United States, Near East, Ukraine … 2 international relations specialists deliver the keys to a broken world
Everywhere on the planet, conflicts exacerbate. What new lines of strength do you take?
Bertrand Badie: We were used to the rules of the game based on relations between rival states. Things have changed for three reasons. Decolonization, first, which, for the first time in history, trivialized the victory of the weak over the fort and inaugurated a really multicultural world.
Globalization, then, has placed countries in a situation of interdependence towards each other, violently hitting the principle of sovereignty. Managing global links according to the only competition logics, as before, is therefore no longer possible: we have seen it about COVID-19 and climate.
The pressure exerted by companies on international game, finally. We thus move away from the classic model in which the relations between countries were regulated by a limited number of actors – the princes and their strategists – which were little concerned with the demands of society. Through its echo on American and European campuses, the Palestinian cause has made a significant rise in the world concert.
Thomas Gomart: In my eyes, relations between states remain as fundamental as relations between societies. You still have groups of actors – the Kremlin, the European Commission, governments, large companies, etc. – which carry intentions and loud plans.
In other words, the world is less indecipherable than complex. The impression of opacity is more felt in Europe than elsewhere, because the position of Europeans has retracted on the international scene.
Is it not the law of the strongest, embodied by leaders with assumed aggressiveness, who seems to impose themselves today?
BB: Yes, but it no longer works like once! For example, let’s not forget that Putin was defeated by Ukrainian social resilience. After almost three years of war, the third army in the world only got their hands on 18 % of Ukrainian territory, and still, most of this territory was already controlled by prorussian militias! Vladimir Putin’s economy suffers. Russian society too. Obviously, Putin, who reflected as in the 19th century, could not imagine that social resilience would be stronger than her tanks …
TG: But the forms of imperialism are also technological, as in Chinese and American cases. We see him with his declarations and his first decrees, Donald Trump thinks the world in terms of influence spheres, such as Russian or Chinese leaders. It is very destabilizing for Europeans who hoped that the rest of the planet was going to evolve as the European Union.
Democracy is increasingly disputed in certain Western countries by the populations and the leaders themselves. Is it at a turning point in its history?
BB: We have long believed in the division between authoritarian regimes and democratic regimes to explain the alpha and the omega of international relations, but this too simple reading leads us. Alliances are commonplace between the first and the latter – I think of Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, good friends of democracies … For example, on the side of those who condemned Russia, There are as many democratic and authoritarian regimes.
What must be considered is the frustration of peoples, which weighs more and more on major international issues and which often results in requests for authoritarianism. This is the whole effect of nationalPopulism in Western countries as in the countries of the South.
TG: Democratic regimes are consumed by instantaneity. Today, it is above all the separation between the legislative, executive and judicial power – foundations of democracies – which is abused.
And the real question lies in the upcoming evolution of the United States of Donald Trump. He was elected on an identitarian speech, which associates the downgrades and the technophiles. Europeans do not want to see the consequences of the ideological surge arriving.
What do you mean?
TG: The fact that Elon Musk and its social network X, that Mark Zuckerberg (president of Meta) or Jeff Bezos (President of Amazon) are stored on the side of the new American president constitutes a modification of the political and democratic game, and the very functioning public space. Trump and Musk advocate a world vision based on a new border accessible thanks to technology.
Europe will undergo the protectionist deregulation which is announced. For example, James David Vance, the vice-president, conditions US support for NATO (which currently guarantees the protection of Europe, editor’s note) The withdrawal of European legislation against the anti -competitive practices of Internet giants, Digital Markets Act (DMA) and Digital Services Act (DSA). Europeans are in a position of weakness because they are dependent on the United States for its security.
Can Donald Trump end the war in Ukraine as he announced?
TG: Again, I fear that Europeans would make a perspective error. Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy is now built on an antagonism in principle with the West. To be more precise, on a desire to reduce European influence. A possible ceasefire would not mean the end of the conflict.
Putin retains maximalist objectives, beyond Donbass and Crimea. He waited eight years, two American presidential mandates, between the annexation of Crimea and the offensive of February 2022. He wishes a direct discussion with Donald Trump without the Ukrainians or Europeans. As for the American president, he wants a quick solution as if the Nobel Peace Prize, which Barack Obama had received, was also to be awarded to him.
BB: It is also necessary to take into account the exhaustion of Russia and the effort required by the conversion of the Russian economy into war economics, as evidenced by the catastrophic situation of the Russian currency, the ruble, and the high rise credit rates and inflation.
Do you see a little hope on the side of Syria after the overthrow of the Bashar El Assad regime?
BB: The situation in Syria is the culmination of a very long evolution of Syrian society. How is it going to be able to reform after such a trauma? It is based on a very segmented society, as evidenced by the multiplicity of religious communities (Muslim, Sunni or Alaouite, Christian …), ethnic, tribal …
Let’s look at Libya or Iraq which have also experienced the collapse of a dictatorship … These countries have seen the return or consolidation of local powers. It is therefore likely that a logic of atomization and fragmentation of Syrian society occurs, and that regional diplomacies – Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Gulf States – assert themselves.
In addition, Syrian society is poor and young. How will this youth position themselves?
TG: Regarding the new Damascus masters, we can always believe in individual redemption, but we can also remember their journey. Less than ten years ago, they wanted to plant their standard on Saint-Pierre-de-Rome. The recomposition of Syria is decisive for the stability of the region, worked by the tremors of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
How is war between Israel and Hamas reconfiguring the Middle East?
BB: Benyamin Netanyahu, like most of his predecessors, postulates that only the use of force guarantees security. But today, strength and power no longer lead to constructive political solutions. He reasoned as we did in France during the Algerian war, when we thought that the battle of Algiers would allow “to eradicate terrorism”: we saw what it was.
TG: Hamas militarized terrorism has led to an Israeli reaction of rare ferocity. It is too early to say if the current truce in Gaza opens a new era.
On the other hand, the region is now crossed by a most classic inter-state conflict between Israel and Iran. Israel murdered Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon, while continuing to carry out operations in Syria and Yemen. The real stranger for the coming months lies in the trajectory of Iran.
Can we still build peace in this upset landscape?
TG: The maxim that “if you want peace, prepares war” is, in my opinion, always relevant. European construction produces peace between its members. You must never forget it or hold it for granted. The environmental issue should in good logic allow strong convergences. It remains to convince the new American administration …
BB: Strength and power, as destructive as they are today, are unable to build anything, as they could yesterday! We have never been so numerous, so costly and so disastrous, while being, so useless and ineffective.
We can harm, destroy, kill tens of thousands of children, without drawing any strategic advantage. If only from a utilitarian or economic point of view, peace therefore proves to be a very “better deal” than war.
Political power clings, like a shell at the rock, to war, while humanity, it understood that it could only survive by peace.
