International relations and ideology: Stop kidding yourselves

[RedRalph]

How much of a factor do you think ideology and idealism plays in international relations?

Personally I think it's almost always a mere afterthought, and not just for countries I don't like.

Sometimes countries do things for ideological reason, but there is always a strategic, security or economic motivator in there too, its extremely rare that a country acts out of genuine idealism. It's very much in line with Chavez' worldview that he should try and help Cuba, Bolivia, and even the poor in some US cities with cheap oil. But there's clearly other motivations: building up allies, propaganda, forming strategic links and creating dependence. Sure, the US generally tends to like the leaders of it's allies to be elected, but it's never the primary motivation in their actions, there is always a strategic reason for them to back a country. This can be applied to almost every country in history. Even with disaster and famine relief, there is almost always an ulterior motive.

Does anyone really believe idealism and ideology are the prime motivators in international relations?

(This thread is not for debating how brilliant or crappy Chavez, Khrushchev, Bush or Fredrik the great is or was, its to discuss the motivations and reasons behind dimplomatic and strategic interaction. Feels free to use examples, but please, if you want to discuss the merits of politicians do it elsewhere).

 

[potatokiosk]

Yeah democracies attack each other all the time. A clear indicator of the irrelevance of ideology.

 

[RedRalph]

Yeah democracies attack each other all the time. A clear indicator of the irrelevance of ideology.

Democracies have gone to war, and in any case I'm not just talking about who goes to war with who, which you would know if you had read the OP instead of just the title.

 

[potatokiosk]

Democracies have gone to war, and in any case I'm not just talking about who goes to war with who, which you would know if you had read the OP instead of just the title.

To me, it seems that when ideology and other things both provide a plausible explanation, you dismiss ideology even though it's not possible to read the minds of the people making decisions. I think there are plenty of Ecofarms in the world and ideology could very well be one of the most important factors in international relations.

 

[gugalpm]

Realpolitik. I can't see idealism driving the foreign policy of any country nowadays.

The US could be an exception for most of the XXth century.

 

[Karalysia]

I wrote a paper on this just recently about how important Baathist ideaology was to Saddam's Iraq and the conclusion I got was: Not very important at all. He was always more than happy to dispense with the principles of secularisim, socialisim, and so forth when it suited his purpose. He would invoke religon when he had to and then disparage it when he had no use for it. He would call for Pan-Arab unity when it suited his purposes, but exploit divisions when he needed to. He was essentially a pragmatist to the core and used the Baath party as a veichle to maintain his own personal power and make everyone and everything beholden to him.

I then wrote a paper about the same topic on Iran and got a somewhat different response: Ideology was quite important in many of their actions. The principles of their Constitution, their government, the actions of the Supreme Leader and so forth were in line generally speaking with their ideaology and while in some instances they were willing to dispense with it when they had their language was always cloaked in that of their religon.

 

[Miles Teg]

To clarify: How much of a role does ideology play, or how much of a role should it play?

 

[gugalpm]

Ideology hasn't played a significant part in some places for centuries (Europe).

I guess some newer regimes and leaders are still a bit naïve, but sooner or later they all find out that realpolitik is above any ideologic principle.

 

[Cutlass]

Even when practicing realpolitic, there's an ideological component. In fact, the advocates of realpolitic in the US are very ideologically motivated.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Yeah democracies attack each other all the time. A clear indicator of the irrelevance of ideology.

It happens. But not only that. Democracies even have turned other democracies into dictatorships. Intentionally. Several times.
But thanks for the Input.

As Karalysia already underlined with the example of the Iran ideology can in deed play a major role for a country. This is probably a policy threatened by extinction but it still exists.
Yet regarding all modern global players I think they couldn't care less about ideology. It also wouldn't make any sense.
Every country has certain political goals. And as the world is still ruled by force in all it's shapes and forms and not by moral reasoning or anything it is the use of force that makes you achieve your goals. Not being idealistic. Not being true to your idealism. Using the powers you have so they serve yourself as good as they can is what gives success.
Saying a country can not effort to stay true to it's ideology. It would give it an enormous disadvantage on the run for influence and power as well as a state of isolation in the world (Iran anyone?).

Or to put it another way: A country like Denmark will never have real power anyways so it can afford to be at least a little idealistic. It has not much to loose. As long as the big dogs don't feel the urge to tease it for it that is.

Now France for example has real power which has to preserved and strengthened against other nations and power shifts. Being true to their ideology would make the job unnecessary harder if not even impossible.

 

[Defiant47]

I have a feeling that the ideological difference between Cold War United States and Soviet Union was magnified for strategic purposes. Sure, we distance ourselves from an ideology, but we strengthen our resolve through propaganda and polarity.

 

[Riffraff]

I think it differs quite significantly from country to country. Most medium to large players go by realpolitics alone (the larger european states, China, Russia etc..). I think the US is slightly different, in that they can 'afford' to be more ideological - now not as much anymore as during the Bush years though.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I have a feeling that the ideological difference between Cold War United States and Soviet Union was magnified for strategic purposes. Sure, we distance ourselves from an ideology, but we strengthen our resolve through propaganda and polarity.

I agree. The blind acceptance of McCarthyism by most Americans at the time, and Eisenhower's warning of the "military-industrial complex" after he commissioned secret overflights by U2s to confirm the Soviet Union wasn't secretly bulding a super-military to crush us underlines this massive disinformation campaign. And the highly-vaunted Domino Theory turned out to be a house of cards over and over again.

 

[Shadylookin]

nearly all international relations are based on an ideology that your country should take as much as it can and at the greatest expense to your enemies. Just because it isn't sunshine and rainbows doesn't mean it's not an ideology.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There isn't a lot of room for idealism in the upper echelons of government. But they don't hesitate to invoke it for the purposes of convincing the masses/voters to support them - ie. when pushing patriotism during WWI and WWII. Yes, I know many soldiers had no choice; they were drafted. But some volunteered because they saw it as a good way to earn a living/make a career, and others volunteered because they saw it as their duty. I can't see the governments and top soldiers indulging in idealism, but I'm sure they used it to convince the lower ranks and the civilians of the "rightness" of their actions.

(I use "rightness" in the sense of all sides of a conflict, not in any sarcastic way against war in general)

 

[Terxpahseyton]

nearly all international relations are based on an ideology that your country should take as much as it can and at the greatest expense to your enemies. Just because it isn't sunshine and rainbows doesn't mean it's not an ideology.

Do you have some examples to share?

I have a feeling that the ideological difference between Cold War United States and Soviet Union was magnified for strategic purposes. Sure, we distance ourselves from an ideology, but we strengthen our resolve through propaganda and polarity.

Absolutely. Under the shield of fighting communism actions had been taken beyond any morality and which in the end had nothing to do with communism itself.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Question: If ideology is the systemic incorporation of new knowledge to coordinate with prior knowledge (the definition I usually use), then how can one make a rationally self-interested decision free from Ideology?

 

[gugalpm]

Even when practicing realpolitic, there's an ideological component. In fact, the advocates of realpolitic in the US are very ideologically motivated.

Mostly in the US.

Check Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy for some examples of realpolitik at its core.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Question: If ideology is the systemic incorporation of new knowledge to coordinate with prior knowledge (the definition I usually use), then how can one make a rationally self-interested decision free from Ideology?

Ideology and knowledge equal each other?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Ideology and knowledge equal each other?

Ideology is how we incorporate new knowledge, and how we see information as significant. It is not knowledge, it is how we make sense of knowledge.