The case for Principled Realism: Combining Values and Interests in Foreign Policy

Prof. Dr. Tarık Oğuzlu

Even though the idea of separating values and interests in international relations ad foreign policy may seem reasonable from a theoretical standpoint, its application in real life is an arduous task to accomplish. Where should the boundary between interests and values be drawn in the formation and implementation of foreign policy preferences? It’s an easy question to ask but difficult to answer. It is not possible to conceive of interests without grounding them on the basis of fundamental human needs for psychical security, psychological integrity or economic prosperity. A strict separation between such motives would not hold water in real life. Taking some of them for granted and prioritizing only one would offer an incomplete explanation. In an ideal world, who you are and how you feel (the ideational, ideological, normative and emotional components of human nature) would determine what you want and this would in turn shape how you behave.

Extrapolating this to international relations and foreign policy, realists tend to prioritize the how you behave part, whereas liberals and constructivists are predisposed to put the main emphasis on who you are and what you want parts respectively. While realists tend to believe that international politics and foreign policy can and should be conducted on the basis of the idea that values and interest can be separated from each other, constructivists and liberals argue that how actors define themselves and which values they hold have a decisive impact on how they define and pursue their national interests.

Realists believe that national interests defined in terms of hard power should determine states’ international commitments, while liberals tend to argue that conceptualizations of values and identity should be at the center of states’ international relations/policies. According to realists, avoiding actions that material power capacity does not permit, accepting other actors as they are, and knowing that one might even make deals with the devil when it comes to interests is the right approach. In contrast, liberals view this perspective as both Machiavellian and immoral.

This debate can also be reduced to the question of which logic should guide human actions. While realists lean towards ‘the logic of consequences’, liberals are closer to the ‘logic of appropriateness’. The former argues that the value of an action arises from the expected benefit of performing that action, while the latter argues that an action can never be deemed legitimate/appropriate if it does not align with the actor’s identity claims and values, no matter how beneficial it may be. It is important to determine which of these logics should shape states’ foreign policies. However, finding an answer that satisfies everyone is nearly impossible.

In this case, it may be necessary to combine realist and liberal narratives under the umbrella of principled realism. I believe we can propose a solution by acknowledging two realities of international politics. First, all states wish to live in an international environment where their political values and identity claims are seen as legitimate by others, regardless of their material power capapabilities. Ultimate security would emanate from being recognized by others the way you define yourself. Mental, psychological or/and ontological security is as much vital as psychical security. From this perspective, it is not wrong for states to try to transform their external environments to align with their internal values and norms. This is quite normal. If you believe that liberal democracy is the most legitimate form of government, you would be quite happy to see an increase in the number of such regimes in global politics. Similarly, if you are a fervent advocate of authoritarianism at home, you might make some efforts abroad to make the world safe for authoritarianism. It is also normal from a similar perspective for states to try to bring to power parties or people in other countries that resemble them, sympathize with them, and they think they can work easily with. Why would it be wrong to try to build defenses forward? So, could pursuing a value-laden foreign policy aimed at transforming other actors in the system to align with your values be realism itself? Everyone finds it comforting and easier to live with actors similar to themselves. This facilitates less threat perception from outside and allows you to be more engaged with yourself. Although conventional realism advises states to accept other actors in the system as they are and to avoid value propagation and nation-building projects abroad, how realistic would it be for states to abandon their efforts to transform their external environment to fit their image? A friendly external environment would undoubtedly increase the likelihood of achieving different types of national interests.

On the other hand, efforts by states to create a friendly environment abroad should be guided by two principles. First, they should undertake this task to the extent that their material power capabilities allow, avoiding desires and dreams that their capacity does not permit. Otherwise, policies advocated under the guise of realpolitik could lead to policy failures. Reading the realities on the ground accurately and stretching one’s legs according to the blanket is an example of virtuous/principled realism. Power balances/constraints should determine how far normative practices abroad should go. If material power capabilities do not permit normative aspirations abroad, these should be abandoned, and foreign policy should be approached with prudence. The best course of action if capabilities do not easily allow for normative commitments is to treat other actors as they are and make the most of the cooperation process.

Second, states should place the fundamental principle of secular morality at the center of their relations with other actors: treat others as you would not wish to be treated yourself. No one wants to be forced to accept something due to pressure and/or imposition from others. Even if you have the capacity, resorting to force can be seen immoral or illegitimate. This should lead states to use persuasive and incentivizing methods rather than coercive power in their efforts to project their values on others and transform them in line with their own values and identity. Although it may seem like soft power, it should never be forgotten that there is a material power reserve behind these efforts and that the intended goal is quite realist – achieving sceurity through transforming others in your image. If others were acting in a manner consistent with your interest and identity/value definitions while determining their foreign policy behavior, you would achieve your goal. Why forcefully achieve this outcome when you can achieve it through encouragement and persuasion?

All this leads us to argue that the power competition in international politics encompasses both material and ideological/normative elements, and pursuing normative and transformative policies abroad is as realistic as it is liberal. However, such realism must also be principled and reflect the basic characteristics of secular morality. In today’s multipolar and multi-centric world order, pursuing transformative foreign policies through coercive power tools is hardly feasible. Let alone small and medium powers, even great powers lack such capacity. Many states have increased their maneuvering ability in foreign policy both in their own region and globally, as well as their capacity to play different actors against each other. Following a balancing strategy, distributing strategic eggs into different strategic baskets, and conducting foreign policy on the basis of strategic autonomy is now much more feasible in today’s multi-centric world compared to the bipolar Cold War era and the unipolar world order between 1991 and 2008. This undoubtedly means that the cost of using coercive power tools in foreign policy is rising. In today’s world, where the Global South’s power and maneuverability have increased and great powers are more compelled to attract these countries to their sides in their competition, a principled realist foreign policy approach that aims to transform the external environment but does so with awareness of material power capabilities and secular morality seems to be a good option.