There is an ongoing and often heated debate about the best philosophy for managing international relations. This debate primarily revolves around countries that embrace "moral politics" and value-based rules, as opposed to those governed by realism and the evaluation of positions and policies based on interests.
The first theoretical framework views international relations as being guided by principles and societal values. These principles and values govern the agreements, procedures, and practices that the international community adheres to. This perspective has been closely associated with American foreign policy since its independence. American leaders have strived to make the country an "empire of freedom" and have actively promoted liberal internationalism. President Woodrow Wilson, in particular, championed this ideology and introduced a 14-point declaration in January 1918, which marked a departure from the pragmatic, conservative, and isolationist views of previous presidents such as Taft, Roosevelt, and McKinley.
The second philosophy, known as realism, suggests that international relations are governed by continuous competition between countries each which seek to assert their position in an international system without a regulatory central authority. Some of the most famous pioneers of realism include Corbet, Millet, Daumier, Corot, Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau, and Weber. More recently, the late former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was one of the most famous advocates of the philosophy of realism.
The United States: Between Realism and Moral Politics
In its official discourse, the United States urges most Western countries to base their international relations on moral principles and rules. This position was reasserted by Biden after it was overlooked by Trump. However, the U.S. often deviates from these principles if they are considered politically costly or if they conflict with its immediate interests. A recent example of these contradictions can be seen in its stance on Ukraine and Gaza.
Regarding Ukraine, the U.S. demanded that Russia respect international law and refrain from seizing the lands of others by force. It also called for adherence to international humanitarian law. However, when it comes to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and the reprehensible violence in Gaza (which surpasses the situation in Ukraine), Washington takes a contradictory stance. The U.S. maintains that Israel has the right to defend itself, even if it involves encroaching on people's land. In this scenario, many Western countries are satisfied with simply urging Israel to exercise caution with civilians, despite witnessing the loss of thousands of innocent lives.
Morality as a Means of Control?
A number of countries outside the Western alliance, led by Russia, believe that the West is using its moral approach as a tool to dominate the international system and counter argue that relations between nations should be governed by interests and regulated by the philosophy of abstract realism. This perspective helps explain Russia's decision to invade Ukraine in response to what it perceived as ideological and military encroachment by the West in Eastern Europe, which it considers a threat to its national security.
Russia and China have implemented realism by developing economic and military ties with Israel while emphasizing the importance of ending the occupation of Arab lands and calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The positions of countries following these two currents can change depending on precise calculations and the balance of their security, economic, and political capabilities. Sometimes, they advocate for respecting the international system and its rules and principles, which were established after the World Wars and prioritize the interests of developed countries. However, at other times, their actions are solely driven by their own interests, and they impose their positions with the balance of power in mind.
I believe that the genocide in Rwanda in the second half of the last century and the Israeli brutality in Gaza in the past months are dreadful examples of how the international community has shamefully remained passive and confused in the twenty-first century. To this day, it continues to be lost between unimplemented principles and a shameful realism that is far removed from humanitarian values.
A Third Way?
As far as developing countries are concerned, they find themselves caught between the interests of industrialized countries in the Western bloc and what remains of the Eastern bloc. Most of these countries are non-aligned and tend to be smaller in size and capabilities, making them more vulnerable to pressures. They prioritize realism in managing international relations and fear the imposition of one society's philosophy on another. They also reject the unification of governance and administration systems across different parts of the world.
At the same time, developing nations must recognize that the international community's reliance on principles and rules in international relations serves the interests of small and medium countries. These principles and rules aim to restrict the illegitimate use of force and ensure the universal preservation of rights, regardless of power or wealth. This framework is crucial for countries that cannot engage in direct security or economic confrontations with more powerful countries and their allies, except in exceptional cases where they endure significant suffering and sacrifices, such as the Vietnam War in the 1970s.
Given these considerations, developing countries seeking to safeguard their interests, freedom, and independent decision-making must make calculated choices to avoid wasting opportunities or making costly mistakes. The best approach is to adopt realistic and wise policies that are supported by sound international legal principles and rules, in order to achieve a balance in the economic and security power dynamics.
The Need for a Balanced System in International Relations
In order to serve the interests of the international community as a whole, it is important to establish a system that strikes a balance between "realism" and the adherence to principles and rules. Solely focusing on principles would result in their sporadic implementation, while exclusively prioritizing abstract realism would lead to countries taking advantage of opportunities at the expense of others, creating feelings of injustice and persecution. Such a system would eventually lose credibility and foster political opportunism, as well as a cycle of violence and counter-violence, which is evident in the current state of affairs.
Critics argue that the United Nations Charter and subsequent international agreements, rules, and covenants are not respected by powerful and wealthy countries, as we are witnessing today. I agree with these reservations and further assert that the international structure is flawed, as it reflects the power balance that emerged after World War II. Consequently, it prioritized the interests of victorious countries and their allies over others. Moreover, international morals and principles are applied inconsistently, and there is a lack of accountability mechanisms to hold wrongdoers responsible. Given the current circumstances, realism takes precedence over principles and morals.
As an international community, we must strive to improve our situation and practices. Developing countries, in particular, should work towards correcting and developing international rules to ensure that they consider and reflect the sentiments reflect a larger percentage of the global community. These rules must be universally applied and uphold the same standards for all, while holding transgressors accountable. This can be achieved by considering interests and rights, promoting transparency, and establishing objective accountability. Only then can we establish a system that is credible and respected, by embracing the concept of "moral realism" in international relations.
