Liberal Internationalism (AKA Liberal Interventionism)

[Jackpine Radical]

It is important for participants on a discussion board such as this to make sure we're all using language in the same way.

On some recent threads, various folks seemed to be either unfamiliar with, or somewhat confused about, a political doctrine that is often called Liberal Internationalism.

This is unfortunate since LI is starting to play a major role in our discussions of potential Presidential candidates.

Just in order to help us get our terms straight, I offer the following information, which I shamelessly cribbed from Wikipedia:

Liberal internationalism is a foreign policy doctrine that argues that liberal states should intervene in other sovereign states in order to pursue liberal objectives. Such intervention can include both military invasion and humanitarian aid. This view is contrasted to isolationist, realist, or non-interventionist foreign policy doctrines. These critics characterize it as liberal interventionism.

Liberal Internationalism emerged during the nineteenth century, notably under the auspices of British Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister Lord Palmerston and was developed in the second decade of the 20th century under U.S. President Woodrow Wilson.

Theory
The goal of liberal internationalism is to achieve global structures within the international system that are inclined towards promoting a liberal world order. To that extent, global free trade, liberal economics and liberal political systems are all encouraged. In addition, liberal internationalists are dedicated towards encouraging democracy to emerge globally. Once realized, it will result in a 'peace dividend', as liberal states have relations that are characterized by non-violence, and that relations between democracies is characterized by the democratic peace thesis.

Liberal internationalism states that, through multilateral organizations such as the United Nations, it is possible to avoid the worst excesses of "power politics" in relations between nations.

Proponents of the realist tradition in international affairs, on the other hand, are skeptical of liberal internationalism. They argue that it is power – diplomatic clout and military force (or the threat of it) – that ultimately prevails.

Examples
Examples of liberal internationalists include former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.[1] In the US, it is often associated with the American Democratic Party[citation needed]; however, many neo-conservative thinkers in the United States have begun using similar arguments as liberal internationalists and, to the extent that the two ideologies have become more similar, it may show liberal internationalist thinking is spreading within the Republican Party.[2] Others argue that neoconservatism and liberal internationalism are distinctly different foreign policy philosophies and neoconservatives may only employ rhetoric similar to a liberal internationalist but with far different goals and methods of foreign policy intervention.[3]

Commonly cited examples of liberal interventionism in action include NATO's intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina; their 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia; British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War; and the 2011 military intervention in Libya.[4]

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. I think part of that definition is self-contradictory.

To that extent, global free trade, liberal economics and liberal political systems are all encouraged.

I think we have enough proof now that "free trade" is actually in opposition to 'liberal economics', inasmuch as it is primarily beneficial to corporations and actively harmful to labour, driving down salaries and driving small producers into poverty as they now are forced to compete against giant conglomerates worldwide.

While there might be something liberal about 'fair trade', 'free trade' can not be considered 'liberal', even if various Democrats have been central in promoting it over the decades.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. Just as "classical liberalism"

has little to do with modern liberalism, or at least Progressivism (which, as a Cheesehead immersed in the history of Bob LaFollette, I see as more radical than the doctrines commonly called "liberalism.&quot

I kept my opinions out of the OP, but I certainly didn't mean to give the impression that I was endorsing the ideas--merely trying to clarify them. There is a huge overlap between liberal interventionism, neo-con policy, neo-liberalism, the Third Way (previously doing business as New Democrats), and free-trade corporatism.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. And, my other 'objection'

which I'm addressing separately, so as not to confuse the issues and replies, lies in the military and related intelligence 'interventions'.

I think we can all agree that it can be considered 'liberal' to act to prevent or mitigate disasters, whether by providing humanitarian aid, or even using military force to prevent imminent massacres, such as in Libya, when Gaddafi and Sons were promising to massacre an entire town full of rebels.

I'm not so certain it can be considered 'liberal' to plunge countries into chaos by deposing a dictator and allowing a power vacuum generate chaos, to support another country in its oppression of a captive populace, to spy on the heads of state of firm allies, to maintain 'black site prisons', or to use military options such as drones strikes in countries with whom we are not at war, indiscriminately killing civilians, or to kill our own citizens without due process.

Many such 'interventions' began under George W Bush, who certainly was no liberal, and were then continued, or even accelerated under the current administration. And I see no way that they can be considered liberal either in action or goals. You're not going to promote democracy or liberalism in other countries by serving as an example of 'what not to do with power'.

[leftstreet]

3. It's a Ruling Class Smiley Face for global resource extraction n/t

[pampango]

4. Nice. Thanks, Jackpine Radical. FDR showed his liberal internationalism often ending with the UN and

other multilateral organizations.

He obviously believed that a world linked through strong multilateral organizations dealing with politics and diplomacy, economics and finance, and military and security issues would be a better world. Of course, he lived through the republican isolationism of the 1920's which followed Woodrow Wilson's era of liberal internationalism.

He was skeptical of "every man for himself" in the domestic economy and society. He was equally skeptical of "every country for itself" in the international arena. In both, he saw the need for coordination, support and regulation that surpassed the individual person or country.