Realism and shifting tides of international relations

Listen to article

In the ever-evolving arena of international politics, the concept of permanent alliances or perpetual hostilities often proves to be a myth. As Lord Palmerston had put it long ago, "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

This preposition remains central to realist thought in foreign policy, where national interest overrides ideological consistency or historical ties. Recent geopolitical developments — from the US President Donald Trump's unconventional diplomacy to shifting alliances in South Asia -— demonstrate these powerful illustrations of this timeless truth.

Trump recently visited the Middle East and had diplomatic engagements amid scenes of pomp and show. He had interactions with Saudi Arabia - which is poles apart from the US from an ideological perspective. One espouses democratic values and the other Sharia law with a dynastic rule. However, overridding considerations of lucrative arms deals and mutual economic benefits set all those ideals to naught. Trump even declared Saudi Arabia as a model for a reimagined Middle East, emphasising the promise of economic prosperity over instability in a region reeling from multiple wars.

Similarly, Trump's brief chat with President Ahmed al-Sharaa of Syria, though on the sidelines of his diplomatic initiatives, was widely speculated and analysed. He also announced easing sanctions on Syria to give the country "a chance at peace".

Trump's remarks and subsequent actions, however melodramatic in presentation, reflect the primacy of interest over principle. In the complex chessboard of international relations, strategic considerations often overshadow moral judgments.

Perhaps one of the most glaring examples of realist foreign policy was observed during the US-Taliban talks culminating in the 2020 Doha Agreement between the two.

After nearly two decades of warfare that claimed thousands of lives and cost billions of dollars, the US opted to negotiate directly with its once-archenemy. The very group that had been the target of a massive military campaign post-9/11 was now being recognised as a legitimate stakeholder in Afghanistan's future.

This position from combat to the negotiating table, sidelining Ashraf Ghani and finally abandoning his government, was not a reflection of ideological transformation but rather a calculated move to pull out the US troops from a protracted and unwinnable conflict. It was a textbook case of interest-based diplomacy.

This trend is not unique to the United States. China's recent diplomatic initiatives further portray the realist approach. The trilateral meeting of the foreign ministers of China, Pakistan and Afghanistan in Beijing marked a strategic reevaluation in the region. Expressing unanimity of views, the three states agreed to shore up diplomatic and economic engagement, assuring a cooperative stance on counterterrorism.

From a Chinese perspective this move would further enhance security along its western borders, ensuring the success of the Belt and Road Initiative, and countering the influence of rival powers in a geopolitically sensitive area.

Pakistan's participation in this meeting also reflects a realist recalibration. Once a frontline ally in the US-led War on Terror, Pakistan is increasingly leaning towards regional partnerships that align more closely with its evolving strategic and economic interests. The re-engagement with Afghanistan, under Taliban leadership no less, is a nod to regional stability over ideological divergence. It's a pragmatic choice aimed at containing security threats and fostering economic integration.

The meeting has also provided a fair chance to the de facto rulers of Afghanistan to gain legitimacy and economic lifelines. By engaging with regional powers like China and Pakistan, the Taliban seek to break out of international isolation and gain access to trade routes, infrastructure investments and diplomatic recognition. Once again, national interest overrides historical enmities or ideological moorings.

All those aforementioned events, underscore the relevance and utility of realism in international politics. Realism postulates that the international system is anarchic and that states primarily follow the law of self-preservation and prosperity. In such a system, moral principles, while not entirely absent, are often subordinated to strategic calculations. Ideological allies may quickly turn into enemies and former foes may transform into partners as dictated by the circumstances.

Critics of realism often decry its perceived cynicism and lack of moral compass. However, proponents argue that it is a sober and necessary lens through which to view global affairs. Idealism may inspire, but it is realism that governs the actions of states when stakes are high and options are limited.

Moreover, the real-world consequences of deviating from realism can be severe. History is replete with examples where ideological rigidity led to strategic blunders — from the Vietnam War to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Conversely, moments of pragmatic diplomacy — such as Nixon's visit to China or the Iran nuclear deal — have often yielded more sustainable outcomes.