Where Liberalism Fails

The Arab Spring spread to Syria in March of this year after a group of young people protested in the small southern town of Dara. They graffitied the words “The people want the regime to fall” on a wall and were soon after thrown in jail and tortured. Of course talk of revolution was spreading throughout the nation of Syria for some time, but now events that proved revolution was coming were popping up all over the nation. Men were seen in the middle of the day throwing things at a poster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, they destroyed a statue of the President’s father, Hafiz Assad, and buildings were burned all over the capital. [i] As the acts of rebellion increased in Syria, the government began to tighten its hold on the people. In April, they began to send troops and tanks into areas of conflict to keep control, but neither their military force nor the protestors were able to gain any ground.[ii]

Most of the modern free world supports these nations in their fight for freedom and democracy. We see the nations of the Middle East fighting for their rights and fighting to overthrow dictators and oppressive regimes that have ruled them for years. Western nations, like the United States, France, and Great Britain have always supported these revolutions, and their opinions are no different for the Syrian people. Earlier this year, these nations created a resolution for the Security Council to pass so that all member nations would have to instill economic sanctions on Syria in an attempt to put pressure on the oppressive regime. By forcing all nations to stop buying oil from Syria, it would remove a major source of income for the Syrian government. It would also send a message that the world will not trade with Syria under this oppressive regime, and if Syria wants to trade with the biggest oil consuming nations, they will have to comply with the will of the United Nations. But when this resolution went to a vote, Russia vetoed it so it can never be passed. This is a prime example of how liberal theory fails when put into practice.

There are two different parts to Liberal Theory. Liberal Pacifism, which says that if the government is run by the people, they will restrain the government from going into wars that the people don’t support. The point of the government is to represent the people, and to keep their best interest in mind. In the case of Syria, the people are revolting because the government is not giving the people what they want. This proves the theory correct because the people want a say in their government, and they will fight to get that right.

The other part of Liberalism is Liberal Institutionalism. This principle states that if nations are connected by trade, charters, or institutions they will be less likely to go to war with those nations. If two nations trade together, they won’t start a war with each other because that would stop that trade agreement costing both nations money and the resources they need to survive. This principle also suggests that nations focus all their energy on producing one or two things that they are really good at, and then trading for everything else they need. This is both better for nations because they produce more goods, but it’s also good for trading because then they are forced to work with other nations to obtain everything else. This connects the world in more ways, and this complex interdependence will lead to more peaceful connections between trading nations because the cost of war will become too high.

The problem comes when we talk about international institutions, like the United Nations. The United Nations is supposed to be a way for countries to come together to debate and discuss solutions to world problems. It brings all states together and unites them with combating common problems like poverty, hunger, and HIV/AIDS, access to education, health care, and gender equality.[iii] The UN also works to bring peace and justice to all member nations. The UN works by getting a committee of nations together to write resolutions for a specific global issue. Instead of individual countries fighting it out amongst themselves, now we have lots of different nations coming together to talk about the issues and come to a common solution. This is one way to make connections between nations and ensure that one country can’t have more power over another. The UN creates a sort of “international regime” that declares what states can and can’t do.

The UN is a great example of a liberal institution. It is made up of representatives from almost all the recognized nations of the world, and makes them work together to peacefully solve their problems. By creating a set of principles and expectations for nations to follow, countries know what they can and can’t do in the international community. North Korea is not allowed to be part of the United Nations because it breaks several of the international laws made by the UN. This is supposed to create a more peaceful world because all member states of the UN agree to these expectations and all resolutions that are passed by UN committees.

The problem with the UN then is that nations are not forced to follow through with the suggestions made in these resolutions. The UN can only function if all nations involved follow through with every resolution passed through the UN bodies. The other problem with the setup of the United Nations is that there are five countries that have veto power: The United States, Great Britain, France, China, and Russia. Any one of these countries can stop a resolution from getting passed with this veto power. These nations gave themselves this power when they created the United Nations after World War II.

This creates a lot of problems when the UN is trying to pass resolutions. In Syria, the United States, Great Britain, and France are all trying to get a resolution passed to force all member states to put economic sanctions on Syrian exports. This will put economic strain on the government of Syria and send a message that the international community does not agree with what President Assad is doing. This resolution would be one way that the world could help the people of Syria in their efforts without sending troops and military aid into the region. While this sounds like a good thing for other nations to agree on, this resolution did not pass in the Security Council because of Russia’s veto. Because that one nation decided they didn’t want to cooperate, the only way for these sanctions to go into effect is if individual nations decide to enforce them. If all five of the big world powers were forced to have these sanctions, it would send a much louder message and put a significantly larger amount of pressure on the Syrian government. Recently, Russia proposed a resolution to address the situation in Syria, but it was likewise rejected by the United States, Great Britain, and France because they believed it was too much of a violent means of action. Since the revolts began in March of this year, the United Nations has only produced two statements about the revolution, and has not passed one resolution to take action on it.

The United Nations is supposed to be a type of world institution that will be able to keep states in line, but the problem with this attempt is that not all nations have the same views on international issues. This is how the UN fails as a liberal institution. Any one P5 nation can stop any resolution from being passed. While the UN is supposed to be made up of nations that put aside their personal interests for the benefit of doing what is morally and socially just, this rarely happens. States still have their own agendas and their own alliances, and they are not willing to put money or troops towards missions that they do not agree with.  So while the idea of an institution, like the UN, can be seen as a big win for Liberalism when it works, in situations like Syria where it achieves nothing, one has to wonder if this is the right system to be using. It is certainly a step in the right direction, and if the nations of the world can continue to talk and discuss their problems in a structured environment, it can lead to great accomplishments. But as long as nations are not willing to compromise, some people are going to be failed by the UN as they wait for the international community to respond.

By putting five nations in charge of all the rest of the world, these powers are fighting over approaches to solve global issues, but not agreeing on any one plan. This causes nothing to get done because these countries can’t come to a consensus.  The east and the west have two different mentalities, and if they continue to fight each other, it is going to cost the lives of innocent people. So far in Syria, it is estimated that more than 2,600 people have died in the fighting, and that number will only continue to rise as the revolution continues.[iv] This is where the idea of a world government makes sense. A world government would need to be separated from states’ interests to fight for what is right for everyone. They would be a third party group with no agenda or country to defend. Perhaps some kind of Non-governmental Organization could do the job, or maybe another institution would be better, but this group would have to be made up of leaders, and not state representatives. Countries are not responsible enough to put aside their interests for the common good.

The reason why Liberal Pacifism works is because it plays on human nature. Trade agreements between nations lead to peace because countries need certain goods and they are not willing to lose those trade opportunities by going to war. But when it comes to Liberal institutions, personal interest wins out. The United Nations doesn’t function as a liberal institution because it has an idealist view of states’ abilities to work together. Realists are correct to say that states will always put themselves and their own self-interest first. This is the point where liberalism fails and realism succeeds. While the United Nations cannot come to an agreement on how to help the people of Syria, a world government could quickly decide between sanctions, military, or other means and get help to the people of Syria in a much quicker time frame.

---

[i] Abquzeid, Rania. "Syria's Revolt: How Dara'a Graffiti Stirred an Uprising - TIME." Time World. CNN, 22 Mar. 2011. Web. 01 Oct. 2011. <http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2060788,00.html>.

[ii] "Syria News - Protests (2011)." Times Topics - The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 Sept. 2011. Web. 01 Oct. 2011. <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/syria/index.html>.

[iii] "Millennium Development Goals." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. The United Nations, 2010. Web. 01 Oct. 2011. <http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/>.

[iv] MacFarquhar, Neil. "Disagreements at U.N. Stall Sanctions on Syria." The New York Times - Middle East. The New York Times, 28 Sept. 2011. Web. 1 Oct. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/world/middleeast/disagreements-at-un-stall-sanctions-on-syria.html?_r=1&scp=8&sq=syria&st=cse>.