分，因为功利主义与政治自由主义有本质的不同，因为它忽视不可剥夺的权利等，而自由唯心主义也是如此，因为功利主义认为人类是社会动物。

民族国家

作者引用了本尼迪克特·安德森（Benedict Anderson）的话来启发国家的概念，他将国家描述为一个想象的共同体，因为存在共融和横向同志关系。 在国家统一之前，人民的成员身份是以王朝领域的形式来确定的，人们被分为精英和普通民众，他们根据共同的语言和共同的利益结合成一个国家，从而削弱了国家的地位。 阶级差异和促进社区成员之间的平等。

文化、民族自豪感、历史神话、共同领土和主权是当代民族国家区别于古代社会群体的特征。 一个民族需要一个国家来行使其自决权和生存权。 在多民族国家中，少数群体为了保护自己的文化和语言并防止其人民受到剥削，诉诸于建立自己的国家。

基于人口同质性的民族主义有助于国家培养一支庞大的爱国军队、实现经济目标并使治理有效。 民族主义否定了普遍个人权利的自由主义理论，因为它强调仅生活在一个国家的人们享有一套平等的权利。 尽管存在差异，自由主义和民族主义可以共存，大量自由民族国家和文化厚重、宽容的多民族社会的存在就证明了这一点。

自由主义外交政策

米尔斯海默仔细观察了强国采取自由主义外交政策（即自由主义霸权）的情况。 权利是自由主义的核心，保护这些不可剥夺的权利的最佳方式是将每个国家转变为自由民主国家； 就这一点而言，自由主义国家总是会以军事方式干预其他国家的事务，并且永远不会在进行各种社会工程方面退缩。

这种政策的案例始于自由主义假设，即它将带来永恒的国际和平，就像在一个充满自由民主国家的世界中，不会有战争。 自由主义者非常倾向于进行政权更迭，以保护国外的权利，促进和平并维护国内的自由主义。

作者认为，无论是在国内还是国际领域，现实主义在未来几个世纪中一直并将继续发挥重要作用。 尽管现实主义本质上是一种特殊主义理论，并且现实主义中没有权利或国际社会的地位，但现实主义和自由主义之间仍然存在着密切的关系。

作者提出了一个大胆的论点：自由主义霸权是一种愚蠢的外交政策，会导致战争失败和外交失败。 民族主义是增强对自由主义霸权抵抗的强大因素，对于自由主义者来说，民族主义可能在国际层面上猛烈爆发，这种抵抗甚至可能演变成潜在的恐怖主义。

其他国家也可能出于现实主义动机而抵制自由主义者，并且它们可能有令人信服的理由来制止自由主义者的扩张主义和干预主义政策。 米尔斯海默明确指出：“……在世界范围内传播自由民主注定会失败，而不是成功”。

现实主义与民族主义

现实主义和民族主义是现代民族国家体系的基石。 由于不可否认的强权政治平衡，对生存和获得大规模军事力量的恐惧的现实主义逻辑驱使欧洲转变为民族国家。 民族主义通过对文化一致性、统一、军事力量甚至国内管理做出重大贡献，从根本上强化了这种现实主义逻辑。

本尼迪克特·安德森 (Benedict Anderson) 指出：“自第二次世界大战结束以来，每一次成功的革命都是以国家术语来定义自己的”。 米尔斯海默补充说，“世界国家”的可能性非常低，即使发生，也不会是一个自由主义国家，它必须用铁拳统治，并在很长一段时间内保持稳定和存在。 是值得怀疑的，因此无政府状态将继续存在，大国别无选择，只能按照现实主义原则行事。

自由民主

自由民主建立国际和平的公式可以用三种理论来解释：民主和平理论、经济相互依存理论和自由制度主义。 然而，由于其范围有限，这些理论在国际无政府状态下实际上都不可行。

民主和平论

民主和平理论认为，考虑到自由主义价值观，自由民主国家不会互相发动战争。 然而，民主和平理论的核心思想是有缺陷的，一战等民主国家之间的战争就证明了这一点。 民主国家还在战争期间残害平民，无视它们所拥护的人权。

此外，这一理论并不能解释民主国家与以均势为导向的非民主国家之间的对抗。 因此，只要存在战争前景，各国的关注重点就仍将是确保生存，在此之前自由主义方法就无法取代现实主义逻辑。

另请阅读：针对伊姆兰·汗的不信任动议：巴基斯坦的政治苦难

经济独立论

经济相互依存理论认为，国家之间的经济相互依存使得战争成本更高，因此排除了任何战争的可能性。 然而，作者认为，当生存受到威胁时，不可能实现繁荣，因此仍然有可能发生一场经济成本可控的有限战争。

此外，各国可能会发动战争，期望在胜利后获得战略和经济利益。 此外，经济相互依存本身有时会加剧国家之间的紧张关系，特别是在经济紧张时期。 例如，欧元危机期间欧洲民族主义的复兴。

自由制度主义理论

自由制度主义是最弱的理论，它认为国际机构规定的权利和义务阻止国家发动战争。 然而，这些规则大多符合强国的利益，而机构由于无政府体制而缺乏执行机制，因而力量薄弱。

自由主义者认为，机构的主要目的是加强合作，但作者反驳了这一观点，认为只有当国家利益重叠时，通过国际机构的合作才有可能，因为利益冲突可能导致国家之间的竞争，最终可能导致暴力 。 因此，作者自称为现实主义者，断言国家由于无政府主义制度和自由主义和平理论的局限性而不得不诉诸现实政治。

结论

米尔斯海默在《大错觉：自由梦想与国际现实》的总结中提出了一些预测和建议，他断言美国应该采取基于现实主义理想的政策，并认真考虑民族主义如何限制大国在国际舞台上的机动性。

毫无疑问，从理论上讲，现实主义认为战争是一种强有力的工具，但有足够的证据表明现实主义学者表现出更多的克制。 同样，民族主义也是迫使大国采取克制政策、阻止其干预别国事务的主要因素。

正如作者预测，未来可能有两种情况：一是世界走向多极化，中国崛起，俄罗斯复活；二是世界走向多极化，中国崛起，俄罗斯复活。 在这种情况下，美国将不得不放弃自由主义外交政策，采取现实主义政策。 第二种情况是，如果中国经济增长缓慢，美国将继续奉行自由主义霸权的外交政策。

米尔斯海默作为一名沟通者是非凡的，他的想法和表达的清晰度无与伦比。 本书围绕三大主义之间的关系展开； 现实主义、民族主义和自由主义，他为美国未来的外交政策前景提出了精彩的最佳建议。

作者关于现实主义的相关性以及民族主义和现实主义对自由主义的胜利的想法非常实用，当人们沉迷于国际政治舞台时，可以明显地看到它们的应用。

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.