Old and new in international relations. Europe after the First World War
Currently, international relations are characterized by a variety of different relationships and a high degree of complexity. Suffice it to recall that if in 1945 there were 51 states in the UN, now there are already more than 200 of them. Considering that each of these states has a different history, traditions, economic and political systems, different interests, one can imagine how complex and Modern international relations are difficult. In the motley picture of transforming international relations, several fairly obvious development trends stand out. Today, the confrontation between the two superpowers is a thing of the past. There is only one superpower left in the world, America, which is now trying to take on the role of a world arbiter, evaluate the policies of this or that state, and even revise the basic constants of international law. This cannot but cause disagreements and conflicts.
However, at the same time, one more trend in international relations should be noted - oddly enough, this is the dispersal of power. Despite all that has been said about US hegemony, the question of the future of the system of international relations is open. There is an opinion that globalization, by reducing the traditional role of states in the sphere of international relations, will give impetus to the creation of a fundamentally new system of foreign policy world order. But what will it be like?
Some political scientists believe that a system of collective leadership in the United States, Western Europe and Japan is currently being formed. Others argue that the United States must be recognized as the sole world leader, and that attempts to subjugate the entire system of world politics will not stop. Still others see the possibility of reviving a bipolar system, where, oddly enough, instead of the USSR, China will be in ideological and military-political confrontation with the United States. However, the fundamental uniqueness of the modern era is that it is now impossible to talk about the absolute leadership of certain states in the system of international relations, since the world has not yet acquired a stable form of foreign policy.
The second trend in the development of international relations has become their globalization, which is understood as an increase in the pace of internationalization of the economy and other spheres of public life. Globalization is the unhindered movement of information, ideas, values, capital, goods, services, standards of behavior of people and their fashion, accompanied by a weakening of the influence of national factors of life and the strengthening of the role of international ones.
In addition to the obvious economic benefits and rapprochement of states, it has its pitfalls and disadvantages. Globalization, its pros and cons, have become one of the most popular topics for discussion and forecasting of the future world order in the modern world. It has so many aspects that it will be discussed in detail in a separate paragraph (see 2.2).
The third trend in the development of international relations is the growth of global problems. These include the following problems: preventing a world nuclear war, overcoming the backwardness of the Third World countries, demographic problems of mankind, eliminating hunger and malnutrition, providing raw materials and energy, eliminating dangerous diseases, etc. The list of the most pressing problems of humanity was called the “Millennium Development Goals” during the UN Millennium Summit in 2000, but this is described in more detail in paragraph number 2.4.
A new and very positive trend is gaining momentum - the development of political instruments for the preventive influence of the world community on participants in conflicts, non-military guarantees of peace, and measures to prevent impending military conflicts. Centers for the prevention of military conflicts are being created. A new situation is observed in international negotiations. Now negotiations are increasingly viewed not as a means of achieving unilateral advantages, but as a process of joint decision-making, when the parties are initially aimed at cooperation and are looking for a solution acceptable to all parties.
Also, along with this, one can note the democratization of international relations - after all, control over foreign policy and the system of international relations is necessary in order to avoid situations dangerous to the world. This democratization is manifested in the fact that by expressing their attitude to the government’s foreign policy during elections, people thereby influence international relations. Appeals and recommendations adopted during international public dialogue are also an effective means of influencing the positions of states.
So, international relations in the modern world are dynamic, have many different prospects for the future world order, are aimed at globalization, democratization and solving the most pressing problems of humanity. And this sounds like an optimistic forecast. However, it is worth considering in more detail the dominant trends in modern world politics. This is what the following paragraphs of this chapter are devoted to.
Article by A.V. Yakovenko
in the magazine "International Affairs"
(autumn 2013)
PEACE AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS TODAY:
NEW AND WELL FORGOTTEN OLD
Now that the fifth year of the global financial and economic crisis is ending, no one doubts that the world has entered a period of radical transformation. The crisis of Soviet society and the socialist system of social order, which led to the end of the Cold War at the turn of the 80s and 90s, has now been complemented by the crisis of Western society, including liberal economics and participatory democracy. Thus, systemic failures in the Euro-Atlantic, and these two models exhausted the collective experience of social development in the space of European civilization and ensured - within the framework of bipolarity - its dominance in the global economy, politics and finance, became the key elements of the global crisis. In essence, a line has been drawn under the long cycle of historical development, which began with the disaster of the First World War. And just as the 20th century began in 1914, it can be assumed that the countdown to the 21st century should begin in 2008, when the crisis broke out.
However, you cannot enter the same thread twice. If world politics and experiments with models of economic development and social structure in the 20th century were limited to the framework of European civilization, now the Euro-Atlantic community, for the first time in the last two or three centuries, is faced with real global competition from other regions of the world, their cultures and civilizations. This is the most important difference between the current stage of world development. It is characterized by pluralism that goes beyond the historical experience of Europe, and broader competition between development models and value systems. In their article “The Post-Washington Consensus” (Foreign Affairs magazine for March-April 2011), N. Birdsall and F. Fukuyama write that “intellectual power” is increasingly distributed in the world when a crisis “puts on trial any development model,” and “Western democracies have highlighted the risks of over-reliance on market-led globalization.”
At the same time, the history of Europe, its modus operandi, continues to exist at the level of established categories of thinking used in analyzing what is happening in the world and making forecasts for the future. Moreover, we are talking not only about narrow ideological debates along the lines of capitalism-communism during the Cold War, but also about the conceptual apparatus and methods of social transformation of an earlier period, including the Reformation, Enlightenment, Revolution, Industrial Revolution, categories such as “social contract” ", progress and violence, including as a means of resolving interstate contradictions.
And if we take this historical heritage of Europe, it is difficult to say which of its parts outweighs - negative or positive. On the negative side are two world wars, imperialism, colonialism, the Cold War and its military conflicts on the periphery, environmental problems, the militarization of economic, scientific and technological development, as well as international relations. On the positive side - what can be called the civil application of scientific and technological progress, the expansion of the space of freedom by ensuring the “compatibility of democracy and capitalism”, as well as the emergence of a sustainable model of social development in the form of a socially oriented economy and broadly representative democracy based on a significant average class and persistent levels of social inequality.
Of course, it is also positive that nuclear deterrence, despite all its dangers, ensured peace, stability and predictability among the leading states of the world. “The Third World War” was a virtual reality and did not go beyond the strategic developments of the military. With the end of the Cold War, there was virtually no reason to threaten a global war at all. It is possible that this can be attributed to the inward-directed slow transformational implosion of European civilization, the final stage of which, apparently, is the current crisis.
It is noteworthy that, in terms of time, the formation of its prerequisites coincided on both sides of the Iron Curtain. On the one hand, these were the failed reforms of A.N. Kosygin, on the other, the tension of the Vietnam War, which led to the abandonment of the “gold standard” in the United States and a radical restructuring of the Bretton Woods system. The common reason could well be the exhaustion of the previous technological basis for the next “big cycle” of economic development and the inability, or rather lack of political will, to soberly analyze the situation. In the Soviet Union, this was manifested in stagnation, in the West - in the creation of artificial sources of growth in the financial sector, the so-called “financial alchemy” (J. Stiglitz), which became possible thanks to its deregulation in the early 80s. It is not surprising that the beginning of the erosion of the middle class in Western society (one of the signs is the lack of job guarantees for university graduates) dates back to this period. This was probably a form of stagnation and “sweeping under the rug” of phenomena that were given a second wind by the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the associated euphoria in the spirit of the “end of history.”
We can say that militarization has exhausted its resource, including as a source of economic growth and scientific and technological progress - a trend that dates back to the needs of recovery from the Great Depression in the 30s. last century in the USA and Europe, and in Japan a decade earlier. This is one of the characteristics of the modern world. I’m not sure that the security sector as a whole, the creation of a so-called “national security state” or, as they say in connection with the E. Snowden case, an “intelligence state,” can serve to solve the problem of overcoming the current crisis. Probably, we can say that first in the Soviet Union, and then in the West, the consumer socio-cultural way of life, which existed for quite a long time in spite of the Gospel truth that “man does not live by bread alone,” has exhausted itself. Actually, such an outcome for the entire European civilization, including the Soviet Union, was predicted by Pitirim Sorokin in the 60s. When prophecies come true, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that we are witnessing a fundamental transformation that precludes a return to the previous state of affairs.
There has been a geopolitical “compression” of Russia, the USA, the West, and all of historical Europe. Therefore, it is difficult to disagree with the honorary chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy (SVOP) S.A. Karaganov that we are going through a period of “balanced politics.” All processes in world development have received a powerful acceleration - thought and politics simply cannot keep up with them. Presumably, this is a general characteristic for any endgame, which is recorded in the analysis of the current stage of world development, which is contained in the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation (approved by President V.V. Putin in February 2013).
Development problems come to the fore for all countries of the world and, perhaps, for the Euro-Atlantic region to a greater extent than for others, bearing in mind the fact that the sources of economic growth in current conditions are, as a rule, outside historical Europe. Understanding of this is growing as the consequences of the protracted crisis accumulate. A bold attempt at a “breakthrough into the future” was the draft “concept of national strategy” proposed in April 2011 by two American military men, W. Porter and M. Michaelby. It was posted on the Internet with a foreword by A.-M. Slaughter, who previously headed the Policy Planning Staff of the US State Department. The meaning of the proposed concept comes down to updating the sources of America’s international influence, bearing in mind the priority of ensuring the sustainability of the country’s internal development in all its components. Judging by some evidence, this demarche of the American military had a chance of success in terms of revising the US national security strategy, rooted in the realities of the Cold War and in its outdated ideology. Recently, St. Augustine has often been quoted as asking God for “chastity, but not now.” It seems that for now this can also be attributed to the desire to formulate the goals and objectives of the US national strategy in the non-ideologized categories of developmentalism. Perhaps the book by the President of the New York Council on Foreign Relations, R. Haas, “Foreign Policy Begins at Home,” will have a better chance of success.
For Russia, which circumstances brought to the sinful earth much earlier, it was, of course, easier to travel this path. As soon as it became possible to comprehend the ways of further development of the country, and this happened around 2000, when the first solid doctrinal documents began to appear, a fundamental conclusion was made about the main task of foreign policy work - creating favorable external conditions for internal development. The whole philosophy of Russian diplomacy boils down to this, if you try to formulate it in one phrase. The movement of our partners in the same direction allows us to judge the underlying convergence at the level of attitude.
If we look more broadly, then in general there is a search for solutions to the problems of social development in the Euro-Atlantic along the paths of convergence and synthesis. Objectively, this creates conditions for overcoming the intellectual narrow-mindedness of the Cold War and forming an appropriate dimension of the restored unity of European civilization, represented along with Europe, North America and the space of the former Soviet Union.
In the 20th century, within the framework of European civilization, convergence moments between the West and the East already took place. This was the case in the 30s. due to the Great Depression. This was the case in the post-war period, when the “socialization” of the economies of Western European countries became a direct response to the “challenge of the Soviet Union.” Later, detente and the associated deepening of trade and economic cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic appeared. General principles of European policy were also formulated, which were reflected in the Helsinki Final Act. In general, a sustainable socially oriented model of economic development has emerged. It is this model that is enshrined in the Constitution of modern Russia. This explains the entire socio-economic policy of the Russian government.
Over the past 20 years, Russia has pursued a consistent course towards integration into the world economy. We have become a member of the WTO and are striving to join the OECD. As a member of the G20, my partners and I are looking for ways to overcome the crisis and restore the stability of the global and national economies. It can be assumed that much in world politics will become clearer only when the current crisis is overcome. This will be a kind of post-crisis settlement in the world.
We may have to learn the lessons of what happened in the financial sector over the last 30 years, where artificial sources of growth were created that distorted the overall picture of the economy, including statistics. And the hypertrophied financial sector itself began to work for itself, ceasing to serve the real economy and promote job creation in countries that export capital. These activities led to a widening gap between capital income and employment income, with devastating consequences for the middle class, which served as the social pillar of the political system of participatory democracy. We could talk about changing the paradigm of economic development with an emphasis on its qualitative characteristics in accordance with the requirements of the current state of society, including the demographic factor. Is it possible, as in disarmament, to qualitatively strengthen the economy while simultaneously reducing it quantitatively?
This will require addressing what the Financial Times' leading economic commentator, Martin Wolf, has called "innate rent-seeking behavior," which, it should be noted, is also extracted from payments on the national debt. Rent is being written about more and more often, including in connection with such problems as the reduction of social mobility and elevators, intergenerational antagonism, and the general loss of historical perspective. France during the Belle Epoque provides an example of a rentier state. Is this experience of forgetting the interests of one’s own development (since one can “cut coupons”!) already being reproduced collectively by the entire historical West? On these paths it was not possible to isolate ourselves from real life - it reminded us of the First World War. That is why it is important to understand the state of European society and the evils of European politics at that time - in order to continue to think further about the problems of today.
A curious element of commonality between Russia and Great Britain is the frequent use of the word "anniversary". In relation to the British, the traditions of the long reign of Queen Victoria apparently have an effect. What is more interesting is that in the context of the current crisis, materials appear where it is used in its original, Old Testament meaning. Parallels are drawn with the fact that high levels of debt, although not like slavery, significantly limit human freedom. Judging by the countries of the Mediterranean periphery of the Eurozone, the unbearable burden of debt, especially public debt, imposes far from trivial restrictions on the sovereignty of independent states. And if we take 1971 as a starting point, when life in debt began, then we are already close to the 50-year anniversary.
As for new technologies that could form the basis of the next big cycle of global economic development, we have to admit absolute unpredictability. As the Anglo-American expert W. Janeway writes in his book “Doing Capitalism in an Innovation Economy,” it is impossible to predict when technologies will appear that could become the subject of mass commercialization with the creation of corresponding industries and jobs. For example, information technology and computerization, including mobile telephony, have significantly changed everyday life. On the economic side, yes, they introduced fundamental changes in the nature of work, but they did not create enough jobs to compensate for the loss of jobs due to the outsourcing of traditional economic sectors to other regions of the world.
Thus, one can judge a kind of regression or pause in development. The question arises of how to fill it, since life goes on. Probably by investing in human capital, which will ultimately solve the problem of human development in the future. This means that those states that can create the best conditions for individual self-realization will have an advantage, primarily by investing in healthcare, education and culture, as well as in life support infrastructure, including transport, energy and, probably, agriculture. The increasing role of the latter in the economy can serve as an indication of a return - after financial “fornication” - to the origins of human existence.
In this regard, the analytical material of the founder and president of Stratfor, J. Friedman (January 2013), which examines the problem of the rise and decline of the middle class in America, is of undoubted interest. In particular, the author notes that the creation of a large middle class was a by-product of post-war decisions, including the provision of benefits to those demobilized from the armed forces. There was no talk about a well-thought-out strategy to ensure the sustainability of the country’s socio-economic and political development. There is something to think about here, bearing in mind that now, in a crisis, it would be the height of carelessness to rely on chance. The experience of the last three centuries should provide sufficient material for a sober analysis of problems and the development of ways to solve them in the interests of the whole society.
It has become common wisdom to talk about fundamental shifts in the geopolitical landscape of the modern world. This is also the “dispersal” of power, influence and prosperity, including the rise of a number of countries, most notably the BRICS, but also regional powers such as Indonesia, Turkey and Mexico, classified as “emerging economies”. Thanks to the crisis, new breath and quality (meetings of political leaders) were given to the G20. This is the circle of leading states of the world, without which it is no longer possible to solve the problems of global politics, economics and finance. This is felt in the work of narrower formats, say, the G8, which remains important as a platform for harmonizing and coordinating the approaches of the participating countries, but solving specific problems already requires a wider range of partners.
And, of course, we cannot talk about replacing the statutory prerogatives of the UN Security Council, which at one time was conceived, if we take the composition of its permanent members and the principle of their unanimity, as a regulatory body for a polycentric world order. Unfortunately, amid all the gloomy predictions about the state of affairs in the world, few people turn to this positive reality. The UN has gained relevance in the context of the disappearance of sentiments in the spirit of the “end of history”. We are talking primarily about the fundamental legal foundations of global governance. Attempts to deny this reality are made under the pretext of some kind of “settlement” following the end of the Cold War. But as we know, such a written settlement did not exist, and a set of verbal commitments towards Russia, including the non-expansion of NATO to the East, was violated by our Western partners. In any case, this settlement cannot be compared with the enlightened approach to France after Napoleon's defeat. Then, as Talleyrand formulated it, France was “liberated” from the “personal” territorial acquisitions of the emperor. Otherwise, France entered the pan-European directory on equal terms. Russia itself has freed itself from the ideological legacy of the Cold War, and with it its dominance in Eastern Europe. What did not follow was the creation of a Euro-Atlantic “concert” with Russia’s participation on the basis of equality. Neither the OSCE, due to its institutional underdevelopment, nor other pan-European structures solve this problem. Actually, this is where the idea of the European Security Treaty comes from, which is intended to at least begin to solve the problem of restoring the political unity of the region and thus reducing the financial burden on the budget by reducing defense spending.
In essence, we are returning to the “concert of powers”, already tested in history using the example of Europe, which ensured peace in Europe in the period between the Congress of Vienna and the Crimean War. When this political order in Europe was destroyed under the slogan of the Eastern Question, few thought about the consequences. The prejudices and instincts of the political elites took over, opposing any rational analysis. According to British historian Orlando Figes, the "unnecessary" war in Crimea was, in retrospect, the first total war - a concept we first came to associate with the Boer Wars and the First World War. It also launched a vicious circle of humiliation and annexations in relation to the vanquished, radically changing the atmosphere of European politics, from which the concept of civility disappeared. Even the two Hague peace conferences, convened at Russia’s initiative, did not help reverse this trend. 200 years after the Congress of Vienna, Europe and the world, taught by bitter historical experience, are coming to the understanding that there is no alternative to seeking agreement and negotiated solutions to problems based on international law and collective global governance.
It should be noted that the elimination of the “brakes” of nuclear confrontation due to the end of the Cold War led to a lowering of the threshold for the use of military force in various options, be it unilaterally, as was the case in Iraq and then in Libya, or based on a Council mandate UN Security - in Afghanistan. This experience of the last 20 years has led to a deadlock in the example of Syria, when the UN Security Council mandate is excluded, and unilateral military intervention is associated with an exorbitant price, including purely military costs, consequences for one’s own economy and finances, image losses and much more. The truth is confirmed in practice that no situations, including conflicts, can be reproduced, and, as in a store, nothing worthwhile is given for nothing. There are always specific circumstances. The resources necessary for this, including political ones, are also wearing out.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan show the counterproductiveness of any attempts to unilaterally, especially forcefully, solve modern international problems. These wars, like the Vietnam War, superficially reproduced the logic of the collective allied effort in World War II, including the reconstruction of Germany and Japan under conditions of prolonged occupation. The specific circumstances of other regions were not taken into account, nor was the complete lack of readiness to take on long-term comprehensive obligations, similar, among other things, to those taken by the United States in relation to South Korea and Taiwan and by the Soviet Union in relation to Mongolia. Therefore, one of the key factors of modern world politics, which everyone has to reckon with, is, on the one hand, the impossibility of solving problems “on the cheap”, and on the other, the lack of political will and sufficient resources necessary to ensure the real success of military intervention.
A clear illustration is provided by the current crisis: what kind of “state building” can we talk about abroad when this issue is acute at home. Transformation processes within the framework of the so-called “Arab Spring” also provide new examples of the problem. The “cheap” operation in Libya resulted in “cheap” results, not to mention the erosion of trust among the permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Unfortunately, old habits die hard. Therefore, the inertia of dominance continues to make itself felt in world affairs. In particular, this manifests itself at the level of culture, to which the behavior of subjects of international relations basically boils down. A striking example of such a political culture, reflecting the desire to turn back time, is provided by the already mentioned Stratfor in its analysis for the summer of this year. It constructs a geopolitical “quadrangle” consisting of the USA, Europe, China and Russia. It’s probably not bad that Europe is perceived as an independent center of the modern world. It is difficult to agree with something else, namely the inevitable decline of Europe and China. As a result, America and Russia remain again, and as two poles of a global confrontational policy within the framework of the “small Cold War.” One would welcome recognition of Russia's geopolitical future. But why in a format that is supposed to justify inertia in American strategic culture? Why should Russia be instinctively suspected that it will - almost objectively - benefit from all America's geopolitical defeats?
Therefore, the manifestations of a different America are especially gratifying. Like, for example, an article by Thomas Graham in the International Herald Tribune (August 22, 2013), which reasonably analyzes the tendency to blame Russia for all of America’s ills, including as a means of diverting attention from the problems of its own development. His thesis is worthy of attention that at the subconscious level for certain circles of the United States, “Russia’s problem” is that “victory” over it in the “Cold War” can be considered “complete” only when the enemy takes the winner as a model, be it either in its internal development or in its behavior on the international stage. Obviously, Russia (and we are not alone here) is not a country that can provide such satisfaction. It is a pity that such sentiments exist, just as there are those who cannot forgive us for our decisive role in the victory over Nazi Germany.
These same elements of political culture also explain the persistent development gap between industrialized and developing countries, be it in terms of trade or in finance. Sometimes the already forgotten term “neocolonialism” is introduced into circulation, reflecting the transition from physical control to more veiled inequality in the general system of international relations, including the status of developing countries as a raw material appendage, albeit at a higher level of development than it was 50 years ago. Moreover, this colonialism takes on the dimension of information and technological dependence, which essentially deprives these countries of prospects for independent development, including the creation of a competitive intellectual resource.
It is multipolarity and regionalization of global politics that are the most important material condition for the fight against inequality in interstate relations. Polycentrism, creating an appropriate competitive environment, which during the Cold War was limited to “bipolar choice,” provides real space for freedom in choosing international partners in the interests of one’s own development. Now one of the key areas where the struggle for influence is taking place is the digital and media space. The notorious control over information, as shown by the recent revelations of E. Snowden, continues to remain the most important element of modern geopolitics. Another thing is that the total nature of such control, which essentially denies the right to private life, is unacceptable for new generations even in Western countries. The most striking example is provided by Germany. The projection of George Orwell's dystopia onto the space of the historical West does not withstand the collision with the perception of those who, at least due to age, have not developed the skills to think in terms of the categories of “old” geopolitics, including the “Faustian exchanges” between the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms and security interests.
In recent years, convergence at the level of not only fundamental assessments of the current international situation, but also the choice of a diplomatic method that meets the requirements of the time, has also occurred between Russia and Great Britain. Evidence of this is given by Foreign Secretary W. Haig's June speech in California, where he spoke about the networked world, the importance of strong bilateral relations and “overlapping alliances” in the interests of achieving common goals. All these ideas are consonant with the conclusions that were reached in Russia several years ago and which were reflected in the Foreign Policy Concept of the 2008 edition. I want to emphasize that we did not need a global financial and economic crisis for this - the Concept was approved by the President back in July.
It talks about network diplomacy as the main diplomatic method in a polycentric international system. It is gratifying that the word “multipolarity” does not cause allergies among our British partners. We are no longer talking about the cumbersome military-political alliances of the past against each other. As is known, it was the formation of such alliances that became the most important element in preparing the disaster of the First World War. The main thing is that there is simply no basis for such alliances in the context of the interdependence of all states. Therefore, diverse alliances of interests are formed: they are open, their geometry is changeable, and they unite partners to ensure very specific common interests. These are, for example, broad anti-terrorist coalitions, alliances to combat organized crime and drug trafficking, and many others. They are created not against someone, but for something. They reflect the nature of modern challenges and threats that transboundary phenomena pose. They can be effectively countered only on the basis of the broadest international cooperation.
Of course, both diplomacy and the diplomatic service must be at the level of modern tasks. There is also a lot in common between Russia and Great Britain, especially with the coming to power of the Coalition government of D. Cameron. I was greatly impressed by W. Haig's speech at the Foreign Office two years ago. Then he spoke about the need to strengthen the language training of diplomats, deepen their regional knowledge, and the importance of history. In California they were told that under him “historians were once again at the center of Foreign Office work.” This is really important because it is impossible to learn from recent experiences without knowing what history teaches us. This can be called a return to classical diplomacy. I remember that Hillary Clinton also spoke about this when she was Secretary of State. I would like to understand this as overcoming ideological approaches and schemes inherited from the Cold War.
One of the stereotypes of the Cold War was the idea of diplomacy as a “zero-sum game.” This extended to official information and the information sphere in general, which was viewed as one of the “fronts” of ideological confrontation. It looks like a lot of things are going the same way here too. And this is understandable, since in modern conditions, when former ideological antagonisms have disappeared, the key element of policy is its “sale” to international public opinion, influencing partners through control over the information space. What E. Snowden said speaks in favor of the fact that the field of information security, like any other area of international relations, should be subject to strict legal regulation. No coalition of like-minded people can replace clear, legally binding documents of a universal nature. Their absence will only undermine trust in world politics and interfere with interstate cooperation in all other areas. This is why international governance of the Internet is necessary. It turns out that international national borders retain their significance here too - as, among other things, the ultimate means of ensuring the right to privacy of private information.
But the question is much broader. The state of ideological confusion that S.A. Karaganov talks about requires intensification of international discourse on the entire range of development issues. Information control directly defeats the purpose of such an exchange of ideas. Without creating equal conditions for everyone to participate in these debates, it is simply impossible to solve the problems of the modern globalizing world. Otherwise, new ideas will not be generated, but someone’s ideas that no longer work, and perhaps a camouflaged lack of ideas, will be “more equal” than any others. By and large, we are talking about freedom of speech and the right to disside in international relations as the most important element of the political and intellectual environment necessary to overcome the current impasse, in which the majority is not always right.
And yet now the situation is changing, and these changes, as is already obvious, are associated with a change of generations in the USA, in Europe and in the world as a whole. We see a huge demand for an alternative point of view, a rejection of conformism that stifles freedom of thought. The reason is probably that in the West and, perhaps, in the world as a whole, a mood in the spirit of the “end of history” prevailed for some time. In other words, that there is only one truth, that it is known, and we all just need to move together towards a “bright future.” Of course, in reality everything turned out to be far from being so. And the global financial crisis that broke out in the fall of 2008 “awakened” everyone to this reality.
Truth is diverse, the search for it should never stop. In this regard, I would like to refer to the conclusion made by the former Archbishop of Canterbury R. Williams in his study of F. M. Dostoevsky, namely about the permanent incompleteness - in line with the Christian understanding of freedom - of the life path. It also denies any version of the “end of history,” be it communism or liberal capitalism, that sets a limit to historical creativity. The pursuit of truth is one of the key characteristics of human nature and the life of society. It is with this that I would attribute the growing popularity of the Russia Today channel in the USA, and now in the UK. People are interested in pluralism of opinions as a necessary condition for forming their own views on certain problems. It is gratifying that Russia and its media are part of such a polyphony.
In conclusion, I would like to dwell on the human rights, humanitarian dimension of the post-war settlement in Europe and the world. Reflected in relevant international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Covenants, it has formulated a common denominator of relevant standards acceptable to all. Attempts in recent decades to disseminate one’s own interpretation of certain fundamental rights and freedoms as universal, which is formed within a particular country or region, introduces additional complications into the general climate of international relations. As such, it serves as an impediment to concerted collective efforts to deliver exactly what is actually agreed upon within the international community as a whole. Clarity on this issue is also important because what was formulated in the first decades after the Second World War reflects a common understanding of the traditional values of society, including the balance between rights/freedoms and responsibility in the exercise of them. Absolutization of the former and complete disregard for the latter also causes damage to the complex of intercivilizational relations, which are largely based on the commonality of moral preaching of the main world religions. Overcoming this contradiction, and in fact the negative tendency of self-destruction, will be one of the challenges for humanity in the 21st century.
The modern stage of international relations is characterized by the rapidity of change and new forms of distribution of power.
The confrontation between the two superpowers - the USSR and the USA - is a thing of the past. The old system of international relations, which was called bipolar, has collapsed.
In the motley picture of breaking old and building new international relations, it is still possible to identify several clearly visible development trends.
The first trend in the development of modern international relations- dispersion of power . The process of becoming a multipolar (multipolar) world is underway. Today, new centers are acquiring an increasingly important role in international life. Japan, which is already an “economic superpower” today, is increasingly entering the world arena. Integration processes are underway in Europe. New post-industrial states—the so-called “Asian Tigers”—have emerged in Southeast Asia. There is reason to think that in the foreseeable future China will make a strong statement in world politics.
There is still no consensus among political scientists about the future of the system of international relations. Some are inclined to believe that a system of collective leadership in the United States, Western Europe and Japan is currently being formed. Other researchers believe that the United States should be recognized as the only world leader.
The second trend in the development of modern international relations became their globalization (Globe - globe), which consists in the internationalization of the economy, the development of a unified system of world communications, the change and weakening of the functions of national states, and the intensification of the activities of transnational non-state entities. On this basis, an increasingly interdependent and holistic world is being formed; interactions in it have taken on a systemic character, when more or less serious changes in one part of the world inevitably have an echo in other parts of it, regardless of the will and intentions of the participants in such processes.
In the international field, this trend is rapidly being realized in the form of an explosive growth of international cooperation, the influence of international institutions - political, economic, humanitarian - as well as the creation of essentially supranational bodies.
The third trend in the development of international relations there was an increase in global problems, and, accordingly, the desire of the world's states to jointly solve them.
The scientific and technological revolution (STR), which originated in the middle of the 20th century, over the course of several decades made such radical changes in the development of productive forces, before which the thousand-year achievements of our predecessors pale in comparison. It contributed to a sharp increase in labor productivity and led to a huge increase in the products necessary for people. But there is another side to this revolution: many extraordinary, so-called global problems arose, which confronted humanity in full force and showed that our troubled and full of contradictions world is at the same time interconnected, interdependent and a whole world in many ways. A world that imperatively, imperatively requires not disunity and confrontation, but the unification of the efforts of all countries and peoples in the name of preserving civilization, its enhancement and the well-being of both the current and future generations of people.
All global problems facing humanity can be divided into four main groups: political, economic, environmental, social.
The most important of them, the first to make humanity first feel and then understand the impending threat, is the emergence, rapid accumulation and improvement of weapons of mass destruction, which radically changed the situation in the world. The nature of nuclear weapons does not allow any state to ensure the reliability of its defense by military means. In other words, security in the world can only be achieved through joint efforts. It can either be common to all countries, or it cannot exist at all.
Positive changes in relations between the leading countries of the world, which have the greatest scientific, economic and military-technical potential and have taken a significant step towards realizing the danger of the arms race, have relieved former tensions in international relations.
International terrorism is becoming an important problem that worries all of humanity, among the various forms of which state terrorism is the most dangerous.
Another, no less important, but much more difficult to solve group of environmental problems includes problems of environmental conservation. The danger of disturbing the ecological balance did not arise immediately. It was approaching as if gradually, sometimes as a result of ignorance, and most often because of people’s disregard for the possible harmful and even disastrous consequences of their practical activities.
The problem of environmental conservation is organically connected with a sharp increase in human economic activity, caused by natural trends in social development: an increase in the population, its desire for progress, improvement of material well-being, etc. .
Excessive, reckless exploitation of nature by man has led to massive deforestation, deterioration in the quality of fresh water resources, pollution of seas, lakes, rivers, and destruction of the ozone layer, which poses a danger to human life. The proportion of carbon dioxide in the air increases. Emissions of other chemical compounds (nitrogen oxides, sulfur) are increasing, resulting in “acid rain”. The global climate is warming, leading to the so-called “greenhouse effect.” A clear indicator of environmental pollution was the Chernobyl disaster.
The ugly, uncontrolled economic activity of people is dangerous because of its consequences, which do not know state borders and do not recognize any barriers. This obliges all countries and peoples to join efforts aimed at protecting and improving the environment.
Environmental problems are closely interconnected with economic ones - with the problems of the growth of social production, and the resulting increase in the need for energy and raw materials. Natural resources are not limitless, and therefore a rational, scientifically based approach to their use is required. However, solving this problem is associated with considerable difficulties. One of them is due to the sharp lag of developing countries in terms of energy consumption per capita from industrialized countries. Another difficulty is caused by the technological imperfection of production in many countries, including Russia, as a result of which there is a large overconsumption of raw materials, energy, and fuel per unit of output.
Social problems are also diverse. Recent decades have been marked by growing concern for humanity, caused by the flood of dangerous diseases and addictions that have befallen it. Cardiovascular and oncological diseases, AIDS, alcoholism, drug addiction have acquired an international character and have become one of the global problems.
The whole world cannot help but be alarmed by the widening difference in the living standards of the peoples of developed and developing countries. Underdeveloped countries are often plagued by famine, resulting in the death of large numbers of people. The aggravation of these problems is also facilitated by the discrepancy in the relationship between the demographic growth of the population and the dynamics of the productive forces.
People all over the world are concerned about the rise in crime and the growing influence of mafia structures, including the drug mafia.
Global problems have arisen at the intersection of the relationship between man, society and nature. All of them are organically interconnected, and therefore their solution requires an integrated approach.
The emergence of global problems has affected the entire system of international relations. Indeed, efforts aimed at preventing an environmental catastrophe, fighting hunger, deadly diseases, and attempts to overcome backwardness cannot yield results if they are decided alone, at the national level, without the participation of the world community. They require a planetary unification of intellectual, labor and material resources.
The fourth trend of modern international relations is the strengthening of the division of the world into two poles - the pole of peace, prosperity and democracy and the pole of war, unrest and tyranny. The majority of humanity lives at the pole of ferment, where poverty, anarchy and tyranny prevail.
There are 25 countries at the pole of peace, prosperity and democracy: Western European countries, the USA, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. They are home to 15% of the world's population, the so-called “golden billion”. These countries are dominated by wealthy democracies, in which the standard of living of the average citizen is very high by historical standards (from 10 to 30 thousand dollars in annual income), with a life expectancy of at least 74 years. The country can achieve such prosperity only thanks to the presence of a highly developed knowledge-intensive economy.
At the other pole are the states of Africa, Asia, Latin America, the republics of the former USSR and the countries of the East. In them, more than 80 million people live in conditions of absolute poverty, and out of 500 million starving people, about 50 million died annually from exhaustion. Economically, these states supplied the developed world with energy and raw materials and acted as dumping grounds for toxic waste.
Fifth trend What has become is that, in general, both in domestic and international life, politics as a spontaneous collision of socio-historical forces is increasingly being squeezed by the principles of conscious, purposeful, rational regulation based on law, democratic principles and knowledge.
The sixth trend there was a democratization of both international relations and domestic political processes. It is observed in all countries, regardless of the type of political regime that prevails in them. With the end of the Cold War, even under the most authoritarian regimes, the ability to hide, and even more so to legitimize, state violations of the personal freedom of citizens, their natural and political rights, has significantly narrowed. A phenomenon that is becoming widespread worldwide is the progressive politicization of the masses, who everywhere demand access to information, participation in making decisions affecting them, and improvement of their material well-being and quality of life.
The achievements of the post-industrial revolution - satellite communications and cable television, telefaxes and e-mail, the global Internet, which makes it possible to almost instantly disseminate and obtain the necessary information on almost all issues of interest to modern people - have become signs of everyday life. people’s lives not only in the most economically developed countries, but are also becoming increasingly widespread throughout the world.
The composition and diversity of political factors is sharply expanding. As a result, the development and implementation of foreign policy guidelines cease to be the province of a narrow group of people in a special government department, becoming the property of a collection of a wide variety of institutions, both governmental and non-political. In turn, this has profound consequences on political relations from the point of view of their direct participants.
Since ancient times, international relations have been one of the important aspects of the life of any country, society and even an individual. The formation and development of individual states, the emergence of borders, the formation of various spheres of human life have led to the emergence of numerous interactions that are implemented both between countries and with interstate unions and other organizations.
In modern conditions of globalization, when almost all states find themselves involved in a network of such interactions that affect not only the economy, production, consumption, but also culture, values and ideals, the role of international relations is overestimated and becomes increasingly significant. There is a need to consider what these international relations are, how they develop, and what role the state plays in these processes.
Origins of the concept
The appearance of the term “international relations” is associated with the formation of the state as a sovereign entity. The formation of a system of independent powers in Europe at the end of the 18th century led to a decrease in the authority of reigning monarchies and dynasties. A new subject of relations appears on the world stage - the national state. The conceptual basis for the creation of the latter is the category of sovereignty, formed by Jean Bodin in the middle of the 16th century. The thinker saw the future of the state in its separation from the claims of the church and provided the monarch with full and indivisible power on the territory of the country, as well as its independence from other powers. In the middle of the 17th century, the Treaty of Westphalia was signed, which consolidated the established doctrine of sovereign powers.
By the end of the 18th century, the western part of Europe represented an established system of nation-states. The interactions between them as between peoples-nations received the corresponding name - international relations. This category was first introduced into scientific circulation by the English scientist J. Bentham. His vision of the world order was far ahead of his time. Even then, the theory developed by the philosopher assumed the abandonment of colonies, the creation of international judicial bodies and an army.
The emergence and development of the theory
Researchers note that the theory of international relations is contradictory: on the one hand, it is very old, and on the other, young. This is explained by the fact that the origins of the emergence of studies of international relations are connected with the emergence of states and peoples. Already in ancient times, thinkers considered the problems of wars and ensuring order and peaceful relations between countries. At the same time, as a separate systematized branch of knowledge, the theory of international relations took shape relatively recently - in the middle of the last century. In the post-war years, a reassessment of the world legal order takes place, attempts are made to create conditions for peaceful interaction between countries, and international organizations and unions of states are formed.
The development of new types of interactions, the emergence of new subjects in the international arena has led to the need to separate the subject of science studying international relations, freed from the influence of such related disciplines as law and sociology. The sectoral variety of the latter is being formed to this day, studying certain aspects of international interactions.
Basic Paradigms
Speaking about the theory of international relations, it is necessary to turn to the works of researchers who devoted their work to considering relations between powers, trying to find the foundations of world order. Since the theory of international relations took shape as an independent discipline relatively recently, it should be noted that its theoretical provisions developed in line with philosophy, political science, sociology, law and other sciences.
Russian scientists identify three main paradigms in the classical theory of international relations.
- Traditional, or classical, the ancestor of which is considered to be the ancient Greek thinker Thucydides. A historian, considering the causes of wars, comes to the conclusion that the main regulator of relations between countries is the factor of force. States, being independent, are not bound by any specific obligations and can use force to achieve their goals. This direction was developed in their works by other scientists, including N. Machiavelli, T. Hobbes, E. de Vattel and others.
- Idealist, the provisions of which are presented in the works of I. Kant, G. Grotius, F. de Vittoria and others. The emergence of this trend was preceded by the development of Christianity and Stoicism in Europe. The idealistic vision of international relations is based on the idea of the unity of the entire human race and inalienable individual rights. Human rights, according to thinkers, are a priority in relation to the state, and the unity of humanity leads to the secondary nature of the very idea of a sovereign power, which in these conditions loses its original meaning.
- The Marxist interpretation of relations between countries was based on the idea of exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie and the struggle between these classes, which will lead to unification within each and the formation of a world society. Under these conditions, the concept of a sovereign state also becomes secondary, since national isolation will gradually disappear with the development of the world market, free trade and other factors.
In the modern theory of international relations, other concepts have appeared that develop the provisions of the presented paradigms.
History of international relations
Scientists associate its beginning with the appearance of the first signs of statehood. The first international relations are considered to be those that developed between ancient states and tribes. You can find many such examples in history: Byzantium and the Slavic tribes, the Roman Empire and German communities.
In the Middle Ages, a feature of international relations was that they did not develop between states, as is the case today. Their initiators, as a rule, were influential persons of the then powers: emperors, princes, representatives of various dynasties. They entered into agreements, assumed obligations, started military conflicts, replacing the interests of the country with their own, identifying themselves with the state as such.
As society developed, the characteristics of interactions also changed. The history of international relations considers the emergence of the concept of sovereignty and the development of the national state at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries to be a turning point. During this period, a qualitatively different type of relations between countries was formed, which has survived to this day.
Concept
The modern definition of what international relations are is complicated by the multitude of connections and spheres of interaction in which they are implemented. An additional obstacle is the instability of the division of relations into domestic and international. A fairly common approach is that the definition is based on the subjects that implement international interactions. Textbooks define international relations as a certain set of various connections and relationships both between states and between other entities operating on the world stage. Today, in addition to states, their number began to include organizations, associations, social movements, social groups, etc.
The most promising approach to definition seems to be the identification of criteria that make it possible to distinguish this type of relationship from any others.
Features of international relations
To understand what international relations are and to understand their nature will be possible by considering the characteristic features of these interactions.
- The complexity of this type of relationship is determined by their spontaneous nature. The number of participants in these connections is constantly growing, new entities are being included, which makes it difficult to predict changes.
- Recently, the position of the subjective factor has strengthened, which is reflected in the growing role of the political component.
- Including various spheres of life in relationships, as well as expanding the circle of political participants: from individual leaders to organizations and movements.
- The absence of a single center of influence due to the many independent and equal participants in the relationship.
The whole variety of international relations is usually classified based on various criteria, including:
- spheres: economics, culture, politics, ideology, etc.;
- intensity level: high or low;
- from the standpoint of tension: stable/unstable;
- geopolitical criterion for their implementation: global, regional, subregional.
Based on the above criteria, the concept under consideration can be designated as a special type of social relations that goes beyond the framework of any territorial entity or the intra-societal interactions that have developed on it. This formulation of the question requires clarification of how international politics and international relations relate.
The relationship between politics and international relations
Before determining the relationship between these concepts, we note that the term “international politics” is also difficult to define and represents a kind of abstract category that allows us to highlight their political component in relations.
When talking about the interaction of countries in the international arena, people often use the concept of “world politics”. It represents an active component that allows one to influence international relations. If we compare world and international politics, then the first is much wider in scope and is characterized by the presence of participants at various levels: from the state to international organizations, unions and individual influential entities. While the interaction between states is more accurately revealed using categories such as international politics and international relations.
Formation of a system of international relations
At different stages of development of the world community, certain interactions develop between its participants. The main subjects of these relations are several leading powers and international organizations capable of influencing other participants. The organized form of such interactions is the system of international relations. Its goals include:
- ensuring stability in the world;
- cooperation in solving world problems in various fields of activity;
- creating conditions for the development of other participants in the relationship, ensuring their safety and maintaining integrity.
The first system of international relations emerged in the middle of the 17th century (Westphalian), its emergence was due to the development of the doctrine of sovereignty and the emergence of nation-states. It existed for three and a half centuries. Throughout this period, the main subject of relations in the international arena is the state.
In the era of the heyday of the Westphalian system, interactions between countries are based on rivalry, the struggle to expand spheres of influence and increase power. Regulation of international relations is implemented on the basis of international law.
A feature of the twentieth century was the rapid development of sovereign states and changes in the system of international relations, which underwent radical restructuring three times. It should be noted that none of the previous centuries can boast of such radical changes.
The last century brought two world wars. The first led to the creation of the Versailles system, which, having destroyed the balance in Europe, clearly identified two antagonistic camps: the Soviet Union and the capitalist world.
The second led to the formation of a new system, called the Yalta-Potsdam system. During this period, the split between imperialism and socialism intensified, opposing centers were identified: the USSR and the USA, which divided the world into two opposing camps. The period of existence of this system was also marked by the collapse of colonies and the emergence of the so-called “third world” states.
The role of the state in the new system of relations
The modern period of development of the world order is characterized by the formation of a new system, the predecessor of which collapsed at the end of the twentieth century as a result of the collapse of the USSR and a series of Eastern European velvet revolutions.
According to scientists, the formation of the third system and the development of international relations have not yet ended. This is evidenced not only by the fact that today the balance of power in the world is not determined, but also by the fact that new principles of interaction between countries have not been developed. The emergence of new political forces in the form of organizations and movements, unifications of powers, international conflicts and wars allow us to conclude that a complex and painful process of forming norms and principles is now taking place, according to which a new system of international relations will be built.
Particular attention of researchers is drawn to such an issue as the state in international relations. Scientists emphasize that today the doctrine of sovereignty is being seriously tested, since the state has largely lost its independence. These threats are intensified by the process of globalization, which makes borders more and more transparent, and the economy and production more and more dependent.
But at the same time, modern international relations put forward a number of demands on states that only this social institution can do. In such conditions, there is a shift from traditional functions to new ones that go beyond the usual.
The role of economics
International economic relations play a special role today, since it is this type of interaction that has become one of the driving forces of globalization. The emerging world economy today can be represented as a global economy that unites various branches of specialization of national economic systems. All of them are included in a single mechanism, the elements of which interact and are dependent on each other.
International economic relations existed before the advent of the world economy and connected industries within continents or regional associations. The main subjects of such relations are states. In addition to them, the group of participants includes giant corporations, international organizations and associations. The regulating institution of these interactions is the law of international relations.