Identity and Realpolitik

This essay was written for the journal Contact published by the Olivaint Society of Belgium.

The era of Western unipolarity is gradually coming to an end. America and Europe are no longer seen as liberal role models, but much more often as imperialist power blocs like all others. This shift in the international balance of power toward states such as China, the Gulf States and Russia also represents a shift in an ideological paradigm. The end of Western unipolarity also means the end of liberal internationalism. The idea that all countries are so economically dependent on each other that starting a war would be irrational, and that there are a multitude of international organizations to enforce a quasi international rule of law is becoming more and more obsolete.

In its place we see a resurgence of nationalism and Realpolitik. Skepticism toward the Western liberal model existed from its conception, but that criticism had difficulty expressing itself decisively until recently. Throughout Europe, we see the national populist anti-establishment parties and movements claiming a notable place in public discourse, whether in real executive positions or not. On the other side of the water, Trump is once again campaigning after an unimpressive Biden administration and is threatening to win. While we could have expected countries in the Global South to criticize the Western international system after a power shift, we now see a tendency within the West to reject it as well, be it for different reasons or not.

The dynamic of states behaving competitively in the international system is as old as the state itself. Even in the 1990s when the U.S. and international liberalism could be called in its prime, this did not mean that the behavior of states changed fundamentally. Even within a framework of (perhaps impressive) international organizations, there remained a tendency toward power maximization. What did differ was the willingness to admit that tendency. The zeitgeist suggested that nationalism and protectionism were concepts from the history books in Francis Fukuyama’s office library. However, history did not end in 1989.

–

Nationalism is an attractive ideology as it capitalizes on the most primitive human tendencies. Ethnocentrism and groupthink are ultimately things that are baked quite deeply into the human psyche. Therefore, it proves to be a very impactful way to organize and even motivate people politically. It can give individuals a certain pride and root them in “the” history of their environment. It also potentially creates a certain team spirit that can facilitate solidarity.

The problem with nationalism, however, is that it aims to divide our complex and fluctuating world into simple blocks. Samuel Huntington is famous for his division of the world into different “civilizations” in his book The Clash of Civilizations. Consequently, this simplistic depiction of humanity has been lavishly criticized by thinkers such as Edward Said. It is precisely by speaking of homogeneous societies existing in complete isolation from one another that one rolls out the welcoming mat for violence and conflict, Said argues.

While I accept Said’s analysis of culture as a complex and not fully tangible concept, I must also admit that it was Huntington’s analysis that not only shaped Western thought, but also influenced non-Western conceptions of international politics. The attitude of Western international policy has antagonized the “other civilizations” against it. The behavior of those non-Western states reminds me of the humorous Turkish saying, “Alem buysa kral benim,” or “If this is the world, I am king”.

We live in Huntington’s world and this brings up grim identity issues. While it is indeed easy to portray societies as large homogeneous blocks that are incompatible with each other, it also suddenly raises a whole host of obligations for the members of these so-called civilizations. One such obligation that is too often taken for granted is that of identitarian choice. This affects everyone, but confronts much more strikingly those who have more than one identifiable culture in their family or upbringing. I myself am a living example of this, as I am “Belgian” on my father’s side, and “Turkish” on my mother’s side, whatever that is supposed to mean.

Thanks to this bicultural upbringing, I am today a confusing -and at times conflicting- mosaic of tendencies, ideas, moral systems and expectations that can be called neither Belgian nor Turkish. My identity is fluid and adapts to my environment and immediate situation. There are times when I feel primarily one or the other, but never do I feel completely Belgian or Turkish. The latter makes it extremely difficult to exhibit any particular “loyalty” toward either of those two supposedly incompatible blocs.

In a certain sense, this makes my experience different from that of someone who can only be called “Belgian” or only “Turkish.” However, it is mainly the explicit emphasis on the fact that my parents were born and raised in other countries that makes the biggest difference between me and such a person. Not only me, but all people are that kind of mosaic of tendencies, ideas, etc. The mosaic is only studied less closely among those who are considered part of one of Huntington’s homogeneous civilizations. No one is “really Belgian” or “really Chinese”, but everyone is the product of a collection of formative experiences that are more or less similar to each other.

It is then the idealistic proposal of those, like myself, who oppose the violent oversimplification of Huntington’s analysis to try to break away from the “us versus them” thinking that fuels the war machine of international power politics. Let us accept that our differences are being blown out of proportion and look for the similarities rather than the differences. In light of an ever-growing climate issue and threat of nuclear conflict, breaking away from this framework is vital. At no point in human history have we faced such a high impact trade-off between cooperation or competition, war or peace, life or death. Let us make the right decision.