The Problem of Idealism and Realism in Foreign Diplomacy
The necessity to distinguish between ideals and realities in politics.
By Seyyed Ali Mahmoudi, university professor and expert on political thought.
Between the two world wars, international relations were influenced by both real politics and idealism. Idealism has been an offshoot of the massacre and destruction across the world -particularly in Europe, though during the last one hundred years real politics has outreached it.
In post-revolution Iran, leaders and thinkers have introduced and sought realization of the ideals and mottos of the Islamic uprising, though in practice, they have inevitably turned towards realism. The thirty-year experience since 1979 in our foreign diplomacy signals conceptual chaos, fluctuating between ’ideals’ and ’realities’, without a clear positioning for them in either theory or practice. The present article intends to illustrate this chaos and propose a new model:
It seems that the relation between idealism and realism in foreign diplomacy with regard to Iran’s experience in the last three decades can be categorized as follows:
1. Idealistic mode: policy-makers and executives set ideals and mottos as the basis of politics in international relations. Defending justice, fighting against inequality and struggling for nations’ liberation, at times they transgress geographical borders and international commitments and face evitable or inevitable paradoxes in bilateral, regional and international realms. Idealists assume a responsibility and disregard the outcomes of their decisions and measures to a large extent. In brief, idealism in foreign diplomacy equals moving into the realm of impossibilities, undermining the existing structures and trying to create a new order in international relations and global affairs.
2. Realistic mode: here, developing and carrying out foreign policies is based on realities, limits and potentials at hand, forging alliance with other countries, establishing regional and international institutions and participating in competitions. Realists, though complying with rules and regulations of foreign diplomacy, limit politics to the domain of realities, thus overlooking ideals and moral values. This eventually leads to radical pragmatism and pursuit of short-term interests. Ethics are absent or secondary in real politics. The history of international relations, particularly since the armed peace before WWI outbreak has proven that in pursuing their interests, realist have always followed the school of utilitarianism hardly considering ethics and humane issues. The fruit of their deeds –unfortunately- has been massacres and destructions around the globe.
3. Idealism-realism fusion: in this situation, policy-makers and handlers of foreign policies are aware of the advantages and disadvantages of both mindsets. Neither idealism nor realism is considered as adequate by them. Hence, they try to follow a third path by a fusion of idealism and realism, considering it as the new, perfect means. Experience shows that merging incongruous elements in politics does not help to achieve the desired approach, since conceptual chaos, i.e. yoking contradictory concepts leads to flagrant paradoxes in practice, producing severe consequences for diplomacy in today’s world.
Merging realism and idealism, is the product of disorganized minds that have no correct understanding of differences between categories and concepts. This mode is fully capable of undermining the existing orders and promoting anarchy. With a startling speed, the potpourri pushes politicians towards fantasy, pride, prejudice and delusion: one day, facing towards idealism, these politicians strive for ’managing the world’ when global powers are collapsing, and the other day, cornered by crises, they opt realism and directly or indirectly, wish for one smile by the same powers, whose supposed countdown towards breakdown had started. This bizarre situation can be regarded as an in-between mode, in which neither realism nor idealism have a clearly defined position.
Proposed model: examining idealism and realism and their fusion, we found out their conceptual weaknesses and practical defects. Now, in a compact manner, a new model is proposed. I believe that acquiring the desired status in foreign diplomacy starts from a theoretical point: differentiation between idealism and realism as two distinguished realms of epistemology.
Based on Kantian philosophy we are facing two different worlds: the world of ’ideas’ and ’ideals’ on the one hand and the world of realities on the other. The former is the world of noumena, the thing-in-itself. The latter is the world of phenomena, the planet we live on. The former is connected to metaphysics, the latter to the material world. We have no objective, empirical knowledge of ideals and ideas, which relate to the world of metaphysics. However, we can accept them based on a set of beliefs. On the contrary, the material world is based on experience, and it’s subject to empirical laws.
Based on this dichotomy, while ideas and ideals relate to the world of noumena, the realities are perceptible and belong to the real world. Positioned in two separate worlds, merging ideals and realities is epistemologically impractical. We can believe in lofty religious, moral and humane ideals and ideas (the world of noumena) and set them as the underlying basis of our motives, responsibilities and sympathies. However, we shouldn’t forget that in foreign diplomacy, concepts, and as a result, policies, can be nothing other than "real matter" and out of the world of phenomena.
The world of politics is the real world, not the world of thing-in-itself. It merely concerns the real world, the calculations, the evaluations, the rational assessments, not metaphysical matters. However, as a real matter politics can rely on the world of noumena and refer to ideals and ideas, provided that ideas are kept in sight, not mixed with realities -with which they are incompatible and make an incongruous fusion. In other words, considering ideals, we can give a humane, moral face to politics, stop unilateralism and blind megalomania and advocate modesty and mercy. Nevertheless, politics can’t be handled only through ideas and ideals. These inspire, motivate and refine our deeds but due to their metaphysical nature, can not be the core of political measures. Politics is the field of ’prescription’, while the ideal world is the stage for wisely ’advices’. Let us not forget that foreign diplomacy can not be organized and managed by means of instruction.
Setting and sustaining the border between ideals and realities is arduous and rigorous but possible. In foreign diplomacy, realism can be illustrated as a circle embedded inside a bigger circle, that of ideals; one which has sharp borders with reality, but stretched to infinity.
Therefore, in this model of foreign diplomacy, ideals and realities can co-exist, while the former is the inspiration, the motive of the latter. Meanwhile, the borders are not blurred and no incompatibility occurs.
In foreign diplomacy all contingencies, including competitions, challenges, risks and compromises are carried out based on two principles: national interests and national security. The practice of politics and diplomacy is born in the real world, inspired by ideas and ideals. If the pursuit of ideals and ideas leads to imperilment of national interests and national security, then there has been a confusion of realities and ideals. In that case, no ideal is realized and no reality is kept intact of chaos.