Selim Ibraimi- It is difficult to imagine an ideal system in international politics. Throughout history, philosophers have stressed the need for a system that treats all states equally. Alternatively, they highlight the importance of fairness to people. However, constructing such a utopian system has been difficult. This is due to the real conditions that humanity, especially states, has faced. A utopian system for international politics would aim to maximize cooperation at different levels and complete equality of states.
Can we have a world without conflicts? This can only be an imagination, because states are guided by different interests and needs. To avoid such philosophical and theoretical dilemmas, a more realistic approach to the present and the future is needed. However, in a concrete reality, there is no better case or example than today’s world events. In addition to the priority of national interests and cooperation between states, governments must take pragmatic actions. Here we are dealing with necessity and pragmatism, historically seen as driving forces in politics and more. In foreign and international politics, we have unavoidable realities that governments and leaders must face for better or worse. The natural resources, geographical position, and the strength of a state, both economic and military, affect how states face reality. Therefore, the approach of governments requires pragmatic steps based on certain specifics of action in politics at all levels.
States with sufficient economic, military, and geographical resources usually work to maintain the status quo for decades. They aim to do so for centuries if possible. These features are related to the existing reality and the necessary actions that states take. For example, landlocked countries lack a strong position in the international arena. To survive and maintain stability, they are good players in the international system. Here we have cases from the countries of Europe, the Middle East, Asia, etc. Governments should act based on the circumstances. They need to take pragmatic steps, not from a utopian view of international politics. Therefore, representatives or governments should make decisions based on actions that work and not on an ideal world. Some countries, despite ideological differences, cooperate for energy security. They also form agreements for economic benefits with countries that do not share the same values.
Such examples include Serbia. For economic and military interests, it continues to maintain ties with the West. At the same time, it sees agreements with Russia and China as pragmatic solutions. While doing this, Serbia is using political pragmatism. It aims to impact other weak countries. Some of these countries include Kosovo, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, etc. Countries’ compromises are part of the pragmatic concept. These compromises are also necessary for survival in the international political system. Sometimes, they are driven by external factors. Ignoring these realities leads to trade and political tensions. In this context, the ‘Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act’ of 1930 is a good example. It can be compared to today’s tariffs. These were imposed by the US administration under President Donald Trump. Time has proven that the policy of the 1930s was wrong. The US thought it was pragmatic to protect American workers. It aimed to protect farmers. However, this policy had profound consequences for the US and the world economy.
We could go on and on giving examples. The main theme is how good it is to be pragmatic. When and what role does the policy of necessity play in such cases and scenarios? As an example, we can bring up China. The US imposed tariffs on China, and China did the same. Both countries think they are taking the necessary steps. We will have to see the results in the coming weeks. To some extent, governments should take real and pragmatic actions to calm the situation. We can continue with the Balkans. The EU and the region, located at a crossroads due to both past and current developments, must cooperate. They should do so with a more pragmatic approach. This cooperation should address the open issues between the countries of the region and the EU. The EU has undertaken to help with the “Growth Plan” 2023 in the field of dispute resolution.
Such actions fall into the category of pragmatism and the necessity to engage against the existing vacuum in the Balkans. We should commit to the union’s rapid membership in Balkan countries. This is a pragmatic approach. However, some governments in the region do not see this pragmatism as urgent. They do not acknowledge the necessity of the time due to the circumstances that have arisen since 2022. The EU took concrete steps from the Thessaloniki Summit of 2003. They moved from promises to concrete actions with the admission of Croatia and Slovenia to the EU. Albania and Montenegro are also approaching membership in the union before 2030. Serbia, North Macedonia, Kosovo, and Bosnia and Herzegovina face internal and external problems. These issues prevent them from adopting the pragmatism needed to become members of the union before 2030. Nothing is excluded, but disagreements have nothing to do with pragmatism or political realism.
It is an old relationship that is troubling the states by not offering a solution. The current spirit seems to be outside the necessary standards. This choice should originate from states like Serbia, North Macedonia, or even Kosovo. The EU is trying to connect the region economically and democratically with its 6 billion euro Plan. However, third forces threaten this pragmatism. The necessity for the Balkan states means survival in this difficult time, before cooperation. Governments in our region will face obstacles due to the lack of practical actions. These obstacles will hinder their retreat from pragmatism. This situation may lead to a negative context of needing to remain in the past.
For the governments of the Balkans, money and donations from the EU or the US have been seen as pragmatic. This is a type of Balkan pragmatism. They have not been regarded as reform and pragmatism based on a certain reality. Here starts the different approach. It also marks the definition of what pragmatism means for the EU. Necessity for the Balkan states is also defined here. Additionally, it has broader implications at the global level. Such an ideal world does not exist. Therefore, Balkan states need to take real and pragmatic steps. These steps can shape politics for a better future and fewer wars.
Otherwise, it will be a dangerous gamble for Balkan governments. They are playing with fire at this time by using the past. This approach is aimed at achieving certain objectives. It may be a pragmatic approach to Balkan-style politics. However, it can backfire. We have seen this with Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik and other separatist leaders in the Balkan region. Exploring these approaches of necessity and pragmatism can help the political decision-making process. It should always occur in a good context. This is applicable not only in the Balkans. To make it simple, governments need a fundamental approach. This approach should be based on other conditions and factors. It spans from the utopian point of view of politics to pragmatic and necessary steps. History has shown that such actions are complex to undertake. However, officials should strive to do so at all levels of politics.
The article was written specifically for Portalb.mk. According to their agreement, the publication rights are reserved solely for Portalb.mk and the author.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.