Geopolitical interests and undertakings, especially those of global powers, very often constitute gross violations of international law and, first of all, the principle of sovereign equality. The more this trend grows, the more real and immediate the threats to world peace become. At the same time, in contemporary international relations, again primarily due to the positions of global powers, distrust, suspicion, and almost direct opposition prevail. Active actions are needed to overcome the current stalemate in international relations in order to begin a process of restoring trust and constructive cooperation in the international arena. However, it would be necessary to start a little further back, which, unfortunately, will also mean some small repetitions of my previous texts.
THE DIFFICULT COEXISTENCE OF MODERN GLOBAL GEOPOLITICAL CONTROVERSIES AND COUNTERACTIONS WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGN EQUALITY
Political philosophy and geopolitics have different means, goals, and direction, but with responsible political leadership of sovereign states and a reduction in the struggle for hegemony, political philosophy and geopolitics can even join forces to change international politics for the better.
Geopolitics could be useful for the peaceful development of the international system if it helps to bring the global or regional balancing of interests closer to the principle of sovereign equality. If, however, geopolitics continues along the traditional and well-trodden path, it will most likely exacerbate global and significant regional contradictions. This, as can be seen from the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, from the tension in the Taiwan Strait and on the Korean Peninsula, can lead to great and indelible damage to international relations and even to a global war.
The rapid fall of communist regimes as a fact supported the thesis that communism collapsed as a system not so much as a result of the Cold War, but under the weight of its own systemic defects. In the West and above all in the USA, however, the thesis gained popularity that the West had unconditionally won the Cold War and, as the unconditional winner, had rights over the defeated. In the Western attitude towards the Russian Federation, notes of arrogance and demonstrative disregard for some of its basic interests, especially in the field of security, appeared. Russian-Western contradictions and counteractions became prominent, which were no longer so much ideological as clearly geopolitical in nature.
Both sides are to blame for the confrontation between the West and Russia, but the entire blame for the outbreak of the war in Ukraine lies with the Russian state leadership. On the other hand, the aforementioned inaccurate assessment of the West about the end of the Cold War led to its cardinal strategic error - it prioritized the geopolitical goals and means of its countries (primarily the United States) over efforts to strengthen the international system and the international community. And when it sought support for the participation of the countries of the Global South not only in principled condemnation of Russian aggression in the UN (which was generally achieved), but also in participation in the sanctions regime against Russia, such support was either not provided or was very limited.
The Global South as a whole did not participate in the efforts for the international isolation of Russia, with the vast majority of developing countries convinced that the war in Ukraine, which began as a result of Russian aggression, has, first, a more complex genesis than Russia's purely imperial ambitions and, second, that its continuation is an expression of a geopolitical conflict of interests of global powers.
The statement about the predominantly geopolitical nature of the contradictions and counteractions between global powers is important, since this should, in principle, provide more real opportunities for rebalancing global interests and mitigating the conflict in Ukraine than if the war had an ideological nature. At the same time, the practically exclusive approaches: "if Putin wins this war, then no one can stop him", on the one hand, and "if the West inflicts a "strategic defeat" on Russia, it will continue until it disintegrates and plunders", on the other, portend a long frozen conflict. Both approaches have some basis, but as long as the actions of both sides adhere strictly to them, solving the problems at the negotiating table is unlikely to be possible.
How and in what format can the aforementioned rebalancing of the interests of global powers be achieved? - by negotiating only with regard to the war in Ukraine, or as part of a larger and even practically global rebalancing of the interests of not only the USA (NATO, EU) and Russia, but also with the participation of other global or almost global players such as China, India, etc.? Now this is difficult to predict, but it can be asserted with sufficient confidence that no matter how this process begins, no matter how long it continues, it will end with the participation of an increasing number of sovereign states.
Because in order to unclog the channels and begin negotiation processes on a global scale, in addition to political will, a conceptual and methodological basis for the objects and essence of these processes is needed, for reconciling the interests not only of the global powers, but also of (ideally) all sovereign countries. This time, of utmost importance is the fact that non-global states, which are most interested in the development of international relations based on international law, especially on the principle of sovereign equality, have increasingly begun to demonstrate in practice their international weight and influence. This would make it possible to have a more constructive impact on the development of the entire system of international relations, and not just to settle or mitigate some global confrontations, which always risks being only temporary.
In recent years, among some political and analytical circles, the idea of the so-called “civilizational mega-regions“ has been spreading, taking various forms. In this regard, I would like to point out the following: for many years now I have not tired of explaining that the principle of multipolarity is a political, not a legal, principle. It fixes, but only for some indefinite period of time, a given ratio of global powers (poles), which changes over time, and with it the “carriers of poles“ change. In other words, a world order cannot be built on the basis of multipolarity alone. The legal principle that gives an adequate expression of equality between states is the principle of sovereign equality. The important thing to understand is the following: the system-forming function of the principle of sovereign equality has long been clear (Article 2 of the UN Charter); however, it remains to affirm the understanding that its consistent and ever more complete application will probably be a long historical period of development of the system of international relations itself.
Multipolarity, without the restraining, peaceful and constructive guiding role of an international community organized on the basis of the ever more complete application of the principle of sovereign equality, would lead to even “harder“ zones of influence in which the first victim will be the principle of sovereign equality, and relations between mega-regions would have a real and potentially destabilizing impact on international relations. The explanation of such mega-regions as de facto multipolarity, in my opinion, is untenable and dangerous. The processes of regionalization as part of the processes of internationalization are, of course, objective processes, as the respective member states of regional integration unions and groupings no longer consider their development separately from these integration mechanisms (Brexit is an exception, but it is a very specific case!).
Although global powers formally accept the principle of sovereign equality, they rarely comply with it, especially if they have direct interests in a given issue. Sometimes, however, compromises are inevitable between them. In the words of Henry Kissinger, the current chaos in the international arena will only continue until the world learns to develop international relations on an “ecumenical, egalitarian and procedural basis“.
DEVELOPMENT OF A GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL EGALITARIAN COMMUNITY WITH THE MAIN GOAL OF THE EVER MORE FULL APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGN EQUALITY
The solution lies in the creation of a global, non-exclusive international community of sovereign states, developing on the basis of the ever more complete application of the principle of sovereign equality, or in the transformation of the UN into such a community, but with a radical reform of the world organization.
The additional strength of the principle of sovereign equality comes from the fact that, in addition to being legal, it is also a moral-political principle, and it interacts very well with social cohesion. and solidarity. In this sense, for example, I believe that the Franco-German idea of limiting consensus in the EU and making some decisions by qualified majority would rather weaken the European Union than make it more efficient.
Neoliberalism and its attacks on state sovereignty and statehood in general have undoubtedly caused and continue to cause enormous systematic damage to the democratization of international relations. It is significant, however, that one of the most prominent theorists of liberal democracy, the American philosopher John Rawls (1921 – 2002), categorically opposes the transfer of its postulates to international life, in which, according to him, the main factor for the legality of actors is international law and the criteria of decency.
In this text, sovereign states are divided into global and non-global states. Why is this, albeit very conditional, division necessary? Because the latter, which include most developing countries from the Global South, are seeking additional international guarantees for their security and development, as well as their beneficial participation both in solving international problems and challenges and in using global goods. The realization of these common interests could lead to the unification of their efforts and obtaining the sought-after guarantees from an authoritative global international community with legally fully equal members.
The unification of the efforts of non-global states in defense of sovereign equality and the construction of a global international community on this basis may not seem very realistic now, but if geopolitical confrontations between global states continue to push us towards wars, including global and even nuclear ones, the resistance and unity of non-global states is logical to grow. On the other hand, global powers are also interested in peaceful and creative development of the planet, although they may seek and impose leadership ambitions in the process. Their relatively low propensity for compromise could increase significantly under the influence of a global international community and its increasingly important equal members.
In the international arena of our time, however, there is one urgent need above all - to begin with the revitalization of dialogue, with the development of a readiness for constructive compromises, with the restoration of trust and good-willed cooperation.
Urgent and major efforts are needed to restore dialogue, trust and cooperation in the international arena
How are dialogue and trust restored in the current acute confrontation and tension between global powers? The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East do not give cause for optimism, but it seems that the attitude of direct and indirect participants in these wars, if they cannot stop, at least limit the armed actions, is slowly making its way. Without starting peace negotiations or at least negotiations to achieve a ceasefire, this is impossible. On the other hand, there is a decrease in the activity of states and their efforts to meet, mitigate and, if possible, solve global problems and crises. This further strengthens the desire to shift efforts to resolve geopolitical conflicts from the military to the political sphere.
The UN is best placed to provide initial impetus for rebuilding trust, as the world organization has the relevant structures and contacts in which interaction, although much reduced, has never been interrupted.
The dialogue to rebuild trust could, of course, begin through a bilateral Russian-American summit, which could become a reality given the outcome of this year's US presidential election. The circumstances may be different, but the political will must be present in all cases.
This is about ending hostilities that have already claimed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of lives and continue to cause death and destruction. This is the number one priority for peacekeeping forces. At the same time, the initial selection of negotiation topics will be very important, which should cover not only the urgent problems of stopping the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, but also the universal human values of a joint, peaceful international life. Because distrust is now almost universal, and it covers not only the relevant state leaderships, but also a large part of the public of both countries. If global powers begin to prepare for negotiations, giving priority to common vital issues of humanity, this would mean that the desire for peaceful relations is serious and one can expect strengthening of trust and fruitful negotiations.
What are these general issues of the contemporary development of international relations, some of which are the subject of geopolitical and other contradictions? This text indicates two types of international cooperation: related to universal human values such as peace, sovereign equality, humanism, joining efforts to meet global challenges, etc.; and the second - these are procedural issues.
Starting from the second - procedural mechanisms - it can be assumed that the peaceful and creative development of the system of international relations and the democratization of the world order can be achieved only through objective, democratic and fair procedures. As Henry Kissinger notes in his book “World Order“ (2014), “The genius of this system (the Peace of Westphalia) and the reason it spread throughout the world was that its clauses were procedural, not ideological.“(emphasis mine).
The topic of universal human values is vast. It is unlikely that anyone would undertake to exhaust it. In this text (the next section), three main topics are proposed for discussion: peace, sovereignty and sovereign equality, humanity and human rights.
PUBLIC AND POPULAR SUPPORT FOR A CONTENTIAL AND EFFECTIVE HOLDING OF THE FUTURE SUMMIT (September, 2024)
Perhaps the most favorable conditions for unlocking a process of restoring trust and starting a constructive dialogue would arise when the “Future Summit“ is held in September of this year, at the initiative of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.
So far, the text has been dominated by overly optimistic perceptions of the realities in contemporary international relations. The starting point was the position – all parties wish for the good, they only need to agree on the approaches to restoring trust and developing international cooperation, and problems and contradictions will begin to find their solutions. Theoretically, this is so. In reality, however, without the concrete clarification and possible convergence of the philosophical and political foreign policy concepts of global states in combination with a creative balance of their geopolitical interests, on the one hand, and without recognizing the increased international weight of non-global states, on the other, it is unlikely that restoration of trust and effective international cooperation can be achieved.
Peace - the first universal human value (thematically, in discussions, it almost always goes with its opposite - war). “Peace, says Spinoza, is not the absence of war, it is a state of mind, a disposition of benevolence, confidence and justice“. Peace is not established once and for all; it requires constant and systematic efforts to maintain and strengthen peace. In the conditions of a war that, for one reason or another, could not be prevented, the struggle for peace in the warring countries is often seen as a national betrayal. Categorical positions in support of peace can become the subject of extremely unjust and condemnable actions by the authorities. The latest example in this regard is the caused death of Alexei Navalny.
It is not surprising, but the foreign policy positions on peace and war expressed by global powers such as the United States, China, Russia and the European Union are dominated by peaceful expressions. For example, they all declare their support for the principles of the UN Charter. Things change significantly when these positions begin to be combined with their specific geopolitical interests. Then begins the struggle of interpretations, capable of throwing the world into legal chaos, and not only.
While peace preserves the lives of people and their material and spiritual achievements, the second most important, in my opinion, universal human value is the practical expressions of the principles of sovereignty and sovereign equality. Without sovereignty there is no state, and without sovereign equality there is no system of international relations (in the second situation, the world is in a “state of nature“ and the law of the strong operates). It is precisely because of its system-forming function that the principle of sovereign equality is fundamental to the UN system.
Despite the above, the principle of sovereign equality has not been applied in countless cases. As already noted earlier in the text, it is applied incompletely even in the formation of one of the most important bodies of the UN - the Security Council. But the creators of the world organization placed it at the center of its system because, being forced to come to terms with the post-war realities of the time, they knew that over time its ever-more complete implementation would become not only possible, but also increasingly expedient and necessary. This would actually be a long historical process of development of the system of international relations itself.
Global powers, as in the case of world peace, officially support the principles of sovereignty and sovereign equality in almost all their foreign policy normative documents. And again, problems and contradictions arise in the interpretation of these principles in different circumstances and under the influence of different geopolitical interests.
The third universal human value proposed for discussion is humanity and human rights. The unification of the last two terms is, of course, intentional. Compliance with humanity is still a kind of common basis and criterion for assessing the state of human rights in different specific cases. Human rights are probably the most differently interpreted universal human value, with the most different ways of using them for geopolitical purposes and, accordingly, with the most conflict potential. The basis of this peculiarity is the historically arising opposition between individual and collective rights. For example, which should have priority, state sovereignty or individual rights? It turns out that this too is a problem of specific interpretations with the corresponding legal and moral-political aspects.
An illustration of the complexities can be seen, for example, in the following words of US President Joe Biden in his speech to the 78th session of the UN General Assembly: “Certain principles of our international system are sacred. Sovereignty, territorial integrity, human rights - these are the most important principles of the UN Charter…..They are the fixed foundations of this noble organization…. We cannot sacrifice any of them.“ In these words I see two emphases: one correctly brings together sovereignty and human rights in one place, without explicitly opposing them, and the second - “they cannot sacrifice any of them“ - which, in the event of a confrontation between them, leaves the decision to be made on the spot. There is no principled legal point of reference. And this can lead to wrong decisions and tragic consequences, as has happened more than once in history.
Let's see what the positions of other global powers are. The Joint Russian-Chinese Declaration of the Presidents of the two countries of March 21, 2023 states: “The universal realization of human rights is a common aspiration of humanity. Each state has the right to independently choose the path of its development in the field of human rights. Different civilizations and countries are obliged to accept each other and respect each other, communicate and borrow the best. (The two) countries will promote human rights at the national and global levels.“ This declaration was perceived by Western countries as “revisionist“ and entirely negative, including on the issue of human rights. For me, the latter was quite surprising, as the evolution in the Russian and Chinese positions was not noticed or was deliberately ignored. They no longer insist that the topic is a completely internal and value neutral issue. I think this is an opportunity that can be developed through dialogue and discussions to reduce the opposition on this issue and reduce it to more meaningful and reasonable levels.
Based on the thoughts expressed in this text, I believe that public interest and activity should be used to restore trust and good cooperation on a global scale, which will obviously be a difficult and lengthy process. The first and most important step in this direction could be public support for the UN Future Summit initiated by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in September 2024. This could happen at the stage of discussing the ideas and proposals for the documents being prepared for signing at the Summit, as well as to create a constructive international atmosphere on the eve of the meeting.
A lot of accumulated distrust, a lot of accumulated negativity must be overcome. Left only to professional circles, diplomats, experts and politicians, solving this task may prove to be overwhelming. Public and popular support is needed. It will not appear automatically with the holding of the Summit of the Future. Organizational work is needed, and some specialized UN agencies can help by organizing competitions, discussion forums, peaceful anti-war demonstrations, etc. I have not heard of them doing this. And time flies. State leaders and representatives must feel this public pressure. I am afraid that if this does not happen, if the initiative remains with the war-mongers, the results of the Summit may turn out to be too modest.
The engagement of the wider international community in discussions on the philosophical and political aspects of the issues of the meeting and the activation of the various peace movements and forums could contribute to a partial reduction of tension and a more constructive general atmosphere, which would contribute to the possible restoration of trust and, accordingly, to substantial and better-quality results from the Summit of the Future.
Peace, sovereign equality and human rights bring together considerable opportunities for the convergence of the philosophical and political positions of sovereign states. Each of these countries faces an enormous responsibility, because this is one of the cases when the sovereign voice weighs and decides. And no one is greater than the sovereign decision. It would be good for their representatives to remember the wise words of Mahatma Gandhi at the moment of decision: “There is no path to peace, peace is the path.“
Sofia, April 2, 2024.
Atanas Budev