In accordance with the anarchic world view, self interest amongst states, and the power discrepancies that are assumed within neorealism, it has been suggested that cooperation in the field of international relations is a futile effort,. Neorealism describes a system where states are the only actors, and a constant power struggle is what guides international policy, with no state wanting to yield power to another. I will counter this view of thought with aspects Neoliberalism, an ideology in which it is believed that mutual interests amongst rational actors can lead to cooperation, a hierarchy of importance of issues supersedes a hierarchy of nation-states, and transgovernmental institutions transcend the notions of the traditional
…show more content…
As stated by Mingst, neoliberal ideology maintains that cooperation will consistently occur, not necessarily out of any innate benevolence, but due to the fruitful benefits that it can bring for all involved (Mingst, 6th, 87). Unlike in neorealism, relationships are not necessarily zero-sum games, and the personality of the actors influences what the preferred outcome of the situation will be (Mingst, 6th, 89). Part of the struggle of international relations through the lens of neoliberalism becomes a battle of objectives and prevailing truths, rather than solely a tug of war for power. For example, imagine a hypothetical situation where Pakistan has been threatened by India and preemptively attacks India. China, seeing India as an up and coming rival which it wants to weaken, might come to the defense of Pakistan, supporting Pakistan in the international community, knowing that a weakened India will benefit China as well. Such an example would be illustrative of China’s “soft power,” to tailor a situation so that both countries can gain. Nye describes “hard power” as a push and “soft power” as a pull, with smart power existing as a combination of both (Nye 46-47). Powerful actors use relational power for agenda setting, in order to set the cards in their favor, by making other actors want what they want (Nye 47). Mutual interests can transcend all other barriers, enabling cooperation between
As stated by Mingst, neoliberal ideology maintains that cooperation will consistently occur, not necessarily out of any innate benevolence, but due to the fruitful benefits that it can bring for all involved (Mingst, 6th, 87). Unlike in neorealism, relationships are not necessarily zero-sum games, and the personality of the actors influences what the preferred outcome of the situation will be (Mingst, 6th, 89). Part of the struggle of international relations through the lens of neoliberalism becomes a battle of objectives and prevailing truths, rather than solely a tug of war for power. For example, imagine a hypothetical situation where Pakistan has been threatened by India and preemptively attacks India. China, seeing India as an up and coming rival which it wants to weaken, might come to the defense of Pakistan, supporting Pakistan in the international community, knowing that a weakened India will benefit China as well. Such an example would be illustrative of China’s “soft power,” to tailor a situation so that both countries can gain. Nye describes “hard power” as a push and “soft power” as a pull, with smart power existing as a combination of both (Nye 46-47). Powerful actors use relational power for agenda setting, in order to set the cards in their favor, by making other actors want what they want (Nye 47). Mutual interests can transcend all other barriers, enabling cooperation between