Liberalism vs Realism

Definitions

1. When realists observe the world system, they primarily see states struggling for power, each trying to consolidate its relative gain in a zero-sum game. The structure of the international system is thus rooted in this struggle, which is why realists contemplate little or no change in the structure of the international system.

2. A liberal, on the other hand, sees interdependence in the world system, a system in which every state cooperates on some level with other states. This cooperation is facilitated by institutions and established norms and ensures that every state maximizes its gain. Absolute gains, therefore, rather than relative gains, are the focus of liberals.

Question


Is there really such thing as "mutual gain" or "cooperation" in IR? Can a system or institution created primarily to benefit some states, in this case the big powers, be a viable framework for achieving mutual benefits?


Analysis


In spite of the level of cooperation and interdependence existing between Nigeria and the United States, for instance, nothing in terms of the benefits accruing to both states could rightly be construed as "mutual." Nigeria's goal may be to try as much as possible to make the most of its oil wealth, even if it means producing below its prescribed OPEC quotas in order to sell at a higher price - a situation many strategists in Nigeria would welcome. America, on its part, may use its leverage as a global power to block any attempt by Nigeria to procure any form of debt relief from IMF as payback for Nigeria's unfavorable oil policy.

The above hypothetical underlies my difficulty in truly appreciating the liberal analysis of the world system. It would seem that cooperation is only a veil used by states to conceal their struggle for power and security. Giant Multinational corporations are, in the same measure, indistinguishable from the world powers; they largely represent the economic interests of their parent states, and the states use their votes (or veto power) in international institutions, such as the UN and WTO, to return the favor.

In the end, in my opinion, cooperation would seem pretty much like a zero-sum game. States would cooperate when they contemplate a potential gain, refuse to cooperate if there is nothing in it for them, cooperate (and in the process lose) because they were fooled into thinking they stood to gain something (as is the case with most countries in Africa and the developing world), or forced into cooperating because they are too weak to resist the super-powers (for example, the nuclear non-proliferation treaties). In each of these scenarios, the powers who determine the nature and terms of the cooperation are rewarded in disproportionately huge ratios.

I don't know, maybe it's the Marxist in me, but international relations can't be simply construed as "international cooperation" when one group of nations pay lip service to the others only because they are too weak and poor to say "NO." Liberalism is Realism in disguise. Simpliciter.