 Yeghia Tashjian Sitting in front of the TV and watching the news covering the recent Israeli-Iranian war has made me rethink the future of international relations. On June 20, US President Donald Trump gave the Iranians a two-week ultimatum to compromise so that he could decide whether the US would join the war on the Israeli side. Most of us thought that diplomacy would end the war. However, after less than 48 hours, US B-2 stealth bombers carrying 30,000-pound bunker busters took off and bombed Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Was this the end of diplomacy and trust in international relations? How could state leaders make public announcements and then renounce them in a few hours? This was not the first war my generation had witnessed. I do remember the scenes of the horrors of the Kosovo war when I was a child; the US invasion of Iraq during my teenage years; the Russo-Georgian and Russo-Ukrainian wars; Arab upheavals and the rise of ISIS; the genocide of the Yezidis and the ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh; the wars on Lebanon in 2006 and 2024; and the ongoing genocide in Gaza. The horrors of war continue haunting us, a traumatized generation living in endless conflicts, forcing us to constantly ask: why is diplomacy failing? The global order is shifting, so its values and the complexities of international relations are no longer being viewed as predictable. The system is becoming more multipolar and less multilateral. In John Mearsheimer’s words, multipolar systems that contain potential hegemons are more war-prone and the most dangerous systems of all (The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, 2014). However, this does not mean we are witnessing the end of international relations. International relations is more vital than ever. The very foundation of this discipline is to navigate a world in flux. Wars, genocides, pandemics, climate and refugee crises, financial breakdowns, and cyber-attacks are not signs of the irrelevance of this discipline – but reminders of its necessity. Idealists may ask, why have we failed to address all the above-mentioned crises? To be fair, international relations is not about achieving a perfect, harmonious global order, but managing the ongoing disorder. It evolves with each new development as states try to adapt to it; from the Cold War’s bipolar system to today’s multipolar anarchy; from the diplomatic summits across the oceans to conflict management between states and non-state actors. The tools of diplomacy are changing, but their goal – coexistence, cooperation, and most importantly, survival – is constant. From July 14-19, I had the opportunity to participate in the 5th ELIAMEP-ACG Summer Academy “Leadership Beyond Boundaries: Empowering the Next Generation of Mediterranean Leaders” in Olympia, Greece. Twenty-nine students and professionals from 21 countries across the Mediterranean and Europe came together to address global and regional contemporary issues and the dynamics of international relations. The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East were at the center of the discussions and debates. Like always, two major schools of thought had different perspectives towards these conflicts. Idealists would push for respect of international law, preservation of human rights and accountability, while realists favored compromise reflecting the balance of power and state interests. Hence, the battle of two classical schools of thought emerges. These discussions made me question my thoughts; can’t state interests go hand in hand with peacebuilding? Should international relations (at least its realist school) always clash with activism? Maybe there is a compromise. The long night debates on these topics taught me that as young scholars, we need to reframe both positions and be adaptive to the new changes. Morality matters, even in international relations, but needs to be strategic and realistic. States can promote justice and human rights even when preserving their security interests (such as building multilateral institutions). While activism can also be pragmatic (by pragmatism I do not mean selective), that is, accepting incremental gains and giving up utopian ideals and fame for their causes in a strategic way, aiming to prevent future conflicts. The compromise here lies in the art of embedding justice with interests. A good example is the anti-Apartheid coalition for South Africa and the decolonization process in the Global South. Thus, recognizing that sustainable power often requires values and legitimacy, but also pragmatism and strategic thinking. Hence, while the global order may seem fragmented and fragile, and while multilateral institutions cannot uphold the weight of crises, this is not to conclude that international relations is dying. Instead, it should mean that it needs a rebirth and revival. The future may not lie in classical textbook theories or frameworks, but in new models of diplomacy, grassroots activism, climate cooperation, and tech or AI-driven peacebuilding. In a chaotic world such as this, international relations does not become obsolete – it should become indispensable for conflict resolution and prevention. About the Author Yeghia Tashjian is the Regional and International Affairs Cluster Coordinator at IFI. This blog is published by the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy & International Affairs (IFI) at the American University of Beirut, made possible (in part) by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York, and is available on the following website: http://www.aub.edu.lb/ifi.
The views expressed in this document are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy & International Affairs or that of Carnegie Corporation of New York. Comments are closed.
|