Cobden

toc =Background= Richard Cobden was born in Sussex on 3rd June 1804 and died on April 2nd 1865. He applied his powerful intellect to "the newly important manufacturing interests of the North of England" (Brown et al., p. 521). These interests were based in the city of Manchester - hence, the "Manchester School" (ibid.). Cobden was proactive in the repeal of the Corn Laws. This legislation provided protection to local agriculturalists from imports, which raised the domestic price of bread and, thereby, put pressure on Manchester to pay higher wages to workers (ibid.). Cobden was a major advocate of the mid-nineteenth-century peace movement in Britain (ibid.). He regarded general free trade as the only means to international peace and, thus, was a vociferous opponent of traditional diplomacy (ibid., p. 538).



=Readings=

Online Editions

 * [|Russia (1936)]. In //The Political Writings of Richard Cobden//, Online Library of Liberty edition.

Summary
The early years of the nineteen century were characterised by trend towards a global economy (Brown //et al.//, p. 519). The question was what the implications of this would be “for the general conduct of international relations” (ibid.).
 * Overview**

To find a first detailed view that the whole nature of international relations had changed as a result of a globalised economy that emerged in the nineteenth century, we need to turn to Richard Cobden (Brown //et al.//, p. 521).

With the decline of the Ottoman power in the Balkans, there was official concern in Britain that Russia would become influential in the Balkans and capture Constantinople and the Straits, which would disturb the balance of power in Europe and threaten Britain’s rule over India. The perceived need was to therefore support Ottoman power and counter Russian expansionism (Brown //et al.//, p. 522). However, the liberal peace movement, which included Cobden (“One of the most vociferous advocates of peace”), opposed the official line (ibid). Cobden’s substantive arguments were based on his critique of the “balance of power” and the view that an active engaged foreign policy needed to be pursued by Britain if it were to sustain its prosperity and security (ibid.). A strong opponent of traditional diplomacy, Cobden regarded general free trade as the only route to international peace (ibid., p. 538).

Cobden’s aim in chapters III and IV of a pamphlet entitled //Russia, 1836// (extracted in Brown et al., pp. 538-549) (see summary below) is to “challenge the two principles which underpinned British foreign policy, the balance of power and the protection of commerce” (Brown //et al.//, p. 523). Chapter III on the balance of power presents the definition of balance of power as problematic and emphasises “the serious consequences of attempts to put the notion to practical use” (ibid).

Chapter IV, which deals with the protection of commerce, employs the full arsenal of arguments made by liberal internationalists over the past 150 years: Commerce rests on the cheapness of commodities which is compromised by high spending on the military, war would be a disaster for the nation; many successful trading nations have very low military expenditures, we cannot be the policeman of the world; the most important way in which we can exercise influence is by being a moral example to the rest of the world” etc. (Brown //et al.//, p. 523).

Cobden advocates non-intervention (Brown //et al.//, p. 523). Here it is interesting to compare Cobden’s principles for non-intervention with those of John Stuart Mill. Mill’s intrinsic argument for the norm of non-intervention is that those who are oppressed need to fight for their own liberty, rather than have it given to them, in order for that liberty to be meaningful to them. This principle focuses on oppression’s victim, and regards moral autonomy seriously (ibid.). Cobden, however, is not as concerned with this viewpoint. His major issue with intervention is the cost to the state of engaging in intervention (ibid.).

Cobden notes that Britain’s two stock justifications for intervening in the state policy of Europe typically have been the maintenance of the balance of power in Europe, and the protection of Britain’s commerce (in Brown //et al.//, p. 538). He also notes that this has required major expenditure by Britain, sourced from taxation, on its military, and, in fact, serves “as a pretence for maintaining enormous standing armaments” (ibid., pp. 538-539).
 * From "The Political Writings of Richard Cobden (in Brown //et al.//, pp. 538-549)**

Cobden calls the balance of power a “chimera” (a grotesque product of the imagination) and accuses various definitions of it as being vague and contradictory and the whole concept, as defined by various authorities, as not supported by empirical international relations, which throughout history have been plagued by conflicts and imperialism (in Brown //et al.//, pp. 539-541). He asserts that what ‘balance of power’ really means (if the phrase has, indeed, ever had a meaning) is the great powers holding the balance of Europe, e.g., ‘England has, for nearly a century, held the European scales – not with the blindness of the goddess of justice herself, or with a view to equilibrium of opposite interests, but with a Cyclopean eye to her own aggrandisement” (ibid., p. 541). For Cobden, the true path to a powerful state position is to be found in “labour, improvements, and discoveries [which] confer the greatest strength upon a people; and that, by these alone, and not by the sword of the conqueror, can nations, in modern and all future times, hope to rise to supreme power and grandeur” (ibid., p. 542).

__Protection of commerce__ Cobden questions the need to maintain military expenditure for the alleged protection of commerce (in Brown //et al.//, p. 543). He claims that the United Kingdom’s “national existence is involved in the well-doing of our manufacturers” (ibid., p. 544). Moreover, the success of the manufacturers is due to the “//cheapness// alone of our manufactures” and this fact protects the trade and allows it to grow, while its success is threatened only by the cheapness of another country’s manufactures (ibid.) (italics in the original). Furthermore, expenditure on militarisation increases manufacturing costs and makes trade less competitive because of imposts (i.e., the protection of commerce by strengthening the military is counter-productive). Given that commerce is no longer dependent on enforced colonies, it is not essential to incur high expenditure on a military force to command trade (ibid., pp. 545-546). Moreover, free trade is the key to security and preventing wars (ibid., p. 546).

In regard to intervention, Cobden—thinking about Russia and Turkey (which is threatened by Russia)—states that “the only course consistent with the instinct of self-preservation – is to hold ourselves altogether independent of and aloof from the political relations of both these remote and comparatively barbarous nations. England, with her insular territory, her consolidated and free institutions, and her civilised and artificial condition of society, ought not to be, and cannot be, dependent for safety or prosperity upon the conduct of Russia or Turkey; and she will not, provided wisdom governs her counsel, enter into any engagements so obviously to the disadvantage of her people, as to place the peace and happiness of this empire at the mercy of the violence or wickedness of two despotic rulers over savage tribes more than a thousand miles distant from our shores” (in Brown //et al.//, p. 547). In other words, Cobden supports a non-interventionist policy, at least where England’s interests are not at stake (ibid., pp. 547-548). Moreover, England would by example instruct other countries against the use of violent methods ("by dint of the cudgel") in international relations (ibid., pp. 548-549).

=Study Questions= (Add, answer, and discuss study questions for this author and reading) For Cobden, the concept of balance of power is a chimera. He sees the phrase as being defined in vague and contradictory terms. Moreover, he claims that history proves that there is no such thing as a balance of power among states in reality; it can be observed that international relations are riddled with conflicts and wars. Cobden believes that the phrase "balance of power" really means (if indeed it has a meaning) the //great// powers holding the balance of Europe. However, ultimately, according to Cobden, true power only comes from successful commerce. He is saying that, by way of an example, America's peace and prosperity are due to its trade with other nations ("as much connection as possible between the //nations// of the world"), rather than to some notion of "balancing power" (intercourse between governments). Cobden is most definitely a non-interventionist. He objects to the costs that intervention would impose on England's commercial affairs. Mill's is also a non-interventionist in the case of intervention to secure liberty for a people under dictatorial rule. Mill's grounds for non-intervention in this case is that 'true' liberty can only be acquired if the supressed are willing to suffer and die for it themselves. That is, liberty cannot really be appreciated unless it is self-acquired through personal sacrifice. War imposes a cost on commerce and is therefore not beneficial to commerce. The costs imposed by war remove England's competitive advantage in commerce, which, in turn, makes England less secure and prosperous.
 * What are Cobden's objections to the idea of a "balance of power"?
 * What does Cobden mean by saying that America's "50 years of peace" is the effect of a policy of "As little intercourse as possible betwixt the //Governments// as much connection as possible between the //nations// of the world"? How does such a policy differ from the idea of "balancing power"?
 * Is Cobden a non-interventionist? How do his reasons for (or against) non-intervention compare to Mill's?
 * What is the relationship between war and commerce, for Cobden? Can war help commerce?
 * Is Cobden's story plausible? Under what assumptions?

See answer above to question about whether or not Cobden is a non-interventionist. Moreover, Cobden believes that a better approach than intervention is to set an example to other countries through England pursuing peace. =External Resources= (Add links to useful external resources)
 * What does Cobden think about the possibility of improving other countries through intervention?