SHARQSHUNOSLIK /
ВО С Т О К О ВЕ ДЕ Н И Е
/ ORIENTAL STUDIES 2021,
№
3
183
уқтирмоқда. Очиқ айтиш керакки, йиллар давомида жамият ёшларнинг
ғайрат-шижоатларидан фойдаланиб келди, уларни турли вазифаларга,
ҳаракатларга сафарбар этди, аммо зарур ҳаётий муаммоларини ҳал этмади,
орзу-ниятлари ёшликка хос жўшқин талқинлари эътиборсиз қолди.
Натижада кўпгина ёшларда ижтимоий фаоллик сусайди, бефарқлик,
умидсизлик кайфияти юзага келди. Маънавият бу нохушликларга барҳам
беради. Чунки келажакка ишонч, сабр-қаноат, ҳар қандай шароитда ҳам олға
интилиш, бировнинг ҳақига хиёнат қилмаслик бизнинг қонимизда бор.
SADIBAKOSEV KHABIBULLO
PhD student, UWED
Modern Approaches to the Study of Modern
International Relations
Abstract. The Cold War was not only traditional in international relations next phase of
the struggle for world domination, but also an ideological war aimed to impose on the
opposing powers a certain value system, social structure, political regime, etc. As a result the
ideological conflict of the opposing powers became an important component of the Cold War.
With the end of the Cold War the problems of «end of history» and the “end of ideologies”
were actualized on the West. It became about an axiom that the world politics lost its
ideological dimension. In fact, however, ideological component is deeply integrated into the
emerging «new» world order. Even the dominance of Western countries in the emerging
system of international relations was legitimated by the postulates of neo-liberalism. The
coming to power in the USA of president D. Trump and changes in American foreign policy
stress a deep transformation in the modern system of international 51 relations.
Unconditional dominance of the liberal paradigm in global scale is gradually coming to an
end. This process is accelerated due to the completion of the «unipolar moment» in world
politics and process of step by step formation of a polycentric world order. The world is
entering to a turbulent era. And one of its main features will probably be decline of ideology
influence and the strengthening of political realism as an intellectual dominant in making
decisions in dynamic and unclear international environment.
Keywords and expressions: world politics, international relations, polycentric world order,
ideology, liberalism, realism.
Аннотация. Совуқ уруш халқаро муносабатларда нафақат анъанавий ҳукмронлик
учун курашнинг кейинги босқичи, балки қарама-қарши кучларга маълум қадриятлар
тизимини, ижтимоий тузилмани, сиёсий режимни ва бошқаларни ўрнатишга қаратилган
мафкуравий уруш эди. қарама-қарши кучларнинг мафкуравий тўқнашуви Совуқ урушнинг
муҳим таркибий қисмига айланди. Совуқ уруш тугаши билан Ғарбда "тарихнинг охири" ва
"мафкураларнинг охири" муаммолари долзарб бўлиб қолди. Дунё сиёсати ғоявий
ўлчамларини йўқотганлиги аксиомага айланди. Аммо, аслида, мафкуравий таркибий қисм
янги пайдо бўлаётган "янги" дунё тартибига чуқур сингиб кетган. Ҳатто Ғарб
давлатларининг пайдо бўлаётган халқаро муносабатлар тизимидаги устунлиги нео-
SHARQSHUNOSLIK /
ВО С Т О К О ВЕ ДЕ Н И Е
/ ORIENTAL STUDIES 2021,
№
3
184
либерализмнинг постулатлари билан қонунийлаштирилди. АҚШ президенти Д. Трампнинг
ҳокимият тепасига келиши ва Америка ташқи сиёсатидаги ўзгаришлар замонавий
халқаро муносабатлар тизимидаги чуқур ўзгаришларни таъкидламоқда. Либерал
парадигманинг глобал миқёсда сўзсиз устунлиги аста-секин ўз ниҳоясига етмоқда. Ушбу
жараён жаҳон сиёсатидаги "бир қутбли дунё" тугаши ва кўп марказли дунё тартибини
босқичма-босқич шакллантириш жараёни туфайли тезлашади. Дунё нотинч даврга
кирмоқда ва унинг асосий хусусиятларидан бири, эҳтимол, мафкура таъсирининг
пасайиши ва сиёсий ва ноаниқ халқаро муҳитда қарор қабул қилишда интеллектуал
доминант сифатида сиёсий реализмнинг кучайиши бўлиши мумкин.
Таянч сўз ва иборалар: дунё сиёсати, халқаро муносабатлар, кўп марказли дунё
тартиби, мафкура, либерализм, реалисм.
Аннотация. Холодная война представляла собой не только традиционную для
международных отношений очередную фазу борьбы за мировое господство, но
одновременно и идеологическое противостояние, призванное навязать противостоящей
стороне определенную систему ценностей, политический режим и т. д. В результате
важным компонентом холодной войны был идеологический конфликт противостоящих
держав. С ее завершением в странах Запада была актуализирована проблематика «конца
истории» и «конца идеологий». Утверждалось как аксиома, что внешняя политика
утрачивает идеологическое измерение. Однако идеологическая составляющая оказалась
глубоко интегрирована в формировавшийся «новый» мировой порядок. Само
доминирование стран Запада в складывавшейся системе международных отношений
легитимировалось в рамках либеральной идеологической парадигмы. Приход к власти в
США Д.Трампа и связанные с этим событием изменения в американской и мировой
политике свидетельствуют о серьезных трансформациях, происходящих в современной
системе международных отношений. Безоговорочное доминирование либеральной
парадигмы в глобальном масштабе постепенно подходит к концу. Данный процесс
ускоряется из-за завершения «однополярного момента» в мировой политике и
формирования полицентричного миропорядка. В рамках этих процессов, пожалуй,
впервые за последние десятилетия складываются реальные предпосылки для
деидеологизации международных отношений. Мир вступает в турбулентную эпоху. И
одной из ее основных черт вероятно станет усиление политического реализма как
интеллектуальной доминанты при принятии решений в динамичной и гораздо более
неопределенной, чем в последние десятилетия, международной среде.
Опорные слова и выражения: мировая политика, международные отношения,
полицентричный миропорядок, идеология, либерализм, реализм.
Introduction
International relations in the middle and second half of the 20th century were
characterized by the fact that the traditional complex of factors underlying world
politics, perhaps for the first time since the religious wars of the 16th – 17th
centuries, was supplemented by an ideological component. Moreover, as the Cold
War and bipolar confrontation developed, the ideological component tended to
become one of the dominant (if not decisive) factors in world politics. Many
analysts note that the Cold War was not only the next phase of the struggle for
world domination, traditional for international relations, but also an ideological
SHARQSHUNOSLIK /
ВО С Т О К О ВЕ ДЕ Н И Е
/ ORIENTAL STUDIES 2021,
№
3
185
war designed to impose on the opposing side a certain way of life, value system,
form of social structure, political regime, etc. As a result, during the Cold War,
the ideological conflict acquired a largely self-contained significance, constituted
the main nerve of confrontation within the framework of the emerging bipolar
system of international relations. The opposition of the poles meant not just
competition or tensions between two antagonists, but almost a holy war in which
one of the two rival systems must win and the other disappear. The two opposing
poles were playing an ideologically determined zero-sum game, in accordance
with which the whole world was essentially divided into spheres of interest and
ideological influence.
Therefore, with the end of the Cold War, the problems of the “end of history”
and “the end of ideologies” have been actualized in the socio-political discourse
of Western countries. In any case, it was asserted as an axiom that does not
require proof that foreign policy is losing its ideological dimension. However, in
reality, the ideological component turned out to be deeply integrated into the
emerging "new" world order. The very domination of Western countries in the
emerging system of international relations was legitimized largely by means of
ideological tools. Moreover, within the framework of the clearly manifested itself
by the beginning of the XXI century. Of the “unipolar moment”, Western
countries, like a hundred and two hundred years ago, tried to play the role of the
vanguard, projecting (including forcibly) their values and institutions (market,
human rights, democracy) onto other societies, which (albeit in different degree)
were ready to resist this and who, paradoxically, now defend a set of institutions
and norms imposed on them by the West earlier (sovereignty, territorial integrity,
diplomacy as the main form of interaction in the international arena, etc.)
1
World politics arose at the junction of theoretical studies in the field of
international relations, postulating the integrity of the political system of the
world, with a significant contribution of the neoliberal tradition to the
understanding of cardinal changes, ideas about the relationship between foreign
and domestic politics, international political economy, analysis of international
organizations, political science, where research in comparative political science
was important. The set of theoretical approaches in international studies is a rather
mosaic conglomerate. It is known that the conclusion of treaties that fix the limits
of the use of force, the establishment of institutions designed to guarantee their
observance, mutual obligations to respect each other's property - these are the
elementary conditions for the formation of an international society. They do not
lead to a complete liberation from the anarchy of international relations, but help
to reduce its degree. By creating and strengthening international regimes (in the
1
Buzan B. From international to World Society? English school theory and the social structure of
globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. P. 237.
SHARQSHUNOSLIK /
ВО С Т О К О ВЕ ДЕ Н И Е
/ ORIENTAL STUDIES 2021,
№
3
186
field of security, trade, movement of goods and people, human rights, etc.), the
international society streamlines interstate relations.
First, let us dwell on the most common approaches to the study of
international relations, realism and liberalism. Consider the evolution of these
classic paradigms.
The dominant place in the analysis of international relations belongs to realism
and neoliberalism. Realism remains the dominant paradigm for all transformations
of content and insists on the adequacy of its main provisions (conflict in
international relations, national interests as the basis of world politics, the role of
power and the effectiveness of force as ways to achieve and maintain it, etc.) to
modern international realities.
The tradition of political realism in the study of the history of international
relations is associated with such thinkers as Thucydides, N. Machiavelli, T.
Hobbes, K. von Clausewitz and others. In the XX century. a decisive contribution
to the development of these traditions was made by the British historian E.-H.
Carr and the American political scientist G. Morgenthau. Realists believe that the
nature of international relations is anarchic, i.e. its features include the absence of
supreme power, therefore, the states that are the main participants in international
relations are forced to rely only on their own capabilities in interaction with each
other. Such relations are based on the national interests of states, which are
governed by the forces of the great powers. The preferences of states are
formulated by their leaders, proceeding from their inherent perception of national
interest, the essence of which does not fundamentally change. National interest is
understood in terms of the strength of the state in relations with other states.
Success is achieved by those leaders of countries who act wisely, using strategies
that support or expand their power relative to other states. In the end, law or
morality either serves the interests of the strongest, or is invisible in international
relations. This was the case during the domination of ancient empires in Europe
and other parts of the world; this existed at the dawn of the formation of modern
states and will remain in the future. The essence of international relations is
constant, because they are based on the unchanging nature of man himself,
although as scientific and technical progress develops, social structures evolve,
etc. they can take on new forms
1
.
During the Cold War era, the popularity of neorealist positions in the TMT
was reinforced by the bipolar structure of the interstate system, which determined
the behavior of traditional actors on the world stage. However, with the collapse
of the USSR and the end of the confrontation between the two superpowers, these
positions were largely undermined. There has been a massive invasion of world
politics by non-traditional actors, a new generation of conflicts has arisen, and
1
Косолапов Н. Международные отношения как специфический тип общения // Мировая
экономика и междуна-родные отношения. 1999. №6.
SHARQSHUNOSLIK /
ВО С Т О К О ВЕ ДЕ Н И Е
/ ORIENTAL STUDIES 2021,
№
3
187
security on the planet has ceased to depend only on the configuration of the
international system. The dissemination of the latest means of communication and
information has made interstate borders permeable. Civilizational, cultural,
religious factors and the self-identification of new actors began to play a
significant role in world politics. This led to the fact that in the theory of
international relations, the postmodern approach is becoming more widespread.
Under these conditions, a new version of realism appears, one of the first
exponents of which was Harvard University professor S. Huntington, who in 1993
came up with the idea of a “clash of civilizations”. States as the main actors in
world politics are being replaced by civilizations - cultural communities that differ
from each other in history, language, traditions, but most of all in religion. Despite
the mutual intertwining and mixing, the main civilizations (Western, Confucian,
Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic Orthodox, Latin American and, possibly,
African) are real communities with virtually dividing borders. Communists can
become democrats, the rich can become poor, but Azerbaijanis cannot be
Armenians, Huntington illustrates his point. Huntington shares with the realists
the position that the subjects of world politics predominantly operate in conditions
of anarchy, and there is almost nothing that would hinder their desire for power
and domination. For example, international economic institutions are used by the
West to protect its own economic interests and to impose economic policies that
are beneficial to other nations. In turn, international security institutions exist for
the implementation of political domination by the West
1
.
Thus, we are talking, in fact, about a new post-classical realism. Maintaining
at the basis of their reasoning all the main postulates of the paradigm under
consideration (concerning the nature of international relations, the processes
dominant in them, participants, their goals and means, and finally, the future of
these relations), its supporters shift the center of gravity in the study of
international relations from the analysis of interstate interactions to factors and
processes of a sociocultural order. Liberalism is undergoing a similar evolution.
As you know, liberalism is based on two ideas - on the unity of the human
race, universal values and ideals, as well as on the possibility and necessity of
changing the nature of international relations in the spirit of humanism and human
rights. International relations are becoming more and more manageable under the
influence of public opinion and the purposeful activities of an expanding circle of
participants in international relations. Along with states, the activity of non-state
international actors - intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations,
transnational corporations, firms, enterprises and banks, as well as heterogeneous
organized groups and individuals - is gaining in importance.
The main processes dominating in international relations are not conflicts and
wars, not a confrontation of national interests, but cooperation and integration,
1
Хантингтон С. Столкновение цивилизаций //Полис. 1994. №1.
SHARQSHUNOSLIK /
ВО С Т О К О ВЕ ДЕ Н И Е
/ ORIENTAL STUDIES 2021,
№
3
188
conditioned by the growing interdependence of the world and the increasing
awareness of people of their common interests. The world does not automatically
become better and safer, which requires cohesive actions from the participants in
international relations to regulate them. The main regulators are legal and moral
norms. In this paradigm, there is an idealistic component, which has a long
tradition, within which “utopianism”, “legalism” and moralism are distinguished.
The other two versions of the liberal paradigm are neoliberalism and
postclassical liberalism. Neoliberalism includes, for example, a trend that is based
on the concept of economic interdependence. From the point of view of its
supporters (Keohane, R. Cooper, Nye), the policy of states in international
relations is determined by internal economic interests. At the same time, the
growth of interdependence creates common economic interests of all states. This
unity strengthens their cooperation. Countries work together to increase their
potential economic benefits and reduce losses. Their policies are driven by
rational interests. The growth of economic interdependence not only changes the
tasks and behavior of states on the international stage, but also reduces the role of
their military power.
The last decade of the XX and the beginning of the XXI century. became a
time of rapid development of constructivism - a new trend in international
political science. It has been customary to use the term constructivism in
international political science since 1989, when N. Onaf's work "The World of
Our Creation: Rules and Regulations in Social Theory and in the Theory of
International Relations" was published by the University of South Carolina, in
which the author first used himself this term. Constructivism gained recognition in
the scientific community thanks to its appeal to previously poorly studied aspects
of international life, the novelty and originality of the propositions put forward,
criticism of traditional paradigms along with the desire to find certain
compromises in them. Constructivists (in international political science, E. Adler,
M. Barnett, T. Christiansen, M. Finnemore, J. Chekel.) Rely in their views on the
provisions of the theory of social construction of reality developed much earlier,
on sociological approaches in research international relations. From the point of
view of constructivists, the meaning of the world is given by norms, rules,
cultures, values and ideas, i.e. ideal factors, which are ultimately primary.
Institutions are formal organizations created to disseminate norms as the result of
social agreements. They do not exist outside the ideas of the actors, their ideas
about the way in which the world functions. Because of this, the generally
accepted “meaning” of institutions is interpreted within a shared normative
framework. The existence of institutions depends on regulatory and constitutional
rules. The role of regulations is to streamline certain activities. The attention that
constructivists pay to what they call co-constitution, i.e. mutual formation of
institutions and agents, the priority they give to the constitutive functions of rules
and norms over regulating ones - all this has rather serious consequences for the
SHARQSHUNOSLIK /
ВО С Т О К О ВЕ ДЕ Н И Е
/ ORIENTAL STUDIES 2021,
№
3
189
understanding of international relations. In other words, constructivists admit the
likelihood of changes in the very fundamental foundations of the functioning of
international relations and world politics. This is opposed by the supporters of
realism. Realists are interested in what remains, unchanged, not changing. They
focus, for example, on the similarities between the policies of the times of
Kissinger, Metternich and Thucydides, treating change as anomalies.
Constructivists, on the contrary, highlight such changes and analyze how the
goals, behavior and even the very nature of states are formed in the historical
process by the dominant political ideas and social norms (M. Finnemore).
Constructivists believe that national-state interests cannot be derived simply from
the distribution of military or economic power, that there is also a social
component of such power.
According to constructivism, as long as the planet is institutionally divided,
states as international actors will retain a special role in world politics. This is
explained not by the fact that they are doing well with their tasks (ensuring the
safety and well-being of citizens, individual rights and freedoms, etc.), but by the
fact that the state, as a form of political organization as a whole, is increasingly
revealing its dysfunctionality, moreover, the development of this form gave rise to
many ineffective, even failed states. However, if you are not a state, then in world
politics you are nodiv, which is understood by the national movements fighting
for liberation and equality. "The fact that hopelessly weakened and failed states
can be re-established as states rather than reorganized in any other way (such as
colonies) indicates strong cultural support for statehood and the illegitimacy of
other political forms." States exist because they are supported by the great world
culture
1
.
Debates on the theory of international relations postulated a positive impact on
international relations of the emerging unipolar moment and the prevailing liberal
consensus. By definition, an anarchic (Hobbesian) international environment was
contrasted with increasingly orderly relations within the framework of the
emerging liberal unipolar, where the US and Western countries were to play the
role of the supreme arbiter in shaping and approving the rules of the game, as well
as in enforcing them. The new world order was based on a completely definite
and universal in its claims liberal ideological platform
2
. In the context of the
triumph of the liberal ideological paradigm, it was asserted as an axiom that
liberalization is necessary to ensure universal peace and security. Economic
interdependence and international institutions are alternative liberal strategies
aimed at softening the policies of states, creating a more peaceful and cooperative
international environment. From the point of view of supporters of liberal
1
Финнемор М. Нормы, культура и мировая политика с позиций социологического
институционализма // Международные отношения: социологические подходы. - М., 1998.
2
Ikenberry J. Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis and Transformation of the American World
Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.
SHARQSHUNOSLIK /
ВО С Т О К О ВЕ ДЕ Н И Е
/ ORIENTAL STUDIES 2021,
№
3
190
approaches, attempts to change the world order are possible. But within the
framework of the existing system of international relations and the dominant
structures of political discourse, they will be “limited and ordered in ways that
preclude drawing any analogies with the past. Three factors can be distinguished:
there is a gradual shift, not a change in the centers of power; unleashing a large-
scale war between the leading powers is ruled out, since such a clash cannot serve
as an effective means of changing the system; and numerous international
organizations create unprecedented obstacles for countries that are claiming to
expand their influence ”
1
. The combination of all these factors limits the ability of
states dissatisfied with the existing balance of power to change the existing system
and is an obstacle to attempts to change the existing world order. The dense
intertwining of established rules and institutions supports the maintenance of the
existing status quo. This idea is supported by the results of scientific research and
was summarized by J. Ikenberry's famous statement about the inherent “blocking
effect” (or “rut effect”) in institutional systems, which provides resistance to
change. These factors are actively used by those who aim to preserve the status
quo (a practically formed unipolar liberal world order) and create almost
insurmountable problems for potential revisionists.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the USSR and the
disappearance of the Eastern Bloc, the world in the early nineties, for the first time
in the new century history, fell into unipolarity, with a pronounced dominance of
the United States and the military-political alliance NATO. The United States
confirmed its political and military domination both economically, by imposing
and pursuing the policy of the Washington Treaty, which essentially represents
the Morgenthau Plan for the countries
2
, first in Latin America, and then in the
former socialist world. The basis of the Treaty - the assumption of the
spontaneous emergence of markets - a well-known "error of spontaneity", which
more or less all the transforming countries adhered to, and which could not have
good consequences
3
.
Two key planetary processes have caused the rapid transition of the unipolar
order to the multipolar one. First, after several centuries, the North Atlantic ceases
to be the leading planetary economic mega-region, and the North Pacific Ocean,
centered in China, is becoming more and more so another, the global economic
crisis in 2008. In fact, for reasons and consequences, this is mainly the Anglo-
American crisis, the collapse of the neoliberal concept, which first of all has a bad
1
Уолфорт У. Возвращение реальной политики // Россия в глобальной политике. 2015.
Июльавгуст. URL: http://www.globalaffairs.ru/number/Vozvraschenie-realnoi-politiki-17636
2
Reinert, E.S. Globalna ekonomija. Kako su bogati postali bogati i zašto siromašni postaju
siromašniji / пер. с норв. I. Rajić. Beograd: Čigoja štampa, 2006.
3
Macner, E. Monopolarni svetski poredak. O socioekonomiji dominacije SAD / пер. с англ. M.
Kopečni. Beograd: Dosije, 2003, с. 51.
SHARQSHUNOSLIK /
ВО С Т О К О ВЕ ДЕ Н И Е
/ ORIENTAL STUDIES 2021,
№
3
191
effect on the United States, then Great Britain and, to a lesser extent, other
Western countries, and indirectly its consequences are felt throughout the world.
This second process significantly accelerates the current that has begun,
directing the world order towards multipolarity. Until recently, instead of the
almighty United States, there are already several world powers, of which the
United States is still the leading, but without the ability, as before, to
independently determine the main processes concerning the correlation of world
politics and international relations. America can still provoke crises in different
parts of the world, but not end them in its own way. Examples are the Ukrainian
and Syrian crises, and in terms of soft power, the WikiLeaks and Snowden cases.
Trump's victory in the US presidential election and Brexit are two new key
developments indicating that, on the one hand, multipolarity already exists, and
this is changing the policy of the leading Anglo-Saxon powers. On the other hand,
even among them, who had the greatest benefits from neoliberalism and the new
order, an ordinary person, according to the theory of the modern world system of
I. Wallerstein, decided to rebel and overthrow this imperialist policy, which is
created by a narrow layer of the globalist elite.
In connection with Trump's victory and Brexit, some of the elite in
Washington and London are now more willing to seek a compromise with
Moscow (and more broadly with the BRICS). But it is unlikely that there will be a
serious convergence of the interests of Washington and London, on the one hand,
and Moscow, Beijing and other centers of power. This is primarily a tactical
readiness for cooperation of interested parties ("trade"). Of course, this is also a
chance in the Balkans, specifically for Serbian interests.
The leading EU countries are considering the possibility of its institutional
stratification, led by an exclusive club - Germany and France, and then Italy,
Spain. Other EU members, in institutional forms, would have less rights. This met
with resistance, especially from the Visegrad group. Colossal financial
contradictions and crises, from which Greece primarily suffers, but others, mainly
from Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean, pose a serious problem for the future
illusion of unity, which is further reflected in the crisis of migrants and the
difference (insurmountable?) To a common strategy ... Since these problems will
not be resolved in the coming years and decades, on the contrary, they may even
worsen the unity, the existence of the EU is in big question. After several
centuries, the North Atlantic is losing its leading position in the economy of the
North Pacific Ocean, centered in the Far East, especially in China. China through
the NSR establishes a direct geo-economic and transport line of communication
with Europe, including with the important region of the Danube basin. Thus,
Serbia receives additional opportunities for developing relations with China, for
connecting with countries in the region, for its own development, especially
taking into account the Danube route, road corridors that pass through its territory,
as well as the Piraeus-Budapest high-speed railway project. The fact that Serbia is
SHARQSHUNOSLIK /
ВО С Т О К О ВЕ ДЕ Н И Е
/ ORIENTAL STUDIES 2021,
№
3
192
militarily neutral and not an EU member becomes more important when it comes
to China.
India is becoming more and more influential in international relations, like
Brazil and other BRICS members. By joint action, they get an additional
opportunity to increase their influence at the global level, although they primarily
have ambitions on their continent.
The modern development of the system of international relations, closely
associated with the acceleration of the processes of globalization and the
emergence of new global threats, makes it necessary to internationally discuss the
principles of the political organization of the world. Today, in conditions when
“the world is undergoing a transformation due to large-scale transboundary
activity”, when new actors are emerging that challenge the modern political
organization of the world, it is important to use such methods of influencing
public consciousness that would be a sufficiently effective tool to achieve the set
goals in foreign policy activity of the state
1
.
The mechanisms of public diplomacy play an important role in this regard, one
of the main tasks of which is to strengthen the deterrent factor of the forceful
solution of problems in international relations. In modern conditions, public
diplomacy is becoming an important structural component of the strategy of the
leading actors in world politics, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO). In their quest for global domination, the United States and NATO seek
to use a flexible and comprehensive strategy of military-political influence. Along
with the traditional methods of forceful influence, political strategists of the
Alliance pay great attention to improving the use of fundamentally new
instruments, among which the mechanisms of “soft power” are in the first place.
Their most important advantage is the ability not to force the opponent to take
certain actions, but to attract him to your side with the help of persuasion, while
creating a psychologically beneficial atmosphere of mutual understanding. As
professor at the University of Southern California Philip Seib notes in this regard,
"NATO must channel its influence through" soft forms "in order to justify its hard
power"
2
.
At the present stage, the use of soft power mechanisms as a tool of NATO
public diplomacy presupposes the formation of certain ideological attitudes
among the wide international community, as well as the formation of a positive
image of the Alliance as a transparent, modern and successful international
organization friendly towards most other international actors. One of the features
of the use of "soft power" by the North Atlantic Alliance is the impact on various
1
Лебедева М.М. Публичная дипломатия в урегулировании конфликтов // Международные
процессы. 2015.
Том 13. № 4(43). С.45–56.
2
Pagovski Z.Z. Public diplomacy of Multilateral organizations: the cases of NATO, EU and
ASEAN // Fuguero Press.2015.
SHARQSHUNOSLIK /
ВО С Т О К О ВЕ ДЕ Н И Е
/ ORIENTAL STUDIES 2021,
№
3
193
segments of civil society in other states. The priority area in this regard is the
various formats of work with the youth audience. To this end, the structures of the
Alliance organize and finance a set of events, including special scholarship
programs, holding conferences, seminars, workshops, summer schools with a
targeted focus. Examples of this kind include the regularly functioning Summer
School in Slovakia and Ukraine, within the framework of which a program for the
training of specialists in the field of European and Euro-Atlantic integration is
being implemented. Currently, within the framework of the implementation of this
direction, the Alliance has created a whole system of interacting organizations,
known as the "Young NATO Network"
1
.
However, the situation in the world began to change noticeably already in the
early 2000s. and especially clearly during the global financial and economic crisis
of 2008–2010. Against the background of the extremely unilateralist policy of the
George W. Bush administration, which is clearly based on the hard force, the
invasions of Afghanistan, and especially Iraq, liberal maximalism began to
gradually lose ground. By "wars of choice" the United States has significantly
undermined its own authority and influence in the world. Moreover, in some
respects, apparently, irrevocably. Their proclaimed unrestricted right to interfere
in the affairs of other states weakened the credibility of American politics.
"Optional" (wars of choice) and destabilizing in their consequences the invasions
of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya undermined faith in their strength and, most
importantly, in their ability to effectively global leadership. Military superiority
turned out to be illusory, since it became clear that with the help of military force
(more precisely, solely relying on military power) it is impossible to solve the
problems of the modern world. But the financial crisis has radically undermined
the notion that the United States has unconditional competence and indisputable
authority in financial and economic matters. Delegitimization of the unipolar
world took place against the background of an objective growth of polycentric
tendencies.
The pragmatism inherent in modern liberalism was transformed into a kind of
economic determinism, when foreign policy began to be perceived as a technical
mechanism to serve the immediate economic interests of national or transnational
business elites. All other interests (from preserving national culture to protecting
national security) were declared annoying vestiges of a bygone era. The rules
formulated and adopted by the Western countries were not subject to discussion.
At the same time, the enthusiasm for common norms and rules did not exclude
legal relativism, when the basic norms of international law (sovereignty, non-
interference in the internal affairs of other states, refusal to use military force, etc.)
began to be applied selectively (the idea of a political "buffet"), depending on
1
Манойло А.В. Психологические операции: модели и технологии управления конфликтами.
// Политэкс (Политическая экспертиза). – 2008. – № 3. – С. 62–73.
SHARQSHUNOSLIK /
ВО С Т О К О ВЕ ДЕ Н И Е
/ ORIENTAL STUDIES 2021,
№
3
194
from current political needs and specific situations. The legal one was followed by
moral relativism, which manifested itself, for example, in the readiness to
distinguish between “bad” and “good” terrorism, depending on considerations of
the political situation. The end of the “fourth wave” of democratization, which did
not confirm the dominance of liberal values either in East Asia, or even more so in
the Middle East, and the progressing, contrary to expectations, decrease in the
controllability of the world system, testify to the crisis of liberalism.
One can argue about exactly when the decline of the “era of liberalism” began
- during the crisis of 2008–2010. or much later, in 2016, when the “black swans”,
contrary to predictions, swirled over the horizon of world politics (Brexit, D.
Trump's victory in the US elections). But, apparently, the peak of the influence of
liberal ideology and, in general, the long cycle of deep ideologization of
international relations, which began in the middle of the 20th century, has passed.
A significant number of researchers have recently started talking about the
emergence of polycentric tendencies in contemporary world politics
1
. The global
balance of power is changing literally before our eyes
2
. Financial and economic
crisis of 2008–2010. spurred the processes of redistribution of influence and
contributed to the growth of the potential of a number of non-Western centers of
power (China, India, Brazil, Russia), clearly demonstrated the inability of a
narrow circle of Western countries responsible for global regulation over the past
decades (and in a broader sense, the entire XX century) , to exercise effective
global governance, to cope with the challenges of the era.
In the long-standing dispute between the scientific schools of realism and
idealism in politics about what is more important - the "power" of states or
"paper" as a set of codes and rules of conduct - the decisive word until recently
remained in the anarchic international environment for power. Another (by no
means the first) attempt to overcome the anarchy of the environment on a global
scale at the beginning of the 21st century was unsuccessful. The only region of the
world where a liberal world order with a corresponding set of norms and values
has almost fully established itself is a united Europe. But the possibility of
reproducing the European experience in other historical and civilizational contexts
raises certain doubts. And the difficulties that the European integration project has
been experiencing lately do not by any means increase the number of its
supporters.
Conclusion
Thus, in conclusion, it should be noted that the evolution of theoretical
approaches to the study of international relations is characterized not only by
changes, but also by continuity. The newest directions have not got rid of inter-
1
Россия в полицентричном мире. / Под ред. А.А.Дынкина, Н.И.Ивановой. М.: Весь мир,
2011, С.11–68, 157–162
2
Основные показатели развития мировой экономики в 2014 г. // Год планеты. Экономика.
Политика. Безопасность. Вып. 2015 г. М.: Идея-Пресс, 2015, С.428–431.
SHARQSHUNOSLIK /
ВО С Т О К О ВЕ ДЕ Н И Е
/ ORIENTAL STUDIES 2021,
№
3
195
paradigm disputes. But at the same time, the transformation of classical paradigms
does not prevent the preservation of their fundamental postulates. Methodological
attitudes are becoming more and more diverse, but positivism and rational choice
retain a fairly strong position. It also includes the ideological and theoretical
preferences inherent in any study of international relations. At the same time,
special attention should be paid to the fact that one of the functions of the theory
of international relations is to prevent analysts from excessive self-confidence and
hasty assessments, and practitioners from hasty and large-scale actions based on
certain expert conclusions or recommendations. At the same time, it should be
noted that knowledge of the basic provisions of theoretical paradigms is only a
precondition on the way to the study of international relations. Knowledge of the
above ideological directions will help advance in understanding their nature and
trends and, accordingly, in understanding the vicissitudes of international politics,
because such a combination will provide an opportunity to navigate the rapidly
evolving international realities. In the conditions of turbulence, which inevitably
arises due to the growing pressure of the revisionist powers and the resistance of
the former unconditional leaders of the world system, as well as in the context of
the uncertainty, blurring of the rules and regulations prevailing in world politics, a
return to rational and de-ideologized realism (albeit on how updated the
theoretical basis) seems to be a very likely outcome. Historically, this is, in a
sense, a return to "normalcy." Let it be a "new normality". Donald Trump's
victory in the presidential elections in the United States and a certain revision of
American foreign policy by him is highly likely to accelerate both de-
ideologization and a realistic trend in modern world politics. The unconditional
dominance of the liberal paradigm on a global scale is gradually coming to an
end. This process is accelerating due to the end of the "unipolar moment" in world
politics. Moreover, perhaps for the first time in recent decades, real prerequisites
are emerging for the de-ideologization of international relations. The world is
entering a turbulent era formed by a polycentric world order. And one of the main
features of which is likely to be the strengthening of political realism as an
intellectual dominant in decision-making in a dynamic and much more uncertain
than in recent decades, international environment.
