Summary
Niblett described the essence of the liberal international order as a social progression that leads to the creation of open markets, democratic societies, and the significant propensity for governments and institutions to respect and protect individual human rights. Using the simplified explanation as to the real-world application of the liberal international order, the author went on to lament its demise. He said that the phenomenon, the so-called liberal international order is on a retreat. He cited China’s capability to challenge the United State’s economic and military hegemony in Asia. 1 He also pointed out the European Union and America’s failure to capitalize on the impact of the Arab Spring to build more liberal states. Niblett also cited the tremendous growth of Russia. Finally, the author pointed out that the problem related to the liberal international order is an internal dysfunction. He went on to cite the UK’s decision to leave the EU and other problems. Niblett developed a premise that due to the radical forces shaping the international arena, leaders of democratic societies like the United States and other countries in Europe must learn to adapt to the presence of diverse political systems. Niblett was confident to say that in the long run, liberal democracy will emerge as the victor in a struggle against non-liberal democracies.
Niblett went on to describe the root cause of the problem. He pointed out that the United States and the United Kingdom were at the forefront in the global expansion of the so-called international liberal order. These two countries were the critical players in the creation of institutions that would have ensured the creation of subsequence liberal democracies until the whole planet is soaked in the same political and economic ideals.
Nevertheless, it was also the US and the UK that inadvertently accelerated the demise of the said order. In the case of the United States, the new administration refused to support and invest in America’s allies. On the other hand, the United Kingdom withdrew its support from the EU. The implications of these changes were exacerbated by the political and economic turmoil within the United States and the UK. Thus, it has become harder for the US and the UK to take the lead in the global expansion of liberal ideas and the importance of fair play.
Niblett assured his readers that, in the long run, countries openly supporting liberal democracies are going to weather the storm and enjoy a better future. On the other hand, Niblett encouraged his readers to work together to accomplish better sets of goals. Nevertheless, Niblett also pointed out the weakness in the system, especially the failure of the United States to demonstrate the upside of choosing a liberal democratic framework. Also, the United States is perceived as a nation supporting liberal democratic ideals for its benefit. Niblett did not only encourage to solve the said problems, but he also said that the United States and the United Kingdom must lead the way again.
Critique
Reasons behind writing the article
Niblett crafted the article because of a growing concern regarding the shrinking influence of liberal democracies. The disappearance of the failure to celebrate liberal values and ideologies leads to the destruction of the stagnant growth of societies that valued the principles of freedom and equality. In other words, the author sounded the alarm and clarified his intention to fight back to retain the beautiful ideals of democracy. He wanted to ensure that the liberal ideologies created by liberal democracies are passed on to the next generation.
Unclear points in the article
It is not yet clear to me if Niblett cannot envision an international community without considering or thinking about the United States, the EU, and the UK. If this is the case, then, Niblett may have created an argument that is not possible to overcome. Consider for instance the assumption that the United States and the UK are two of the most influential countries in spreading the ideas of freedom. Thus, the inability of the US to follow certain rules and guidelines undermines the country’s capacity for growth.
Points of agreement
I agree with the author’s idea to adapt to changing times. I agree with the proposal to learn how to co-exist with other nation-states even if these territories are not yet exemplifying the liberal thinking methodology that transformed countries in the EU and the US.
Points of disagreement
I am in disagreement with the implied idea that it is only through the benevolence of the United States and the EU that we may be able to experience the true meaning of freedom. It is not practical to ascribe everything to the United States. It is also the best time to consider other options rather than to support only one political entity. It is also high time to consider the potential of other independent nations to demonstrate their capability to construct the necessary political infrastructure to lessen the global dependence on the United States. It is imperative to improve the way people perceive the United States.
Impact on International Relations
Niblett’s article provided an overview of how influential nations like the United States and the UK are going to listen to the clamor of the people. He said that these powerful national states are going to shape and challenge the international order by establishing and supporting institutions. However, it also creates problems in the long run, because the United States and his allies like the UK are viewed as elite members of society, and that in reality they are not affected by the problems of ordinary people.
The Most Interesting Aspect of the Article
One of the most interesting ideas that came from the article was the failure of Russia to sometimes integrate his busies into a global system, because of the country’s antiquated system. In my opinion, it is imperative to take a long and hard look at Russia. The failure of the nation to advance to the next level of competition and robust growth will affect the other nations in the region as well.
The answers to the questions help highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the article. The article was brilliant in the way the author utilized historical facts and insights into world history to produce a compelling narration of the development of the said international liberal order. On the other hand, the same rhetoric also negatively affects how poor economies view the participation of the United States in global affairs. It is important to consider fairness or fair play before the United States government implements a strategy serving only its selfish interest.
Bibliography
Niblett, Robin. “The Retreat of Liberalism: The Demise of a Dream.” Foreign Affairs 1, no. 1 (2017): 17-24.