Liberal Internationalists Criticized for Being Utopian

This essay discusses the criticism of liberal internationalists for being utopian and explores the reasons behind it. It provides an explanation of the concept of liberal internationalism and its relation to utopianism. The essay also presents arguments from both sides and justifies the criticism with examples.

Running head: LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISTS CRITICIZED FOR BEING UTOPIAN
LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISTS CRITICIZED FOR BEING UTOPIAN
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1
LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISTS CRITICIZED FOR BEING UTOPIAN
Introduction
Utopia is the imaginary land where the citizens live equally without any lack of food,
shelter, security and safety. The concept stresses on equality based on economics, politics and
society including justice1. However, many have rejected this notion, as it does not refer to the
same equality as deemed by the different classes of the society. Liberal internationalists have
been criticized mainly for being utopian in their thoughts. Liberal internationalism is considered
a foreign policy that encourages intervention from the liberal states to other sovereign nations
with a view to follow liberal objectives. Liberal internationalists advocate the policies that are
opposed to the realists, isolationists or non-interventionists.
The aim of the essay is to present an argument regarding the criticism of liberal
internationalists for being utopian. The essay will first provide a thorough explanation of the
views of liberal internationalists and try to understand whether they are being utopian or not. The
main argument of the essay is to present that the criticism of liberal internationalists being
utopian is justified to some extent.
Discussion
Liberal internationalists
As describe already, liberal internationalists are those who advocate intervention into
other states for bringing about positive changes in the society. The liberal internationalists
believe that international progress is largely possible if international community cooperate
harmoniously with each other. The harmonious cooperation has to be between the political
communities. The liberal internationalists address the way the international system could be best
1 Habermas, Jürgen. "The concept of human dignity and the realistic utopia of human rights." Human Dignity.
Routledge, 2018. 52-70.

2
LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISTS CRITICIZED FOR BEING UTOPIAN
organized and reformed. Commonly, the liberal internationalists view violence as being the last
option for achieving a progressive society. They advocate multilateralism and diplomacy as
being amongst the best strategies to pursue. The liberal internationalists champion the formation
of international political structures for example, the European Union and organizations like the
United Nations.
Alexandra Gheciu observes that liberal internationalism achieved prominence in the years
immediately following the First World War. The author states that liberal internationalism
emerged due to the immense loss of life and property after the war and the absence of any strong
idea or philosophy to address this2. The author describes that the liberal internationalists wanted
to apply “broadly liberal political principles to the management of the international system so
that all sides end up better off than they would be otherwise”3. It was Woodrow Wilson’s
proposal of the formation of the League of Nations that helped the doctrine of liberal
internationalism to emerge. Wilson had encouraged in his proposal that nations must come
together to cooperate on an international scale.
Criticism of liberal internationalists
Thomas More was the first author who introduced the concept of Utopia in his book of
the same name during the 16th century. In his book, More talked about an imaginary or fictitious
land where the citizens lived merrily with everything in abundance4. This concept was then taken
up the modern day philosopher and political thinkers such as the liberal internationalists who
attempted to create a society in line with the utopia. However, the utopian concept received
2 Gheciu, Alexandra. "NATO, liberal internationalism, and the politics of imagining the Western security
community." International Journal 74.1 (2019): 32-46.
3 Ibid 2
4 Davis, James Colin. "Thomas More’s Utopia: sources, legacy and interpretation." Alternative Worlds Imagined,
1500-1700. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2017. 173-196.

3
LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISTS CRITICIZED FOR BEING UTOPIAN
heavy opposition from the modern critics because of its unprecedented reliance on an imaginary
world that is not possible to achieve in the modern world. Daniel Deudney and G. John Ikenberry
argued that utopia received major criticism due to two main reasons: first, because of it being
politically dangerous and second, because of it being thought merely as a fantasy. The author
then argues that the bad reputation of utopianism resulted from its close association with the
concept of communism and “the onset of postmodern incredulity”5.
The main criticism of liberal internationalism came from the realists for it being too
inclined towards utopianism. As Julien Kloeg notes, realists such as E.H. Carr and Hans
Morgenthau have fiercely criticized the liberal internationalist thought6. Carr argued that the
harmonious cooperation encouraged by the liberal internationalists only involves and favors the
“prosperous and privileged class”. Morgenthau further supported this notion stating that when
the main motive behind cooperation is power, each nation has the responsibility to “take
whatever action is necessary” to safeguard their respective boundaries and identity whether it is
cultural, social, economic or political. Both Carr and Morgenthau argued that institutions are just
the reflection of power distribution and solely based on the “self-interested calculations of the
great powers”. The views of the liberal internationalists weakens also by the fact that the
dominant powers of the world perceive that if one policy works in their favor, it would work in
other states as well. The realists argue that international peace and harmony as advocated by the
liberal internationalists becomes an exceptional stake of the dominant powers. Marit Böker
further notes that the realists considered liberal internationalists as being extremely naïve and
dangerously utopian. The criticism of liberal internationalists comes from the extreme criticism
5 Deudney, Daniel, and G. John Ikenberry. "Realism, Liberalism and the Iraq War." Survival 59.4 (2017): 7-26.
6 Kloeg, Julien. "Utopianism and its discontents." Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte 108.3 (2016):
451-468.

4
LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISTS CRITICIZED FOR BEING UTOPIAN
of the general utopian concept7. The critics of utopian thought argue that the utopias are not the
places necessarily that the readers would find amazing. In fact, the utopias might be regressive
for some because “one person’s utopia may be another person’s hell and that many utopias are
alarmingly authoritarian”8. This argument has credibility because it has been seen in the modern
century that the powerful nations have tried to dominate over weaker nations in the name of
establishing a harmonious, utopia like authority. The dominance of the British during the 18th to
the mid-20th century in more than half the world’s countries is an example of the liberal
internationalism being used for own stake.
It is interesting to note that liberal internationalism emerged in Britain itself during the
19th century. The primary proponents of this ideology included Richard Cobden, John Bright,
Herbert Spencer and John Stuart Mill. These proponents witnessed increased hypocrisy and
violence in the international system that led them to believe that there needs to be another way to
transform the international system. As Jamie Gostlow observe, these proponents proposed ways
to end aristocracy and transit from mercantilism to free trade as the best ways to end violence
and hypocrisy9. The authors however argue that the British flag bearers of liberal
internationalists forgot to realize that transition to free trade from mercantilism could be
beneficial for Britain but not for other states. Proponents like Mill in fact associated liberal
internationalism to imperialism stating that the “backward” nations could be enlightened by the
powerful nations like Britain thus propagating imperialism. In the views of Matt Sleat the major
debate is not whether liberal internationalism is worthy of criticism or not but the debate is
whether liberal internationalists revived the imperialistic notion in the name of international
7 Dahrendorf, Ralf. "Out of utopia: toward a reorientation of sociological analysis." Utopia. Routledge, 2017. 103-
126.
8 Böker, Marit. "The Concept of'Realistic Utopia': Ideal Theory as Critique." Constellations: an international journal
of critical and democratic theory (2015).
9 Gostlow, Jamie. "Interwar Liberal Internationalism: Doomed to Fail?."

5
LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISTS CRITICIZED FOR BEING UTOPIAN
cooperation and harmony10. The authors argue that the liberal internationalists are mostly
optimistic about the progress of human kind, cooperation and overall peace. However, they do
not realize that the modern human nature is violent, pessimistic and opportunistic. The author
further argues that the international organizations that were formed on initiation from liberal
internationalists like Woodrow Wilson have turned out to be weak because these institutions and
organizations have failed to establish the utopia like state where people are treated equally and
provided adequate safety and security. In countries like Syria, human rights violations are
continuing and the liberal internationalists could do nothing. The UN peacekeepers in these
nations have become powerless and weak. In contrast to this, Tony Smith argues that liberal
internationalists have been extremely successful in maintaining peace in the world especially
after the two World Wars11. It has been possible to abandon any further war owing to the
effective work of the liberal internationalists. On the other hand, G. John Ikenberry, Inderjeet
Parmar, and Doug Stokes present the argument that the liberal internationalism concept has been
the main reason behind the many conflicts and wars that occurred over the centuries. The authors
argue that the dominant nations had been engaged in establishing their dominance over the world
under the disguise of establishing a utopian state12. It is because of the liberal internationalists
that the world had to witness so many wars and conflicts.
In opposition to the liberal internationalist view, the realists viewed that each nation,
which is sovereign must be allowed to look after its own territory in terms of social, political,
cultural and economical. The internationalists themselves witnessed a split in ideology where
10 Sleat, Matt. "Realism, liberalism and non-ideal theory or, are there two ways to do realistic political theory?."
Political Studies 64.1 (2016): 27-41.
11 Smith, Tony. Why Wilson matters: the origin of American liberal internationalism and its crisis today. Vol. 152.
Princeton University Press, 2019.
12 Ikenberry, G. John, Inderjeet Parmar, and Doug Stokes. "Introduction: Ordering the world? Liberal
internationalism in theory and practice." International Affairs 94.1 (2018): 1-5.

6
LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISTS CRITICIZED FOR BEING UTOPIAN
some believed that change would be brought majorly through a change in the ideas of morality
by constructing significant institutions. Others were of the view that transformation could happen
if the values of the society are transformed, particularly by promoting democracy. After the First
World War, the hopes of many liberal internationalists were at risk and the Second World War
further crushed their hopes. Even after the formation of the League of Nations, the war
happened. Barry Hankins views liberal internationalism in terms of progress. The author argues
that the two primary drivers of progress for the liberal internationalists – international law and
commerce – have failed miserably13. As the realists argue, the international law is not for real
because it does not have any sovereign that could enforce this law. In terms of economic
progress through free trade, it has been argued that it only increases inequality and results in
conflict. The modern liberal internationalists however, deviate from the hardcore notions of the
former internationalists and state that the reformation of the world could happen by establishing
states that are independent to take care of their own selves and that international cooperation
could not be forced but offered when needed.
Conclusion
To conclude, it could be reiterated that the criticism of liberal internationalists of being
utopian is partly justified. The reasons for the criticism and its justification have been thoroughly
discussed in the essay. The essay has first explained the meaning of liberal nationalism and the
reason for its emergence. It then discussed the relation of liberal internationalism to utopianism.
The analysis showed that liberal internationalism is largely derived from the utopian concept.
Further, the essay discussed the criticism levied on liberal internationalism especially by the
realists. The realists argued that the liberal internationalists heavily inclined towards the notion
13 Hankins, Barry. "Statecraft and Salvation: Wilsonian Liberal Internationalism as Secularized Eschatology."
(2015): 154-156.

7
LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISTS CRITICIZED FOR BEING UTOPIAN
of utopianism, which makes it invalid. The essay further provided criticism of the concept and
justified those with examples.

8
LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISTS CRITICIZED FOR BEING UTOPIAN
Works cited:
Böker, Marit. "The Concept of'Realistic Utopia': Ideal Theory as Critique." Constellations: an
international journal of critical and democratic theory (2015).
Dahrendorf, Ralf. "Out of utopia: toward a reorientation of sociological analysis." Utopia.
Routledge, 2017. 103-126.
Davis, James Colin. "Thomas More’s Utopia: sources, legacy and interpretation." Alternative
Worlds Imagined, 1500-1700. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2017. 173-196.
Deudney, Daniel, and G. John Ikenberry. "Realism, Liberalism and the Iraq War." Survival 59.4
(2017): 7-26.
Gheciu, Alexandra. "NATO, liberal internationalism, and the politics of imagining the Western
security community." International Journal 74.1 (2019): 32-46.
Gostlow, Jamie. "Interwar Liberal Internationalism: Doomed to Fail?."
Habermas, Jürgen. "The concept of human dignity and the realistic utopia of human rights."
Human Dignity. Routledge, 2018. 52-70.
Habermas, Jürgen. "The concept of human dignity and the realistic utopia of human rights."
Human Dignity. Routledge, 2018. 52-70.
Hankins, Barry. "Statecraft and Salvation: Wilsonian Liberal Internationalism as Secularized
Eschatology." (2015): 154-156.
Ikenberry, G. John, Inderjeet Parmar, and Doug Stokes. "Introduction: Ordering the world?
Liberal internationalism in theory and practice." International Affairs 94.1 (2018): 1-5.

9
LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISTS CRITICIZED FOR BEING UTOPIAN
Kloeg, Julien. "Utopianism and its discontents." Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor
Wijsbegeerte 108.3 (2016): 451-468.
Sleat, Matt. "Realism, liberalism and non-ideal theory or, are there two ways to do realistic
political theory?." Political Studies 64.1 (2016): 27-41.
Smith, Tony. Why Wilson matters: the origin of American liberal internationalism and its crisis
today. Vol. 152. Princeton University Press, 2019.