From Ideological Confrontation to National Interests: Historical Evolution and Current Analysis of International Relations

Oct 20, 2024

Throughout history, the interplay between ideological confrontation and national interests has shaped the framework of international relations. From the two World Wars to the end of the Cold War, conflicts between different ideologies frequently altered the world map and the balance of power. However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and China’s economic reforms, the world returned to an era where national interests took precedence. In this era, national interests and pragmatism replaced ideological confrontation as the core driving forces of the international order. This article explores the background and logic behind this evolution, illustrating why, in contemporary international relations, pragmatism and national interests increasingly take precedence over ideology, through a series of historical examples.

I. From the Napoleonic Wars to German Support for Lenin: Historical Examples of National Interests Overriding Ideology

Although ideology has been a primary driver of national conflicts at certain points in history, many examples demonstrate that, when pursuing core strategic goals, pragmatic national interests often take precedence over ideological differences.

1. The Napoleonic Wars: Britain’s Alliance with Feudal States

During the Napoleonic Wars, post-revolutionary France quickly transitioned to capitalism, abolishing feudal privileges through a series of revolutionary reforms and establishing a system dominated by the bourgeoisie. However, Britain, as a mature capitalist state, chose to ally with European feudal monarchies (like Austria, Prussia, and Russia) to collectively oppose Napoleonic France. On the surface, this seemed contrary to ideological alignment since Britain was economically closer to France, but this strategic choice was purely based on national interests and realism.

• Britain’s Motivation: Despite France’s political and economic structures being more akin to capitalism, Napoleon’s imperial expansion threatened Britain’s global dominance. To curb French military expansion on the European continent, Britain was willing to set aside ideological differences and cooperate with feudal states to maintain the balance of power in Europe. This strategy exemplified how national interests can outweigh ideological affiliations.

2. Germany’s Support for Lenin’s Return to Russia (1917)

In 1917, to weaken its eastern front enemy, Russia, Germany adopted a bold strategy: it facilitated Lenin’s return from exile in Switzerland to Russia to incite revolution, overthrow the Provisional Government, and establish a Soviet regime. Lenin swiftly negotiated with Germany and, in March 1918, signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Under this treaty, Russia exited World War I, surrendering vast western territories, including Poland, Ukraine, and the Baltic states, in exchange for peace.

• Germany’s Pragmatic Strategy: Germany was fully aware that Lenin’s ideology was fundamentally different, even opposing their own. However, for pragmatic strategic reasons, Germany temporarily set aside ideological differences, supporting Lenin’s revolution to weaken Russia and force its exit from World War I. This illustrates how, when opposing ideologies do not pose an expansionist threat, national interests often trump ideological divides.

II. The Three Dominant Ideologies During World War II

During World War II, the world was dominated by three major ideologies: Liberal Democracy, Fascism, and Communism.

1. Liberal Democracy was represented by the United States, Britain, France, and other Western democracies, emphasizing individual freedom, democratic elections, the rule of law, and market economies. This ideology aimed to ensure individual rights and economic freedom, promoting global prosperity through free markets and international cooperation.

2. Fascism, promoted by Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan, emphasized state supremacy, extreme nationalism, racial superiority, and totalitarian control. Fascist states pursued military expansion and dictatorship, attempting to establish a new world order led by authoritarian regimes.

3. Communism was represented by the Soviet Union, advocating for the abolition of private property through proletarian revolution, public ownership of the means of production, and the establishment of a classless society. Rooted in Marxist theory, Communism opposed capitalist systems, emphasizing comprehensive state control over the economy.

During World War II, the conflict between Liberal Democracy and Fascism became the main form of global conflict. Although Communism and Liberal Democracy were ideologically opposed, they temporarily allied against a common enemy (the Fascist states), which eventually led to the Axis powers’ defeat.

III. The Cold War: The Peak of Ideological Confrontation

After World War II, the world entered the Cold War, marking the peak of ideological confrontation. The Cold War divided the world into two major blocs: the liberal democratic and capitalist camp led by the United States and the Communist camp led by the Soviet Union. Competition between these two blocs manifested not only in military and economic spheres but also as a global ideological struggle.

1. The Expansion of Liberal Democracy by the U.S.: The United States and its allies promoted liberal democracy and market capitalism globally, using initiatives like the “Marshall Plan” to rebuild post-war Europe and contain the spread of Communism. The core values of Liberal Democracy include individual freedom, political participation, and economic freedom, fostering national development through capitalist market mechanisms.

2. The Spread of Communism by the Soviet Union: The Soviet Union aimed to establish a socialist world order based on proletarian dictatorship by supporting Communist revolutions worldwide. Many proxy wars during the Cold War (e.g., the Korean War, the Vietnam War) were direct manifestations of this ideological struggle.

IV. The Post-Cold War Shift: From Ideological Confrontation to the Primacy of National Interests

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and China’s economic reforms marked a profound change in the global political landscape, signaling the relative retreat of ideological confrontation and the rise of pragmatic diplomacy. After the Cold War, the combination of liberal democracy and market capitalism became the dominant global ideology, but ideological confrontations no longer defined international relations. Instead, national interests and pragmatism emerged as the primary drivers of cooperation and conflict between nations.

1. The Victory of Liberal Democracy and the Dominance of Market Capitalism

With the end of the Cold War, liberal democracy combined with market capitalism became the mainstream ideology worldwide. Many countries transitioned to liberal democracies and market economies, integrating into the globalized system through political reforms and economic liberalization. However, this did not mean that all nations abandoned authoritarian or autocratic systems.

2. The Continuation of Authoritarianism: Authoritarianism, Residual Fascism, and Communism

Despite the victory of liberal democracy, authoritarianism (including remnants of Fascism and Communism) persisted. Authoritarian states maintained centralized control politically but engaged with the global economy through market reforms. For example, after its economic reforms, China retained a one-party system but embraced market mechanisms to drive rapid economic growth.

V. Conclusion: From Ideological Confrontation to the Return of Realism

Reflecting on history, from the Napoleonic Wars and Germany’s support for Lenin, where national interests prevailed over ideology, to the three major ideologies of Liberal Democracy, Fascism, and Communism during World War II that divided the world into opposing camps, and then to the global confrontation between Liberal Democracy and Communism during the Cold War. However, with the end of the Cold War and China’s economic reforms, ideological confrontation no longer held center stage, and the world re-entered an era dominated by national interests and pragmatic diplomacy. Although authoritarianism still exists, it does not form global confrontations like during the Cold War era. Criticism of autocracy by democratic countries is more about maintaining their internal values, expressing their stance through diplomatic pressure and sanctions, but it rarely leads to actual international confrontation. National interests and realism have returned to the forefront of international politics, shaping the current global order.