In a recent interview with the Financial Times, Avril Haines, former US National Intelligence director, discussed her transition from government to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, highlighting the concept of "cognitive capture" by influential think tanks and Wall Street. This phenomenon was previously observed during the 2008 financial crisis, where subtle forms of influence shaped Washington policymakers' decisions. Haines' claim that the world may be entering a pre-war period, potentially leading to a third World War, has raised concerns.
Historically, liberal internationalism emerged as a utopian ideal during the early 20th century, with the creation of the Carnegie Endowment in 1910 and Woodrow Wilson's 14-point statement in 1918. Both initiatives aimed to prevent future wars through education and international cooperation. However, the evidence suggests that this approach has failed to eliminate war. According to the Uppsala Conflict Data Programme and the Correlates of War Project, there have been between 250 and 500 armed conflicts worldwide between 1918 and 2025.
Despite significant advancements in education, global literacy rates have increased dramatically, from around 20% in 1900 to 90% today, and youth literacy averages 93% in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. The US, in particular, has seen substantial growth in higher education, serving millions of students. Nevertheless, the country has been involved in approximately 250 interventions abroad, according to the Congressional Research Service.
The persistence of war despite increased education and international cooperation raises questions about the effectiveness of liberal internationalism. Military historian John Keegan noted that war is a resilient and adaptable endeavour that mutates in response to efforts to control or eliminate it. The failure of institutions like the League of Nations and the limitations of the United Nations in preventing war have been acknowledged.
Avril Haines' suggestion that conflict management is crucial in preventing war has sparked debate. However, this approach must contend with the influence of the military-industrial complex, which spreads millions of dollars across think tanks, the legislative landscape, and government to militarize US foreign policy. The revolving door between government and think tanks has contributed to the persistence of war.
The utopian ideals of liberal internationalism have been challenged by the reality of war, and the role of money in perpetuating conflict has become a significant concern. The death of liberal internationalism at the hands of the military-industrial complex has been observed, highlighting the need for a more nuanced understanding of the complex factors driving conflict.
Ismail Lagardien, an external examiner at the Nelson Mandela School of Public Governance, has worked in the office of the chief economist of the World Bank and the secretariat of the National Planning Commission. His analysis highlights the need to re-examine the assumptions underlying liberal internationalism and to develop more effective strategies for preventing and managing conflict.
Key points
- The persistence of war despite increased education and international cooperation challenges the effectiveness of liberal internationalism.
- The influence of the military-industrial complex and the revolving door between government and think tanks contribute to the persistence of war.
- Conflict management, rather than prevention, has become a more realistic goal in the face of war's resilience and adaptability.
