By Denko Maleski
This time, unlike thirty years ago, we will not fall into the trap of the “end of history”—then in favor of the idealists, today in favor of the realists. Back then, it was the trap of the ultimate victory of democracy and international law; today, it is the trap of the ultimate victory of power. It is enough to understand that the debate in the scientific discipline called international politics has always been influenced by world events: in times of peace, so-called idealists dominate, while in times of war, so-called realists take the lead. This debate between realists and idealists has been ongoing for more than 120 years, since the beginning of the 20th century, in a world shocked by the massacre called the First World War.
At that time, the first chair of international politics was established at the University of Wales. The international system, which until then had relied on the balance of power and repeatedly collapsed into wars, was considered the main culprit behind conflicts between nations. Therefore, salvation from a new world war was sought in a system of collective security, in which all states of the world, relying on international law, would jointly decide in favor of peace. For this purpose, a universal world organization called the League of Nations was established, and after its failure, following the Second World War, the United Nations. In both organizations, the action of an aggressor state was supposed to trigger a joint response from the other states. This is how it is on paper, but in practice, the situation is more complex: each state wants to recalculate its own interest before entering into war.
The period of idealist dominance lasted until the beginning of the Second World War, when realist dominance began. The rise of Nazism delivered a crushing blow to the belief that law could oppose power. The message of that time was that only force can stop the path of force. This understanding, again a product of the reality of the Second World War, found expression in the United States in the works of a brilliant generation of realist thinkers such as Hans Morgenthau, Reinhold Niebuhr, Nicholas Spykman, George Kennan, Walter Lippmann, Arnold Wolfers, and Henry Kissinger; in the United Kingdom with E.H. Carr, George Schwarzenberger, and Martin Wight; and in France in the works of Raymond Aron.
According to the realists, war and peace, along with the balance of power, are two eternal features of international politics. In other words, no institutional arrangements, such as collective security, will eliminate these facts of life. Therefore, their expectations regarding peace are moderate. Peace is not unattainable, but war is always an option for resolving conflicts between states. On the other hand, world organizations that promote the collective security system can contribute to global stability, but what matters more is the balance of power maintained by the great powers, satisfied with the world order.
The debate between realists and idealists will continue amid the ongoing redistribution of world power among several major powers—a redistribution we hope will not end tragically for humanity. With more wisdom gained from the new experience of another horrific bloodshed, this time in Ukraine, humanity will once again begin to reach for the ideals of peace. But both feet must stand firmly on the dangerous reality.