Liberal democracy is a political philosophy that focuses on political rights. This paper introduces the main arguments presented in two Mearsheimer’s lectures, “The False Promise of Liberal Hegemony” and “Can China Rise Peacefully?”, to reveal the criticism of the liberal hegemony and to analyze the theory that explains the possible future of China. The arguments in the first lecture relate to the explanation of the liberal hegemony and how it leads to failure, concluding that it contradicts the country’s values. In the second lecture, his arguments are based on three assumptions: the United States is seen as Anarchy, it has the offensive military capability, and it cannot know the intentions of other States.
Mearsheimer has an opinion that the United States “are addicted to war” that happen due to the promotion of liberal democracy (Yale University, 00:29:30-00:29:37). The speaker gives an example of NATO expansion that is considered a cause of the war between Russia and Ukraine, and this war was not driven by a realist logic, just as the war between Russia and Georgia in 2008. For instance, the purpose of the conflict in Iraq was “to turn it into a liberal democracy to stop wars in the Middle East” (Yale University, 00:30:40-00:30:45).
He calls the idea of democratizing the Middle East foolish as that region did not have a democracy before, and the United States decided to do so at the end of a rifle barrel. This statement is opposite to the theory that states that democracies are more peaceful than authoritarian regimes as the wars are liberal driven. Hence, it proves that democratic countries have as many conflicts as other political philosophies, which can mean that liberal democracy may not be worth implementing all over the globe. I agree with the presented opinion as interfering in other nations’ business that has a different cultural background, and trying to change it is not a convenient approach.
Moreover, liberal hegemony leads to failure in many cases. The speaker presents various examples of countries, such as Iran, Iraq, and Syria, where the conflict happened on the grounds of “promotion of the liberal democracy” (Yale University, 00:35:20-00:35:45). As this regimen leads to conflict and promotes war, it prevents society from pursuing freedom. The United States is engaged in continuous warfare due to liberal hegemony, which contradicts the core values of the country.
Mearsheimer criticizes liberalism and liberal hegemony specifically, and he provides three reasons to explain why liberal hegemony is doomed. The first reason is that “social engineering in foreign countries is a difficult enterprise” (Yale University, 00:31:35-00:31:41). Foreign countries do not want foreigners to occupy their land. He gives an example of the U.S. blaming Russia for interfering in the 2016 election.
The U.S. tends to intervene in various circumstances and take steps that violate sovereignty to promote liberal democracy, and the consequences of this do not benefit American society. He then explains in the lecture, “Can China Rise peacefully?” that the United States can interfere in the other countries’ business as they have no security threats. This makes sense as it explains why the United States is the only country that has such a power to intervene in other countries’ business and why it desires to remain in this position.
The second reason is that nationalism is a remarkably powerful force. Mearsheimer puts it as “It’s not an easy sell” (Yale University, 37:18-37:20). A semi-authoritarian system may work better for people than liberal democracy as this system is not easy to achieve. Moreover, not all people are willing to accept liberal democracy for a variety of reasons. I think that the cultural and national background may create conditions in which a person would feel more satisfied with the semi-authoritarian or other similar systems rather than liberal democracy. Even though it promotes peace in the world, it may not be accurate for specific countries; hence, it complicates the process of spreading liberal democracy.
The last reason states that individual rights are important to most people around the world, but “they are rarely of great importance”, meaning that the concept of individual rights is oversold (Yale University, 00:35:12-00:35:35). Therefore, the rights are not privileged by how theory implies, and people are willing to sacrifice rights for stability. Thus, by explaining three primary reasons, he argues that liberal hegemony does not have enough ground to exist. Even though I support liberal hegemony opposition, I believe that individual rights will remain the most important individual concept as it becomes the ground for the further development of society.
To present arguments in the second lecture, “Can China Rise peacefully?”, Mearsheimer first assumes that China will rise and develop over the next twenty to thirty years. He describes a situation that is more likely to happen when China becomes more powerful. The first assumption states that the United States is the principal in international politics; they operate in the Anarchic system that declares that “there is no higher authority above the States” (UChicago Social Sciences, 00:05:20-00:06:12).
The second assumption asserts that every State has some offensive military capability. The third assumption states that intentions cannot be predicted. The difficulty of intentions is in the inability to know how decision-makers will choose to act in the future. Therefore, it is opposite to the capabilities that can be measured. Moreover, the prediction is complicated as it is impossible to be certain who will be a president in the next ten years.
Therefore, the United States needs to be extremely powerful to provide security and avoid other countries’ capabilities and intentions that can cause a potential threat. Mearsheimer states that the United States needs “to make sure you don’t have peer competitors” to be secure (UChicago Social Sciences, 00:18:57-00:19:00). That means that the United States does not want any other country to have such power. Other countries are more focused on their threats, which implies that they are not interested in the Western Hemisphere, which is the goal of the United States. This view presents the basic theory Mearsheimer describes in his lecture. The view makes sense when putting it together with the argument regarding the ability of the country to interfere in other countries’ business, as it explains why the United States wants to remain such an influential country.
Regarding the peers, the United States had four of them: “Imperial Germany, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union” (UChicago Social Sciences, 00:23:30-00:23:37). The United States contributed to defeating all of the listed unions as they did not want to allow any of them to dominate. This example can be tightened to the theory the speaker presents in the first part of his lecture, as it clearly shows that the United States has not been tolerating peers.
The last argument he brings is that China will imitate the United States as the country will try to maximize its domination to ensure that the power gap between them and other countries such as Russia or Japan is wide. Chinese are powerful enough to imitate the United States as they can supply the military and implement the Monroe doctrine. However, the United States will not allow China to dominate Asia.
He also explains that India and the United States started having better relationships as both countries fear China (UChicago Social Sciences, 00:31:00-00:31:19). Hence, most Asian neighbor countries will be in the balance coalition of the United States as “China is much more of a threat to them than the United States is” (UChicago Social Sciences, 00:31:00-00:31:19). The last issue he brings up is the security dilemma, stating that “anything that State does to defend itself looks offensive to the other side” (UChicago Social Sciences, 00:32:21-00:32:28).
That means that it is challenging to distinguish between offensive and defensive capabilities. Hence, the United States can go into defense, which will make China feel offensive, and the conflict will take place. I believe that this course of events is possible only if China becomes as powerful as the United States. However, I also accept that China may decide to predict the United States’ opposition and choose a different path that does not require conflict with the U.S.
Therefore, the first lecture gives an understanding of why liberal hegemony is doomed and clarifies how it negatively affects society. This understanding helps to explain why the United States is actively involved in warfare and how liberal hegemony is connected to such events, which allows concluding that liberal democracy may not be accurate for every nation. In the second lecture, clear historical examples allow accepting the theory that Mearsheimer presents, and predict the possible course of events in the next 20 years. His assumptions help to reveal a branch of events in which China succeeds and gets into the conflict with the United States, which is one of the possible courses in the future.
References
UChicago Social Sciences. (2013). Can China rise peacefully? Web.
Yale University. (2017). The false promise of liberal hegemony. Web.