Idealism in the Practice of International Politics

For many decades people did not believe in world without threats. The interstate praxis showed that only national interests were the ones which counted. The relatively low level of interstate conflicts was achieved by means of nuclear deterrence. More peaceful and harmonious world seemed unrealistic, no one could imagine that two competing camps would begin real co-operation based on universal values. However, the change occurred and people got a new hope to live in a world without conflicts, violence and fear. It was not the first chance for states to establish something new. After the first world war the feeling was much of the same kind: co-operation among states, coherence of interests would lead to more stable and peaceful system. The hope was that international law would begin to play its role and all states would act according to that law. Very popular at that time was “peace through law” approach. Its adherents held that “the right of states to go to war must be legally restricted and that international law must embody the principle of collective security”. (Suganami, 1978) Then the idea was embedded in the creation of League of Nations. The history showed that states were not ready to leave their thinking in terms of geopolitics, national interests and sovereignty. Although the framework for co-operation was created it was ineffective as too few states were participating and the milieu was not the one favouring closer co-operation and harmony of values.

After the second world war idealism lost its position and strong realist principles established themselves firmly in practice of international politics. Principles of sovereignty and non-intervention were in the basics of new world order after the second world war. There was little room left for idealism. Even if one state was willing to adopt idealism in its practice of international relations it was soon confronted with many obstacles. The main obstacle - prevailing principle in international politics was that of sovereignty, state security over all. The anarchic nature of interstate environment was taken as inevitable and based on the sacred principle of state sovereignty. To some extent this dominant view of world helped to prevent many direct conflicts, but it only did preserve the status quo of the system. There was no hope to experience some changes because states were said to follow always their national interests and protect their security in anarchic world.

I think that the failure of League of Nations was due to the fact that its creators did not take in account the general opinion and readiness of states to such world order. They wanted to change all the system at once although the environment was not one favouring such radical change. The gradual shift of environment and attitude needed for new kind of international system. These new features of the world are widely recognised: economic interdependence, more open borders, frequent contacts between citizens of different states, erosion of the principle of sovereignty, etc. These processes were present in international system for many decades, but only after the end of the Cold War the opportunity for progress in international system has become possible.

Although the number of conflicts has not decreased after the end of the Cold War, on the contrary, it has increased from 35 armed conflicts per year during the Cold War till 60 per year during last 5 years, there can be observed a change in the way how international society is dealing with these conflicts. Cases of humanitarian intervention show that gradually individual security is becoming more important than state security. Public pressure on governments to do something in acute cases of human rights abuse in third states prove that spread of communication technology has provided for sense of global community among people of different states all over the globe. No more genocide can be justified and left in domain of guilty state. Other states feel responsible for peace and security in the world.

The meaning of the term “security” is also changing over time. If in the past it meant the security of the states then now in more and more cases this term is referred to the security of individuals, who are constituting the state. It has been recognised that “most people fearing for their security face threats from within their borders, not from outside. To confine the concept of security exclusively to the protection of states is to ignore the interests of people in whose name sovereignty is exercised.” (Carlsson, 1995) The changes in last decades have not left out also the concept of sovereignty. Although the states are strongly advocating the principle, the true content of it is already different. It began to change with creation of United Nations, and earlier with norms of international law. The restrictions of state sovereignty are frequently met in international law: basic human rights, ban of slavery and torture. Even the principle of non-intervention is a limitation of sovereignty. Thus, there is no such concept as absolute sovereignty therefore it is much more easy to introduce new kind of world order which is not based on anarchical nature of international system and principle of state sovereignty.

The term “new world order” has been used in discussions for couple of years. Different models have been developed starting from strengthening of UN to introducing of world government. All these models have one goal: peace and order in the world. As Ingvar Carlsson put it:

“Between the end of the Cold War and the opening of the new millennium, the international community has an opportunity similar to that which existed in San Francisco fifty years ago - a chance to establish, founded on common values and aspirations, a system of governance at the global level which offers humanity the chance of a more peaceful and prosperous future that the years which have just passed. A renewed United Nations should be at the centre of any such system.” (Carlsson, 1995)

The proponents of world government try to address the problems of inequality in the world:

“A democratic world government that really worked would lead to a major increase in the freedom enjoyed by all people on the planet. It would also make more equitable the international balance of power which currently so heavily favours the rich developed nations and their citizens at the expense of the much larger numbers of citizens in the underdeveloped world.” ()

Many of these ideas are quite utopian and do not fit even in today’s world. However, the old notions of power and anarchy have been replaced by co-operation, individual well-being, human rights, international organisations if not entirely than the general tendency points in that direction. “Even though there is not yet any community of mankind, we in many nations that are not closed off begin to be affected by germs of cosmopolitan consciousness.” (Hoffmann, 1981:39) The process of globalization seems to be inevitable and so are the changes in state practice of international politics.

One feature of the “new world” is co-operation, both bilateral and through international organisations. The co-operation itself demands a degree of courage from country - it must abandon for long time prevailing image of hostile environment and regard other states as partners in achieving the same goals not as enemies. It can be hardly imagined that nowadays states would only try to prevent other states to gain more than they have, i.e., the popular concept of realist thought about relative gains. Little progress could be achieved if states would worry that today’s friend may be tomorrow’s enemy and fear that achievements of joint gains that advantage a friend in the present might produce a more dangerous potential for the future. The feeling of threatening environment inevitably creates suspicion that prevents the co-operation for well-being of citizens.

So Nye and Keohane have described the present situation in the world: the division between high politics and low politics has become blurry. Governments are more occupied with concern for welfare of population not with military concerns. In order to maintain a certain standard of living state cannot spend too much on the military, besides, for many states direct military threat does not exist anymore. That indicates another feature of existing international society - declining military force. At least between democracies the possibility of the war is zero. This fact has aroused interest of political scientists. Numerous researches have been made to find causes for the phenomenon. Many refer to the writings of Immanuel Kant, and central role he envisioned for the liberal republic as the foundation for perpetual peace. Supporters of this opinion argue that properly constituted republics can overcome the anarchy among them. Therefore the recent process of democratization in Eastern Europe allows to assume that the “area of peace” is extending. The increase in the number of liberal democratic states has inspires some theorists to speak about the end of history. However, it seems that such prediction is untimely. The process of democratization has, on the one hand, fostered the extension of democracy; on the other hand, it has revealed the contradictions of nation-states. Transition in some cases has proved to be traumatic, the number of wars and conflicts has increased and many countries have experienced re-emergence of nationalism. Archibugi and Held argue that increase in number of democratic states has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in democracy among states:

“National governments, powerful and not so powerful, have continued to act on the basis of their own reason of state. The explanation for this has partly to do with an uncertainty over the appropriate rules, values and institutions necessary to establish greater accountability among nations.” (Archibugi and Held, 1995)

States are too different in their culture, values and traditions and one common value system would be difficult to establish. One solution - all states must be liberal democracies. The assumption is that, if all states were democratic, then the problem of war would disappear. And if war were eradicated, this would be a fundamental step towards a more elaborate society of nations which, in turn, would necessarily give rise to a democratic global system.

One reaction to the problem of war has been international organisation. (Claude, 1984:215) some organisations have been created to provide collective security, some organisations like UN claim universal character. Not always international organisations facilitate co-operation, some of them, most obviously military alliances, are designed as means for prevailing in military and political conflict. (Keohane, 1978)

However, international organisations provide an opportunity for opinion exchange, frequent contacts among states. That cannot pass without influence on state behaviour and perception of other actors of international society. Great deal of international organisations have been founded to maximise the well-being of populations, to eliminate barriers which hinder free trade. Economic interdependence is very important feature of today’s world. It has diverse consequences. Trade contacts between states increase understanding, but also dependency and vulnerability. In case of change in one country’s policies the other can be greatly affected and can decide to respond with military means in order to preserve stability which could be threatened by loosing those trade contacts. States which are vulnerable and dependent on certain imports from other states are more likely to consider inadequate response to threats if its resources allow that. Last example is Iraq’s invasion in Kuwait and reaction from Western states which were in some degree interested in Kuwait’s oil-producing facilities.

International organisations can serve as forums for peaceful settlement of disputes. Quite often a third part is needed to be an impartial arbiter and calm down disputing sides whose emotions do not allow them to consider the matter objectively. If these “traditional” regional, economic organisations can provide for only limited scope of co-operation and do not contribute to global peace and order than universal organisation like United Nations has capacity to be at the centre of new world order. That requires also radically new thinking from side of member states. Until this moment states have been rather reluctant to change their behaviour that dominated the international politics practice all the years of the Cold War. Some scholars think that present situation is an ideal opportunity to come nearer the most wanted goal - peace. They are afraid that governments will miss the opportunity and stick to the age-old concept of national interests and rely on balance of power. In their opinion states must allow to abandon the principle of sovereignty and adopt some kind of global community values. That in turn would allow to deal with all conflicts before they break out. Some assign the role of global policeman to UN, some demand for more radical solutions like world federation. United Nations can be perfectly suited for provider of peace and order in the world. The UN’s great strength is its near universal membership, but the diversity of member states can be an obstacle when consensus must be achieved. Especially difficult would be to persuade all members to revise old code of the international conduct built around the three-cornered base of the sovereignty and interdependence of states, the inviolability of territorial boundaries, and the prohibition of external interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. Some of the relatively new states have only began to enjoy the effect of these principles and are not likely to abandon them for an unclear future. However, UN with its nearly universal membership has always been the most respected institution although its means of enforcement is limited.

UN system has been the stronghold of international law. The existence of international law system shows that states are ready to sacrifice part of their sovereignty to get more predictable and controllable environment. Governments tend to justify their actions referring to international law and not only to that. All statesmen have tendency to justify their acts in moral terms and not in those of Machiavellian morality, but according to standards other than Raison d’Etat. “That is more that a tribute of vice to virtue. It is an acknowledgement of the fact that statesmen find a need to go beyond mere Hobbesian behaviour.” (Hoffmann, 1981:40)

Morality is another dimension which has a new content these days. Realist tradition did not take this variable serious. Nevertheless, the issues of morality are more and more frequently coming on the agenda. Statesmen have to make moral choices due to their accountability to their citizens. Decision-makers feel pressure from public and are influenced by it. That overcomes the traditional realist assumption that states are rational actors and make rational choices independently on domestic influences. Of course, if the state has authoritarian regime, it does not have to fear public pressure simply because population has no or very few channels of influence. In democratic states there is a certain amount of popular control over what government does, therefore moral judgements on ends and means will be taken in account. Stanley Hoffmann analyses moral dilemmas on different levels. The most sharp is that of statesmen. He concludes:

“The ethics of the statesman ought to be guided by the imperative of moving the international arena from the state of jungle to that of a society, because the moral opportunities available to all of us - depend on the state of the international system. Moral opportunities, in every milieu, depend on the social framework. The closer the international system is to jungle, the closer we are to the floor of survival, the more values we have to sacrifice, the more we will be tempted to accept the “morality of struggle”.” (Hoffmann, 1981:35)

Belief in better future is more likely in good times. Now there are such “good times”. World has experienced settlement of many for decades lasting conflicts. The precedent has been laid for intervention in internal affairs of states for humanitarian reasons. People become more conscious of universal values and human rights. International co-operation has reached great extent. Seeing all these changes people believe in more peaceful future. The future world of perpetual peace would not be achieved by balance of power or hegemony of one power. Peace should rest on shared values. “The stage of development of human history is to be judged by the closeness of the real to the ideal world, or by the degree of peace and well-being attained in the world.” (Suganami, 1978:106)

By now the real world is quite far from the imagined ideal one , but the development is going in the right direction. Obviously, the next stage of development of interstate system will never lead us back to the anarchic world. At least one part of the world - developed Western democracies - is ready to eliminate the name “war” from their lexicons. It is questionable if other states will follow their example because all previous history has only created distrust in developed countries (unequal North-South relations) and their intentions.

However, more democratic and representative structures of international organisations are likely to increase respect for them. Western countries have established stable and peaceful relationships among themselves, more time will be needed for South to do the same. That does not mean that the world must passively wait until it happens. Numerous non-governmental organisations work for establishing contacts between people in different countries. Development of communications work for the same goal - creating the sense of neighbourhood and responsibility for those who are in need. Together with falling of information barriers fades away the image of enemy. There is no more place for misperception.

If idealism is defined in terms of co-operation, common values, abandonment of power concept dominance, it all works for better future. Future without wars, violence and threats. Future of well-being of all people. I suppose that is what most people dream about.

Literature:

Archibugi, Daniele and Held, David (1995) “Cosmopolitan Democracy. An Agenda for a New World Order”

Carlsson, Ingvar (1995) “United Nations - the Imperative for Reform” , paper presented at international conference “The United Nations - Between Sovereignty and Global Governance”, Latrobe University, Melbourne -

July 2- 6

Claude, Inis (1984) “Swords into Plowshares: the Problems and Progress of International Organization”

Hoffmann, Stanley (1981) “Duties Beyond Borders” , Syracuse University Press

Suganami, H (1978) “The “Peace Through Law” Approach: a Critical Examination of Its Ideas” from “Approaches and Theory in International Relations” ed. by T.Taylor