There is extensive debate and heated discussion about the best philosophy for managing international relations, particularly between countries that adopt what is called ethical politics and values-based rules, and those governed by realism and interests in assessing positions and policies.
The first approach is based on adherence to principles rooted in societal values in international relations. Agreements and practices are established based on these principles, and everyone is expected to adhere to them. This approach has been closely associated with American foreign policy since independence, with its leaders striving to make the United States an empire of freedoms. This was evident in the active and enthusiastic adoption of international liberalism, especially with President Woodrow Wilson’s assumption of office, and his announcement of the 14 Points in January 1918, which included the concept and American plans to achieve it. This came after earlier pragmatic, conservative, and isolationist terms of presidents like William Howard Taft, Theodore Roosevelt, and William McKinley.
The opposing approach, known as realism and interests, is based on a theoretical framework and perspective of international relations that views them as a continuous competition among states striving to position themselves effectively within an international system devoid of central authority. Notable proponents of this perspective include Camille Corot, Gustave Courbet, Jean-Francois Millet, and Honore Daumier. Major theorists include the Greek historian Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Max Weber. Recently, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a prominent proponent of realism and interests in contemporary history, passed away.
The United States, along with many Western countries, publicly advocates for managing international relations according to ethical principles and rules, a stance reaffirmed by Biden after Trump had disregarded it. However, the U.S. often sets these principles aside when they conflict with its immediate interests or when the political cost of adhering to them is too high.
A recent example of these contradictions is the U.S. stance on Ukraine, demanding that Russia respect international law and not seize foreign territories by force, and adhere to international humanitarian law. In contrast, the U.S. takes a contradictory position regarding the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and its shameful violence in Gaza, which has resulted in far more casualties than those in Ukraine. Western justifications argue that Israel has the right to secure itself, even if it means encroaching on others’ land, with many Western countries merely urging Israel to be cautious with civilians, despite witnessing the loss of thousands of innocent lives.
Some countries outside the Western alliance, notably Russia, believe that the West pushes an ethical agenda in an attempt to dominate the international system, and that relations between states should be governed by interests and organized according to a stripped-down philosophy of realism. Hence, Russia did not hesitate to invade Ukraine when it perceived Western encroachment into Eastern Europe, both ideologically and militarily, as a threat to Russian national security. In line with this philosophy, Russia and China have both developed economic and military ties with Israel while emphasizing the importance of ending the Israeli occupation of Arab territories and ceasing fire in Gaza.
The positions and choices of countries adhering to these two approaches change from time to time, depending on precise calculations and balances of their security, economic, and political capacities. Sometimes, they emphasize the necessity of respecting the international system and its rules and principles, which were established after World War II and prioritized the interests of developed countries over those of developing ones. In other circumstances, they practice policies of imposing positions based purely on the balance of power and interests.
I believe that the genocides and brutalities in Rwanda in the latter half of the last century, and the Israeli crimes in Gaza in recent months, are glaring examples of how the international community has remained passively indecisive in the 21st century, lost between unenforced principles and disgraceful realism far removed from human values.
The Philosophy of Developing Countries:
Developing countries find themselves caught between the interests of industrialized countries in the Western bloc or what remains of the Eastern bloc, most of which are non-aligned or similar, and of medium or small size and capability. This makes them more susceptible to immediate pressures and inclined towards adopting a realistic philosophy in managing international relations. They fear imposing one society’s philosophy on another and reject the unification of governance and administration systems worldwide.
At the same time, developing countries must consider their small or medium size. Thus, relying on international principles, foundations, and rules according to international public and humanitarian law serves the interests of smaller and medium-sized countries, as it is supposed to impose constraints on the exercise of unlawful power and uphold the rights of all, regardless of power or wealth. This supports developing countries, which would struggle to face direct security or economic confrontations with major powers or their alliances, except in rare, exceptional cases with significant suffering and sacrifices, such as the Vietnam War in the 1970s.
Given these considerations, developing countries seeking to secure their interests and ensure their independence and decision-making freedom must always carefully assess their positions to avoid missing opportunities or making costly mistakes. This is achieved by adopting realistic and wise policies and assessments while bolstering and securing themselves with sound and civilized international legal principles and rules to balance security and economic power.
It is also better for the entire international community to settle on a system that balances “realism” and interests that cannot be ignored, while also being a system that respects “principles and rules.” Clinging to principles that their proponents only respect intermittently or yielding to pure realism according to the balance of power, wealth, and priorities pushes countries to seize opportunities at the expense of others’ rights, leading to a sense of injustice and oppression, and a system lacking credibility, which fuels political opportunism and a prolonged chain of violence and counter-violence, as we are witnessing now.
Some might argue that the United Nations Charter, along with the subsequent agreements and international rules in various fields, provides what is needed, or that those with control, power, and wealth do not respect principles or adhere to the law, which is indeed observed. Furthermore, it is criticized that most of the system’s rules reflect the balance of power after the last World War, favoring the interests of victorious countries and their allies over others, applying double standards, and lacking mechanisms for holding wrongdoers accountable. In its current state, it favors realism over principles and ethics.
In striving to improve our situations and practices, I believe the international community, especially developing countries, should seek to develop and reform these international rules and add to them, to accommodate a larger portion of the international community and apply them consistently to everyone, with accountability for wrongdoers. This can be achieved by considering interests and rights, ensuring transparency in data, honesty and integrity in presenting events, and objectivity in holding everyone accountable, thus providing a system with credibility and respect by adopting the concept of “ethical realism” in international relations.
