If confrontation of two super-states during an era of bipolarity
undermined principles of many provisions of a liberal and idealistic paradigm,
then the end of Cold War, on the contrary, became some kind of nutrient medium
for its revival. At the same time changes in the international system excluded
simple return to the former ideas. During integration processes in Europe,
America and Asia the countries of the New and Old World having the integral
sign of the state independence — sovereignty, show (though in different degree)
readiness unprecedented before to transfer a part – its to the sphere of joint
structures and institutes. There was obvious also another; to speak about dying
off of sovereignty and disappearance of the state obviously prematurely. Emergence
on the political map of the world of the new states is indisputable
demonstrates attractiveness of sovereignty and the state as political
institute. New, nonconventional threats to security became a call not only for
the realistic of theories, but also for many theoretical creation of the
liberal sense. Globalization of economic processes and distribution of
pluralistic democracy were followed not only (and it is possible, and not so
much) distribution of cooperativity as principle of the international
relations, but also emergence of new problems, collisions and the conflicts.
The neo-liberalism seeking to consider and reflect all these processes in the
theories significantly differs from an initial liberal and idealistic paradigm.

First, it puts forward in the center of all the conceptual creation of a
security concern. Secondly, focuses attention on economic problems. Thirdly,
actually transfers the center of gravity to moral standards as the incentive
force, a basis and criterion of regulatory actions in international policy. At
last, in – the fourth, approaches on a number of positions neo-realism.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

1.      What
is Neo-liberalism actually?

Neo-liberalism as a theory is interpreted ambiguously. Most often this
theory is based on free-market policies that support private firms and
expanding consumer choice while undermining the position of the “incompetent,
bureaucratic and parasitic government, incapable of doing anything good, despite
all my good intentions”.1

All actions somehow affecting domination of corporations are perceived
as the actions directed against the free market which is considered only as the
rational choice. At the same time the neoliberal aspirations of the strong
states are implemented by means of submission of weak, acting in the form of a
neo-imperialism. At the global level domination of the radical capitalism
breaking for the sake of the large capital, the international rules every time
when in it there is a need increases. At the solution of international problems
the international law is suppressed with the military force of great powers for
the benefit of the large capital.

1.1 Bases of neo-liberal
theory

The neo-liberalism is considered the defining theoretical
paradigm and political practice of our time. F. Hayek and M. Friedman are among
founders of the neoliberal model. Hayek firmly believed in individualism and
laws of the market. Its well-known work The Road to Serfdom was one of the
first in which it was claimed: “Neo-liberalism,
supporting increase in public wealth by means of the maximum expansion of
radius and frequency of market transactions, demands submission of activity of
people to a market mechanism”.2
David Harvey, analyzing this problem, noted that for neo-liberalism
market exchange is considered ethics capable to operate activity of the person,
replacing all his previous beliefs. Opening a role
of the state in the neoliberal concept of social development, Wallerstein
claimed that “it (state) is in relative darkness, playing on fingers with
boredom, and sometimes when does not sleep, swings a club or a revolver and –
waits. Its main function is protection against the malefactors trying to steal
something. It is engaged in it first of all already is here”.3 The
state in this case guards the interests of the large capital as the main
support of its monopoly, being covered with the myth about the free market
which assumes that success in economy requires existence of rivalry,
rationality and efficiency. The free market according to this myth is the
factor providing achievement of these purposes. “In the majority of
economies large corporations in which hands almost all control over the market,
as opposed to free competition about which it is very much told in textbooks on
economy and political performances”.4 J.R.
Saul about it fairly notes that “the belief in the global economic truth
weakened”.5
Crisis and fall of the neoliberal concept of the state are obvious. Especially the
free market does not function under all circumstances. Such ideals as democracy
or the free market are quite acceptable while rules of the game guarantee a
victory to the necessary players.6 So
considers also M. Parenti, opening the real face of multinational corporations
(mainly on the example of the USA) and showing as they control the governments
around the world, claiming at the same time that maintain democracy, supporting
actually the dictators profiting in their advantage.7 The
attention to neo-liberalism in the field of a theoretical and political thought
became noticeable after the 1970th. Deregulation, privatization and withdrawal
of the state from many fields of social support become characteristic. Besides,
supporters of the neoliberal direction hold high posts in education, mass
media, governing bodies of industrial corporations and the financial
organizations in important public institutions today.8  Thus, creation of a new world order is the
process leading to globalization of economy, protecting the interests of the
multinational corporations and financial organizations operating the
international economic activity of totalitarian capitalism.

2.      Implementation
of the neo-liberal theory through neo-imperialistic practice  

The end of the 20th century was marked by examples of the so-called
humanitarian intervention of the USA directed to maintenance of democracy and
maintaining human rights. Sounds almost ideally, but to believe in it, it would
be necessary to close eyes to a set of “the relentless facts”.9
The free market is highly appreciated, “especially by those who hope to
win a competition and are ready to neglect it the principles for the sake of
the interests”. The United States in this ruthless fight use the
ultranationalist methods providing them domination in the international
relations. “To a half of the 1940th years the American domination reached
unimaginable heights, giving a reason for praise of advantages of economic
liberalism in a tandem with appeals to increase huge state subsidies for
internal investments”.10

Implementation of the neoliberal concept of development at the global
level was the reason of deepening of social inequality, interfering with
development of democracy, especially if to mean that in such society large
corporations have all means and opportunities (including financial) for rendering
influence on political processes. The countries of Latin America very often
acted as an example of an economic miracle of the neoliberal concept of
development. Chomsky notes that expression “economic miracle” belongs
to a complex of the macroeconomic indicators reflecting receiving profit by
large foreign investors and local elite while other part of the population
lives in poverty. “While the economic miracle cheerfully progressed,
progress of Brazil was welcomed as an example of
miraculousness of the capitalist free market, the happy result of the
American leaders and friendly support. Now, when everything failed, it turns
out that Brazil did not follow indications of the USA and the healthy
principles of economic liberalism. Her misfortune is attributed to socialist
deviations of the state from economic orthodoxy. And all this is one more of
proofs of superiority of capitalism and free market”.11  

N. Chomsky notes that large corporations created almost sacred aura
around the main values of neo-liberalism and therefore seldom who resists them.
He fairly believes that democracy, human rights and economic doctrines are
force tools used in the exploiter purposes. These ideals are good until
guarantee obtaining benefit by that to whom follows. At the same time the USA
seeks for development of the so-called democracy from above which is
effectively controlling traditional power sources – generally corporations and
those who cooperate with them. It is about the so-called formal democracy which
is an insuperable barrier to implementation of the democratic rights. Words at
the same time gain double sense, one of them that which speaks in dictionaries,
and another – that which is used at present by capitalist powers. The main
thought of a new world order consists that the power has to belong to wealthy
men, and its creation represents the natural process leading to globalization
of economy for the benefit of multinational corporations and the financial
organizations. “The United States of America, undoubtedly, pursuing these
aims, will also pursue further the policy, using NATO and the World Trade
Organization, counting upon the fact that they can be controlled, will continue
to use also the UN, especially when it is required to shift to them
responsibility for certain problems”.12
If any actions are not pleasant to great powers, they are proclaimed a problem
of state security and the rule of the game after that do not work anymore. By
means of NATO of the USA seek to provide control and domination over the
European states. In this regard Paul Bairoch comes to a conclusion that
“it is difficult to find the best example in which the facts so would
contradict the dominating theory, as in a case with the doctrine claiming that
the free market is the main driving force of economic growth”.13
If circumstances demand to distract public attention from real problems, then
it becomes by a continuous “parade of enemies”.14
The neoliberal model of social development gains neo-imperialistic character
where the large capital follows rules of the game and the international rights
until it is equitable to its interests. On other party reaches poverty – a
global problem to which solution the General Assembly of the United Nations
attaches great value, having proclaimed the period of 1996-2007 decade of fight
for poverty eradication.

The relation of the USA to international law and legal institutes is
shown in their relation to the United Nations. K. Rice in January, 2000
condemned “reflexive respect (…) concepts of the international laws and
norms and belief that support of many states and, moreover, institutes, similar
to the United Nations, is crucial in questions of legality of implementation of
the power”.15
But when the number of members of the UN increased and the USA could not count
on absolute obedience any more, they changed the policy. “In our hands
there were force and wealth, the others had to do what we told them. However
owing to process of decolonization and expansion of the UN we could not count
on support of the majority any more. And we could not assume anymore that the
International Court of Justice and the UN could judge actions taken by us as
there was a probability of their disagreement with us. But it does not mean
that we are not right, it means that they are not right”.16  

Really, the Charter of the UN forbids threat of force and its
application, except cases of the compelled self-defense when an assault is
committed against any state. In all other cases use of force is forbidden,
except for explicit approval from the Security council. In practice it is
sufficient if great powers just indicate that there is a problem and the
international law can be ignored – despite of whether there are for this
purpose real bases. It is quite sufficient that “the international community”
decided that the authorities in some state threaten safety of the citizens, and
immediately “green light” for intervention will light up. In 2008, at
a conference in Berlin, Ban Ki-moon said that working by the principle of
responsibility for protection, “it is necessary to take in advance
preventive measures which do not require unanimity in the Security council or
the pictures of crimes shocking conscience of the world”.17 About
as far as human rights in time of numerous “humanitarian
interventions” are observed, also the results of one very interesting
research published in September, 2012 demonstrate.18
In it communication between military aggression against Iraq and increase of
number of cases of premature birth and the births of children with serious
anomalies in development is considered and the conclusion is drawn that the
reason of it and also increases in level of environmental pollution by toxic
metals (tin and mercury) are the used ammunition. There is a question – “Who
controls the international controllers?”  “They control themselves, and do it in
the way which would move to pity Monteskyyo
– one of the first theorists of division of the power”.19

The Middle East region is of great importance for the interests of the
large capital. Chomsky about it points to the aspiration of the USA to control
this territory, being guided by instructions: “… local management was ?????????????? in the Arab facade, absorbing colonies under the
guise of the constitutional fictions, such as protectorate, spheres of influence,
buffer states, etc.”.20
According to him, the USA blocked the solution of problems in the Middle East
in the diplomatic way for a number of years. Ideological systems make great
efforts to show that the United States face numerous problems of fanaticism of
extremists in the Middle East, and invasions of the USA are considered as the
interventions directed to acceleration of peace process. Chomsky notes that
here the possibility that Europe and Asia can “go in the independent way
acts as a key problem”, and control over the Persian Gulf and Central Asia
is an important factor of ensuring world domination. “At the same time in
comments in the West almost like due the thought that the purpose of invasion
was realization of the idea of the president about establishment of democracy
in Iraq”.21

 It is necessary to note also events in the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) which came under fire of neo-imperialistic
expansion of the USA to the east. Aggression lasted 78 days: from March 24 to
June 10, 1999, when the military and technical agreement was signed and the
Yugoslavian troops and security forces were withdrawn from the territory of
Kosovo and Metochiya. M. Parenti ambiguously characterized a case of bombings
of Serbia as a model of privatization of the bombings which are ideologically
aimed at that to make the world safe for the free market of capitalism.22
The angel of mercy behind himself left a great number of the dead, wounded,
refugees, the destroyed infrastructure (schools, churches, the media
companies), using at the same time the forbidden means (cluster bombs, the
grown poor uranium). It is estimated that during bombings of Serbia 10–15 tons
of the grown poor uranium which continues to make negative impact on life and
human health also today.23
After these events the Bondstil military base as the main proof of the
perverted American concept of association of Europe.24

It is known that not all states are able to enter the norms. Differences
in political, economic and military power are the main reason. “If India
makes invasion into Pakistan with the purpose to stop the terrifying crimes, it
is not norm. But, if the United States bombarded Serbia under a doubtful
pretext, it is norm. It means to have force”.25
Great powers under ideological aegis of the neoliberal model of social
development seek for establishment of the norms and if it cannot be reached
democratic means, neo-imperialistic methods are used.

 Conclusion

The analysis of neo-liberalism as the defining political and economic
paradigm of modern society shows that such model of social development,
creating the myth about the free market, leads to domination of multinational corporations
and the financial capital. In fact instead of performance of predictions of
supporters of the neoliberal theory other tendencies take place absolutely:
“Instead of the proclaimed full employment mass unemployment grows, and
the predicted economic growth turns into accident of planetary scales that
contradicts postulates of old and new liberalism which did not bring to
extremism of the neoliberal ideology which is represented as a new alternative
of postmodern development of capitalism”.26
There is a question: as well as why the neo-liberalism becomes dominating in
modern society?  D. Harvey notes that the
new economic orthodoxy regulating public policy in the developed capitalist
countries can find the answer in drama consolidation of neo-liberalism as, M.
Thatcher who arose in the USA and Great Britain in the 1980th won elections in
Britain in May, 1979 to begin to undertake reforms, and R. Reagan won Carter
elections in 1980. It led to the fact that the neo-liberalism became medicine
in fight against threats to a capitalist social order and against capitalism
diseases.27

Democracy developing by the neoliberal principles is focused on
development and receiving profit, and instead of contribution of social safety
of citizens as consumers and free individuals it promotes production of
consumers. What is often called development of market economy is the complete
antithesis, i.e. means by means of which the strong states try to obtain the
domination. It results in need of critical reconsideration of the modern public
processes calling into question the basic principles of the neoliberal theory.
This theory represents development of special totalitarian system which,
disappearing behind a mask of fight for democracy and human rights, has neo-imperialistic
aspirations. The intellectual elite in search of the truth has to be exempted
from conformism in relation to the power and the large capital. In this context
of N. Chomsky notes that the “responsibility of the intellectuals”
comprises key duality: erases a difference between “would follow” and
“indeed”.28
Responsibility of the intellectuals has to be same, as well as responsibility
of other people if it is no more as privileges bear in themselves and new
opportunities which, in turn, lead to increase in moral responsibility. The
intellectuals have to be engaged in search of the truth, but not spend the
abilities, creating reality according to indications of the centers of force as
“only the free person – to which does not pay either the power, or the
company – can truthfully present the discoveries”.29
The independent mind is capable to come off official doctrines and to
critically estimate reality because it is the only way which promotes that the
person, but not profit became the purpose.