Selim Ibraimi- The historic and unprecedented clash in the White House between US President Donald Trump, Vice President JD. Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy can be summed up in a single phrase: National economic interest comes before humanitarian law and the fate of nations. On the other hand, some critics say that this is a tragedy for democratic countries and a triumph of tyrannies. But, before we go any further, it is very clear that the existence of morality in international politics has not been a norm for so long. Also, in recent articles, we have explored the relations of small and large states. And what happened in the White House was exactly what was expected.
Disaster from the policies of powerful states always falls on the weaker ones. This is the maxim and the rule from which it cannot be moved. However, from the recent tensions, European states have a chance to stand and defend themselves. Great Britain seems to have taken the central role in defending British interests, Ukraine, and building a pan-European alliance. Now, as a new order is emerging, the idea that morality will take a different form and be implemented by the vast majority of states is a big question mark. It has been a dilemma and a fundamental question whether morality and ethics prevail in geopolitics and international relations.
Without theorizing, current events show that states act based on national and economic security interests. While norms and ethics, in such cases, remain simply a thing of the past. Specifically, no one thought that Ukraine would be in such a bad position after three years of massive military, humanitarian and financial support from the Western world. Since the moral line has been broken by the US, now EU states have no choice but to follow a different approach of supporting not only Ukraine but also states that are in a similar position.
There is a general fear that President Trump’s administration is making maximum efforts to be closer than ever to Russia, trampling on Europeans. But President Trump said that the US is aligned with itself and with the world. When it comes to the ethical and moral aspect, the recent clashes do not go in favor of the states that seek help from the US. Because power and economic interests dominate there, mercy and humanity have no space. Since things are related to politics, geographical position, and natural resources, then it is inevitable to link current events with the ability of states that compete for these same resources and more security. But have there been moments during the last two centuries when international law has been violated? Of course, during the 20th century, we have had cases. But when moral considerations in this context have been temporary, then undoubtedly the pragmatic approach has dominated the actions of governments. Morality, in this case, and even more so in the geopolitics of strategic materials, becomes only a mask of the speeches of the leaders, as in the last case in the White House, where the meeting turned into a dramatic performance.
Universal principles and international charters signed by states become worthless to the extent that not even international conventions could show where morality begins and ends in international politics. Therefore, if we remain in moral dilemmas in the geopolitics of states competing for rare and strategic materials, it is certainly a futile theoretical dive, since in practice, relations between states are determined by commercial, political, military, and, why not, cultural-religious interests. States simply act based on pragmatism and the power they seek, and much less on humanitarian-moral grounds. This is where the questions end whether states in the current international system will continue to maintain the moral line, and most of them that of force. Such a division has already been created, with European states on one side, the US “aligned with itself”, Russia, China, and others. As events unfold, governments, both European and beyond, must maintain a strong stance of mutual support. On the other hand, being divided, the risk of economic shocks and internal crises will be a decisive factor in whether governments can continue to hold the moral line in geopolitics. In the current reconfiguration, these two terms will be used much less in the vocabulary of leaders, as for some states, more important issues than morality and ethics in international relations have come to the fore.
The dilemma between morality and power will continue to remain part of the academic debate in the field of international relations, but not so current in the struggle for rare materials, economic interests, and a favorable global position. The morality and ethics that some seek in international politics are difficult to overcome in the pragmatic politics of the aforementioned states. It can be said that it will be a showdown of the century between states fighting in international institutions and those seeking mineral and space supremacy. The rapid changes in 2025 indicate that such ideas for world peace in the 21st century will probably belong to universities, not reality.
The article was written specifically for Portalb.mk. The rights to publish are reserved solely for Portalb.mk and the author, according to the agreement between them.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.