The Promise and Problems of Internationalism

Abstract

Clobal Governance 5 (1999), 83-101 The Promise and Problems of Internationalism ® Cecelia Lynch nternationalism in the twentieth—century West is seen by its advocates as the antithesis of both nationalism and isolationism. It denotes a cos- mopolitan, nonparochial stance toward obligation beyond borders. As Alejandro Colas puts it, internationalism can be treated as “the concrete political expression of cosmopolitan theory.”‘ Internationalism has been conditioned by philosophical debates regarding cosmopolitanism while it has confronted the political backlash against involvement beyond one’s borders, usually termed isolationism. It has also been conditioned by de- bates over the role of militarism in the life of states and interpretations of the requirements of human dignity (in the form of “rights talk”) and eco~ nomic equity and well—being.? Most versions of internationalism promote the development of multilateral mechanisms as the primary institutional embodiment of cosmopolitan goals and the primary political means to re~ alize peace, human rights, and economic well-being worldwide. Internationalists, therefore, engage in both political philosophizing and political praxis. In both thought and policy, they have long formulated particular answers to the “inside/outside” problematique of sovereignty in the global order.3 This problematique resides in the tensions that exist in delineating the boundaries——political, economic, social, and cultural—of the state. These tensions are present, for example, in attempts to seal off the state from the conflicts and threats present in interactions with external political and economic entities. Internationalists reject these attempts as autarkic and isolationist. But the problem of sovereignty in the global order is also present in attempts to create an ideal political community “in- side” the state while externalizing or projecting the values, authority, boundaries, culture, or mode of production of this ideal community “out- side” to the international polity. These are the tensions of concern for intemationalists. Internationalists thus extol themselves for what they assert is their nonparochial view of international relations but conversely are criticized for masking parochialism, in a paraphrased combination of E. H. Carr and Robert Cox, in a cloak of problem—solving moralism/4 Critics of twentieth- century intemationalism thus charge its proponents with an unquestioning adherence to liberal ideology, utopian leanings, or insufficient attention to 83