Illiberal International Reexamined: Power, Fragmentation, and Institutions
Summary of the Text:
This text critically examines the emerging concept of an ”illiberal international” – the idea that authoritarian regimes are actively cooperating to challenge the liberal global order. While acknowledging the existence of transnational cooperation between authoritarian states,the author argues that characterizing this as a new,coherent ”international order” is an exaggeration.
Here’s a breakdown of the key arguments:
* The Rise of Illiberal Cooperation: The author recognizes that authoritarian regimes are increasingly sharing tactics for control (surveillance, dissent suppression), offering diplomatic support, and forming economic partnerships without political conditions. This is a real and concerning trend.
* Critique of the “Illiberal International” Concept: The author contends that framing this cooperation as a fully-fledged “illiberal international order” is misleading. It overstates the novelty, coherence, and stability of these interactions.
* Pragmatic & Transactional Nature: The cooperation is largely ad hoc, bilateral, episodic, and pragmatic – driven by immediate regime security concerns and power dynamics, rather than a shared ideology or long-term plan. Competition and distrust still exist between these regimes.
* Liberal Institutionalism is Not Disproven: The author defends liberal institutionalism, arguing it never predicted automatic normative convergence. It simply posited that institutions can foster cooperation in situations of mutual interest. The problem isn’t with the theory itself, but with the current political conditions within which institutions operate.
* Lack of Institutional Architecture: Unlike historical international orders (even illiberal ones), this alleged “illiberal international” lacks a common institutional framework, a clear set of norms, or mechanisms for enforcing commitments.
In essence, the author advocates for a more nuanced understanding of authoritarian cooperation, emphasizing its fragmented and self-interested nature, rather than viewing it as a unified force poised to overthrow the liberal order. The focus should remain on power asymmetries and individual regime calculations, rather than assuming a cohesive, alternative global order is emerging.