Contrary to the theoretical assessments that focus on rationality as governing standards of international relations, the impact of personal factors, such as revenge, hatred and disharmony among political leaders, has spread to the interactions between states in such way that in some cases they verge on zero-sum game. The growing manifestations of revenge in international relations can be attributed to several factors, such as institutional weakness, ideological bias, growing populism, regaining hegemony and community memory.
There are several international shifts that help interpret the motives for revenge, such as the invasion of Iraq in 2003, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s support to overthrow Gadhafi, the Qatari hostile behaviour towards Arab countries, Qatari backing for extremist groups, and the attempts to revive the hegemony and expansionism as in the Wilayat el Faqih (the guardianship of the Islamic jurist) in Iran, Erdogan in Turkey and Putin in Russia. The leaders of those countries exhibit such behaviour as some sort of personal vendetta against those who contributed to destroying their former empire models.
Revenge Policies
Examples of personal vendetta phenomenon in international relations vary; most notably the decision of President Bush, Jr., to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein’s regime, whom he considered -according to his memoirs- a fateful decision. President Bush cited several justifications that pushed him to do so, including Saddam’s regime threats to neighbouring countries, harbouring terrorist elements, his praise of the September 11 attacks, and the use of mustard gas against the Kurds. However, the most prominent of these justifications is Saddam’s attempts to assassinate President Bush, Sr., who played a pivotal role in the liberation of Kuwait.
The second example is the direct role of the former French President Nicolas Sarkozy in the liquidation of Muammar Gaddafi in the wake of Libya protests in 2011. Some analysts argue that Sarkozy’s backing for Libyan protests stems from his desire for personal revenge after Gaddafi's announced that he had documents proving that Sarkozy received Libyan funds, which helped the latter to win the presidential election. This opinion was echoed by many Western writers, most notably was Catherine Graciet, in her book released in September 2013, entitled “Sarkozy-Kadhafi: Histoire secrète d'une trahison” or “Sarkozy-Gaddafi: secret history of a betrayal”, where she highlighted the Libyan funds which Colonel Muammar Gaddafi pumped to finance Sarkozy election campaign in 2007, which led him to the Élysée Palace, making him a president of France.
The third of these examples is the Qatari hostility toward Arab neighbours since the palace coup in 1995, through the antagonistic approach which Qatari leadership espouses in its foreign policy after some Arab countries voiced reservations about this coup, which created a desire for revenge from those who rejected the arrival of the new leadership though such method. The desire for revenge has become more clearly in the wake of Arab uprisings, as Qatar started to launch enticing calls to compromise the security and sovereignty of Arab States, and harbour terrorist and sectarian groups to destabilize the region (including hosting some elements of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda), as well as promoting literature and schemes of these groups across its media platforms, notably Al-Jazeera.
Motives for Political Retaliation
Various reasons have contributed to the emergence of the phenomenon of personal vendetta in international relations, the most important ones are:
1- Institutional weakness is one of the factors that lie behind the growing personal vendetta in international relations. It may be internally linked to the weak ability of the decision maker and the supporting elite in promoting certain decisions that serve personal interests without consideration for national interest, as happened in the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Despite the acknowledgment of Bush Jr., and Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister, of their strategic mistakes, when Blair famously said that: “I accept full responsibility” for invading Iraq. This followed the announcement of the results of John Chilcot’s Inquiry in July 2017, confirming that the arguments made to justify the military invasion of Iraq was misguided. However, the success of Bush and Blair in passing that decision reflects the institutional weakness, which was not limited only to state institutions but extended also to the position of international institutions that failed to prevent the invasion, which was carried out without its approval.
2- Ideological bias is evident in September 11, 2001 attacks which targeted symbols of American hegemony, as perceived by those who carried out the operation. Some analysts attribute this to the desire of the bombers for personal revenge because of the complete American bias to Israel. This has led the U.S. to react in the same way after knowing the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, the former leader of Al-Qaeda. The U.S. killed Osama bin Laden with the same mentality of revenge, did not bring him to trial, stormed his house in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and threw his corpse into the sea instead of burying him in a grave lest he becomes a shrine for extremists from all over the world, according to the American point of view.
3- Growing populism provides favourite environment for the growth of ideas which incite racism and xenophobia, as reflected in the President Trump’s rhetoric during his election campaign, his call for banning Muslims from entry to the U.S. and adopting a hostile rhetoric against minorities that are part of the American national fabric, as well as his calls to build a wall with Mexico to block the flow of migrants. That trend has become a global phenomenon with various versions and enhanced the rise of the far right in several European countries, which might point to the emergence of a “new fascist” era that deepens the belligerent behaviour and vengeance in foreign policies.
4- Revival of empires: some observers argue that the attempts of the Russian President Vladimir Putin to stage a comeback to the international arena boils down to his desire for avenge from those who had contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union. This is clear from his strong backing for the Assad regime, both through repeated use of the Russian veto in the UN Security Council, or through direct military support, and providing support for military operations to ensure the survival and continued existence of the Syrian regime as an ally.
In the same vein, the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan seeks to revive the Ottoman Caliphate as some sort of personal vendetta, as heir to the Ottoman Empire, as shown in his discourse to the European States, recalling the historic conflicts between the Ottoman Empire and European empires, because they refuse to grant Turkey membership in the European Union. In addition, Erdogan practices a policy of direct interference in the internal affairs of several States in the region, reminiscent of the expansionism of the Ottoman Empire. What reinforces this view is the Turkish leadership’s tendency to speak on behalf of the Islamic world, not Turkey only.
Moreover, there are the attempts of Iran Mullahs regime to restore the illusions of the Persian Empire, through the belligerent rhetoric of its political elite toward international powers that reject the rising of Iran. This led Ali Younisi, an adviser to President Rouhani, to say in March 2015 that Iran is an empire and Baghdad is its capital.
5- Exclusion and marginalization policies against minorities in some countries engender feelings of hatred and resentment against the political system, which some states employ in targeting the internal cohesion and stability through fomenting hatred, evoking historical injustices, fueling feelings of revenge among minorities against the State.
In this regard, Iran was able to stir sectarian conflicts in Iraq and Syria and Yemen by fomenting sectarian feelings in Arab societies, exploiting the legacy of national countries in treating some groups, to tear societies apart. The same applies to terrorist organizations that exploit the alienation of some individuals and their sense of isolation from society to recruit them and promote motives for revenge against their communities and those who are regarded as stumbling block to the expansionist project to reestablish the Caliphate.
6- Historical memory of peoples is one of the motives for revenge and retaliation between States. Some countries seek to regain its historical standing in regional surroundings, leading them to espouse antagonistic policies based on historical considerations. Values of national pride, greatness and feelings of proud of imperial history are among the principal values of doctrinal system of leaders who adopt revenge policies. In this context, the political behavior of the Russian President Vladimir Putin, his annexation of Crimea despite Western disapproval, can be interpreted as an attempt to restore the lost Soviet pride. Likewise, one can understand the reasons behind the swift and violent reaction of Turkey to shoot down the Russian warplane that violated its airspace, out of strong self-image that reflects impulsive reactions when faced with certain situations.
Overall, the manifestations of revenge in international relations are likely to increase with the rise of populist political leaders, who seek to rally public support through pledges to restore the imperial heritage of their States, the declining roles of institutions, the outbreak of sectarian conflicts due to deep-seated community divisions, the spread of the culture of hatred and vengeful motives among societies, which fuels conflicts between countries, and the deepening of intractable internal struggles.
