The Nature of Contemporary International Relations

For NAP writes: Hamza Memišević, PhD candidate at the Faculty of Political Science, UNSA

The starting point for a more detailed phenomenological understanding of post-Cold War politics is the reception and periodization of three isms, namely the doctrines of liberalism, nationalism, and realism. A valid assessment of the repercussions and scope of post-Cold War politics is not possible without a theoretical recapitulation of the aforementioned doctrines.

With the end of the Cold War and the dominant political bipolarity in international relations, theoretical constructs about eternal peace have become актуализирован. American political scientist and state theorist Francis Fukuyama presented a predictive thesis about the end of history, implying a moment (after the Cold War) when Western liberal democracy, as the best form of human governance, will be universalized. Conventional warfare and great power confrontation will not be the dominant theme, and the cause of possible disputes will be political monotony, Fukuyama believed.

The victory of the Western bloc in the Cold War marked the superiority of liberal ideas, and American-style unipolarity became a key component of the new order. The dissolution of the USSR temporarily marked the end of ideological conflicts and indicated the superiority of the West, i.e., the USA. Given that the United States was the only dominant power, the absence of rivalry in the international order gave it the opportunity to implement liberal hegemony, and the imperative of such a policy was the subordination of the international order to American national interests.

However, within the proponents of the liberal international order itself, there were different views regarding foreign policy. The split between proponents of progressive liberalism and adherents of *modus vivendi* liberalism was evident. What was the intention of one, and what of the other? *Modus vivendi* liberalism is not interventionist in foreign policy, meaning it primarily focuses on domestic policy, which implies a *laissez-faire* approach and allowing maximum freedom to its own citizens.

Conversely, progressive liberalism is undoubtedly a more powerful form of liberalism, substantially interventionist in both foreign and domestic policy, thus becoming a lever for implementing liberal hegemony. Imposing liberal values and dealing with uncooperative regimes are the most important features of progressive liberal policy. The two main currents of liberalism have a dispute over the role of the state in promoting individual rights.

"Modus vivendi liberals" (John Locke, Friedrich von Hayek, John Gray, Steven Holmes) believe that state interference violates individual rights, while "progressive liberals" (Ronald Dworkin, Francis Fukuyama, John Rawls) believe that state intervention is necessary to ensure a certain degree of individual rights. Such approaches represent an attempt to make the world in the image of America and consist of several important components and goals: spreading liberal democracy around the planet, integrating more countries into the open international economy and international institutions. In theory, this would be extremely beneficial, as it would eliminate significant human rights violations and allow for a peaceful world (following the theory of democratic peace).

American international relations theorist and representative of the offensive realism school, John Mearsheimer, explains that the core of liberalism is involvement in the internal affairs of other states. Consequently, such a violation of sovereignty fuels irredentist movements. Liberalism is determined by universalism, while nationalism is determined by particularism.

According to Mearsheimer, the key components of liberalism are radical individualism and the inability to provide a convincing argument about what constitutes a good life. Such conflict situations involving different views on major issues can unfold in the following ways: the belief that every individual possesses inalienable rights, tolerance for others to define their own lives, and a state that can prevent conflicts.

In contrast to liberalism, according to Mearsheimer, stands nationalism. The key differences between liberalism and nationalism are the nationalist rejection of individualism and the emphasis on territorial sovereignty. Despite emphasizing these differences, Mearsheimer emphasizes that "liberalism without nationalism is impossible," because a liberal "soulless state" does not inspire a sense of community among scattered individuals. Nationalists and progressive liberals share strong beliefs in the success of state intervention or social engineering.

According to Mearsheimer, nationalism has its basic assumptions: first, humans are naturally political beings (political animals); second, group loyalty is more important than individualism, and third, besides family, the most important group is the nation. He then continues that nations want their own states. Mearsheimer believes that nationalism defeats liberalism because human beings are primarily political beings (political animals). To demonstrate this, he points out that the entire planet is covered by nation-states, and liberal democracies do not constitute even 50% of these nation-states.

The last key characteristic of nationalism is the self-determination of the nation, meaning that the nation has an impulse to conduct its own affairs in a separate state. This specificity distinguishes the nation from pre-modern collectives. Mearsheimer states that liberalism preceded nationalism by almost a century, implying that the idea of equality and the idea of inalienable rights influenced the nationalist idea of a "sense of unity." The sense of unity serves as a recognition code within a nation. Nevertheless, self-determination means that nations can base their sense of unity on different ideas, depending on their culture and history.

Consequently, particular interests always take precedence over universal ones, as confirmed by realism theory. The unipolar world ended due to a deficit of consensus between liberalism and nationalism, ushering in a multipolar order onto the international geopolitical stage. Liberal hegemony has not been archived in the dustbin of failed political strategies, but it faces new, contemporary challenges and values.

National and cultural identities, as well as civilizational belonging, are characteristics of the multipolar world. The political paradigm after the Cold War was characterized by euphoric, liberal predictions, but also by realistic observations based on empirical experience. Contemporary international politics is undeniably predominantly bounded by the nihilistic character of modern society in an economic simulacrum of a cultureless identity and a real understanding of one's own tradition.

The reason is that the power of nationalism combined with realism theory always wins in conflict with liberalism; in Mearsheimer's words: "The idea that the US can go around the world trying to establish democracy and do social engineering is a recipe for trouble." Countries will resist foreign interference. Also, in large parts of the world, people prefer security over liberal democracy, even if that security can only be provided by a soft authoritarian system.

It is important not to lose sight of the fact that, just as some states resist American interventionism, a considerable number of states in the international system rely on American interventionism and aid to achieve their national and strategic interests. Liberal hegemony faces serious difficulties because the world is no longer a predominantly unipolar place. In the contemporary international system, the United States, when reconfiguring certain geopolitical hotspots, is forced to consider the calculations and interests of other powers in the international political arena.

Zweig's "The World of Yesterday" can certainly serve as a literary model for the short 20th century, as defined by Eric Hobsbawm. Many hopes and perspectives were created, but also permanently removed. Liberal ideals embodied in contemporary achievements and modernization processes suffered an epochal defeat from traditional ideas, and the end of bipolarity heralded the return of nationalism and religion with a vengeance.