The Global Questions Series: Number 17 - A Merge of Idealism and Realism

An Imagined Future World

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Pragmatic Geopolitics: Balancing Power and Vision

3. Incentivising Power Sharing

4. Concluding Remarks

---

Bitesize Edition

• Could we live in a world where realism and idealism aren’t the yin and yang of international relations, but a world in which they sit hand in hand? It’s tough to say this is possible when discussing a principle that is a defining one in international relations. These opposites form huge debates between scholars and analysts on countless geopolitical issues.

• However, as has occurred throughout all innovations in history, a thesis is challenged by an antithesis, and eventually, a synthesis is formed. This then becomes the new thesis, which will once again be challenged. And so, as I explored Kant’s 1795 essay “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch”, I considered what such a synthesis could look like.

• Could a federation of democratic states be replaced by a wider global governance model? Could the flaws of economic interdependence be addressed by carefully chosen partnerships of those with similar interests, with the overarching aim being sustainable and just globalisation?

• In a world of infinitely potential future scenarios, this is all possible. But nations need to be incentivised to pursue such a world. Could a synthesis of power and principle define our future geopolitical world? Let’s dive in.

---

Introduction

Last time in the Global Questions Series, I explored Kant’s 1795 essay, “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch.” He laid out a vision for Europe where a federation of republics would exist peacefully. While many aspects of the EU have been formulated around Kant’s proposals, the element of power wasn’t largely focused on in Kant’s work. Kant’s points inadvertently set up a battle between the power dynamics of realism and the cooperative aspirations of idealism, but power doesn’t have to mean domination, and values don’t have to mean naivety. Today, I’ll consider if we can have both, and how Kant’s proposals from 1795 could be adapted to represent our world today. Let’s dive in.

---

Pragmatic Geopolitics - Balancing Power And Vision

Of course, I first have to mention that power transition can occur peacefully. We saw this between the United Kingdom and the United States at the end of World War Two. These were two democracies that fought on the same side of the war. The United Kingdom was weakened financially, and the United States was in a position to assume the position of global hegemonic leader, backed by the power of the US Dollar. What facilitated this peaceful transition?

From the UK’s point of view, there was a high deterrent to not challenging the United States because they were in a weak position. The United States, especially via Lend Lease, ensured they remained in a relatively unscathed position from the war, and then they picked up the pieces of a shattered world. They established institutions that continue to exist today, albeit many in a flawed state, and their proposed global system appealed to other democracies around the world. Only Russia was in a position to challenge, and this led to the Cold War period, kept “peaceful” because the overarching nuclear deterrent existed. In my opinion, this is a fragile deterrent and at the speed at which technology is advancing, we have to consider a world where this deterrent is nullified, potentially through space weapons, cyber warfare lasers or AI. We should start considering today how we can replicate this form of deterrent, or ensure another suitable strategy takes its place. This would also lead to likely shifts in ideology.

The collapse of the Soviets also led to a peaceful transition to U.S. unipolarity after decades of contested transition. Although some argue that hegemonic stability ensures a peaceful world, I’d argue this has contributed to the more chaotic multipolar world we are emerging into today. Although we have recently had many examples of peaceful transitions in the global system, these aren’t guaranteed in the future, especially as a multipolar world could lead us down a path towards change.

In imagining a world that represents all, we should consider what a singular, universal ideology could look like. It must combine the power elements of realism with the cooperation of idealism. It must be adaptable since the differences between people and cultures will lead to different interpretations. Finally, incentives must exist for all to participate. If a nation were weakened by such a shift in global ideology, it wouldn’t pursue it. In this imaginary world, how can we be a realist in power but idealists in vision, all while getting every nation along for the ride? Let’s adapt Kant’s proposals to ensure they are more representable of our world today.

Photo by Nathan Dumlao on Unsplash