304. ¿Colaborar o confrontar? El manual para entender el caos internacional

No es el fin del mundo

The episode explores the fundamental tension between cooperation and confrontation in international relations through five theoretical lenses: realism, liberal

Key takeaways

• Realism posits that states exist in an anarchic system where survival depends on accumulating military and economic capabilities.
• The 'security dilemma' is illustrated by how European rearmament, triggered by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, creates a spiral of tension among neighboring states.
• Liberal institutionalism suggests that while the UN Security Council faces paralysis, specialized agencies like the WHO and IAEA maintain essential global standards and technical cooperation.
• The US-China rivalry is characterized by strategic competition in critical sectors like advanced semiconductors and artificial intelligence rather than direct kinetic warfare.
• Constructivism explains how modern geopolitical distrust is a social construction shaped by political narratives and the perception of threats.

Main topics

• International Relations Theories
• US-China Technological Rivalry
• Russia-Ukraine War Impacts

Notable quotes

Confrontation and cooperation are the two sides of the same coin.

Conclusion

This episode provides a practical manual for applying academic politic

Transcript preview

Speaker 2 (0:04) If you turn on the news every day of this last year, it seems that the world is in a spiral of confrontation. Wars, aranceles, rearmament, blocks that are distanced. But if you look a little more, that same world has also been cooperating for years on huge things, such as health, technology or the climate. Confrontation and cooperation are the two sides of the same coin and have been defining for centuries how countries and societies relate. But what leads us to cooperate or confront? ¿Y cómo nos afecta eso? Pues hoy, en No es el fin del mundo, vamos a intentar entenderlo. Speaker 3 (0:41) No es el fin del mundo, el podcast semanal del orden mundial. Speaker 2 (0:48) To talk about this topic, we have with us Eduardo Saldaña. Welcome, Eduardo. How are you? Speaker 4 (0:52) Well, good. Very happy. I'm looking forward to going on vacation. In fact, the three of us are going on vacation. Speaker 2 (0:57) We're closing. We're Speaker 4 (0:58) recording. We're the three that are not here next week. Speaker 2 (1:01) We're all here, closing, living well. Here you are, kids. Looking for the Speaker 4 (1:06) key. Speaker 2 (1:06) The other person who is going on vacation next week and who has come again to the podcast is Lola. How are you, Lola? Speaker 1 (1:12) Well, very good. I'm also very excited to go on vacation now. But nothing, happy to be here with this topic today. Speaker 2 (1:18) I Speaker 1 (1:18) hope we Speaker 2 (1:19) also want to talk about this topic, not just about going on vacation, which is very interesting. For those who stay in Madrid, a reminder that we have live shows. On September 30th we will be in the Casa Encendida with Médicos Sin Fronteras doing a live show about international humanitarian law. We've been announcing it in the last episodes, but just so you remember, it's going to be at 7pm. If you go to the web of the Encendida page, if you search for it, direct, El Orden Mundial, O No Es El Fin Del Mundo, Casa Encendida, it's going to come out there. You can book your seat because it's a free entry, but you have to book. And if you can't go, you can also release the... So, go and see us, it's Speaker 4 (1:58) going Speaker 2 (1:58) to be really cool. It's Speaker 4 (1:59) a very current topic. That's Speaker 2 (2:01) right. And also, on Thursday, September 24th, at 7pm, you are invited to a really cool event that we are going to do in the Dickinson space, on Gaztanby street, 21, also in Madrid, where our colleagues Fer and Jara are going to participate in a talk with Juan Vázquez. It's called Giant Fight, the dispute between China and the United States for the new international order. Speaker 4 (2:20) Juan has made a great chapter talking about his book. He's never said better. He's come to talk Speaker 2 (2:25) about his book. He was here last week in No es el fin del mundo, but you can see them live, getting a little closer, talking more about the book, buying the book, talking to Feri Speaker 4 (2:35) and Speaker 2 (2:35) Jara, who are very nice. If you want to go see them, you have this event on September 24 at 7 p.m. But let's go with the topic that we have to talk about today, collaborate or confront. And our geopolitical question is precisely that, right? Do the states collaborate or confront and why do they do it? Because this idea seems very abstract, but beware, it is a question that has been asked by countless philosophers, theorists of international relations, political scientists throughout history and that is also behind many of the news that we see every day, right? I think that... We've all heard this before, this thing about why are they at war, what's the point of going to war if we already had everything very well over. Well, before we go into depth, tell me first why we're talking about this today. Speaker 1 (3:20) Well, first, as you said a little bit in the introduction, we're in an international moment that seems a bit of confrontation and mistrust. Whatever. Speaker 2 (3:27) Of course, Speaker 1 (3:28) you get into the news and suddenly it seems like very negative, very chaotic things. That doesn't mean that the world before was simpler. But the international system seemed more organized than now. Now we have a crisis, from the war with Iran, which is something that is very popular, the rearmament of Europe, which is not something new, that is the important thing. International relations have always been in a constant mechanism of cooperation, confrontation, for centuries. Only now we have caught that moment of confrontation. Why do we care? Speaker 1 (3:58) And that's why we talk about this, actually. Because when the world moves towards confrontation, that distrust that exists between states also flows into how we relate to each other as a society. We see it in the polarization in social networks, for example, how we live certain crises, or how even, I don't know, the rearmament of Europe can become a political division within our countries. So, the same thing happens the other way around. When we move towards cooperation, we also notice it, maybe in a less visible way. But that oscillation, which is not an abstract phenomenon that affects us and shapes our lives, is the reason why we actually care about this topic and why we are also going to talk about it. And why? Why are we talking about why states collaborate or confront? Because they are still the main actor that marks the international order, although there are others, like large companies, that also have their role. But these states also live in an interdependent world and not in an isolated one. So the decisions that a country makes... cause the response of others, of cooperation and confrontation. That's what we're going to see. But above all, all this noise of things that are happening is not understood without understanding the background that explains them, which are the theories of international relations. And that's our goal today. There is a logic behind how states operate, why they choose to collaborate with some countries or confront others. That's what we're going to see. Speaker 4 (5:18) It's a topic that I like because we're going to get a little theoretical and sometimes I think it's also necessary. And I'm especially with Lola in that idea that when the international order changes, our day to day also changes. And it's something that I've seen in the last six years, seven, I think there's been an acceleration of those rupture processes and people perceive it. Speaker 2 (5:41) It's no longer something that happens... out in Speaker 4 (5:43) the Speaker 2 (5:43) middle of nowhere, in an environment where we don't feel tangible, but I think that more and more, what happens in the world, we feel it in our daily lives. Speaker 4 (5:51) I would say that it's the first administration. Trump, when he came and started with all that chaos, that pressure on the international order, the fragmentation... we also start to feel it. But well, to clarify a little in this chapter, it's what I was saying, we're going to get a little theoretical, I think people are going to love it, we'll go back a little to recover the books of international relations Speaker 2 (6:14) theory. Speaker 4 (6:14) We'll Speaker 2 (6:14) go to the manual. Speaker 4 (6:15) Yes, to rescue those Bibles that in the careers we got into our discipline to try to put a little order in a reality that at first glance is looking like us and to many listeners, I think, from what I speak with with listeners, followers and others, seems a bit chaotic. With this manual that we are going to set up in today's chapter, our intention is to be able to get closer to that initial question of whether we collaborate or confront from different angles. Because in the end... Is your way of understanding reality what will respond to that? We will talk about how those relationships see the realists, the most institutionalist liberalists. Then we will talk about deeper theories like constructivism and more, but I'm not going to go there yet. That cake will be found by the listeners. The point is that each one focuses on a different aspect of international politics. Some pay much more attention to power, to security, others to institutions. For me, this will be the most important part when we address it, because I think it is that change of perspective, of crisis of institutionalism, what we are suffering today. And the idea, basically, is that at the end of the chapter, we can understand... that the same decision, the same reality of a state, the way it acts, can be explained in different ways. And above all, that theory is not simply theory, but that these different ways also affect how people who have to make decisions conceive reality and also citizens. We are not living this feeling of chaos and lack of cooperation because of it. There is a change in the way of understanding the role of the states, of the governments, by the people who make the decision, and the citizen suffers those consequences. So I think it's important, in short, we're going to see that cooperating and confronting are not completely opposite poles, they are two sides of the same coin that we can analyze from different perspectives. So we can apply these different theories to... different situations and check what each one of us actually explains about the reality of some moments, of our current reality. I mean, it seems like a nice chapter, really. It's Speaker 2 (8:43) interesting, of course, to get the manual, but... bring it to the present and to reality and see that really the theory or the ways in which we have explained from the discipline of international relations the present, we can understand it much more from what we see in the newspapers. It's not Speaker 4 (8:57) like that for you. I've heard this before, that the theory is a bit despised, or the theorists, because they speak, they stay very much in their crystal tower, and in reality there are those who claim that we have to bring them much closer, because if the general public understood those theories, it could... to get the idea of the mental constructions that people who make decisions have. Let's not think that maybe there is a profile, a president who says, I am a realist. No, he is simply a person whose construction of the world is framed in that theory. So, understanding that framework and that theory, we will be able to understand what is happening. Speaker 2 (9:35) You mentioned the International Relations Manual, which gives five answers to the question of whether states should collaborate or confront. We're going to expand it one by one. How does it respond, for example, Edu has mentioned realism, which is perhaps the first topic of the whole international relations manual. How does realism respond, which we now explain what it is, to our question of whether we should collaborate or whether we should confront? Speaker 1 (10:01) Realism really is about how to confront. It's the theory of you can't trust anyone, forget about global peace and the rainbow, we live in a jungle. It's Speaker 4 (10:11) Clint Eastwood. Speaker 1 (10:12) The world is a jungle and it's not like... you would like it to be and that's why you have to guarantee your survival in this world. That's a bit of a realistic perspective. It's also a bit like what Edu was saying, I mean, let's see if lately we have the feeling that there is a lot of crisis or that it's simply the perception, it doesn't have to be a reality, that there is a lot of war, that everything is so very distrustful, let's call it that, it's because realism has actually been one of the dominant theories since the end of the Second World War. I would say that even before it started to gain strength, but well, there is an intermediate between world wars that, well, it seemed that not, but yes. But well, it comes from a previous tradition of many philosophers, right? Well, a Tucídides, Hobbes, Machiavelli, which, well, maybe sounds to Speaker 2 (10:55) us Speaker 1 (10:55) more and we already know a little bit in what direction this theory points. But well, to give the characteristics, the realist theories, well, then they subdivide, of course, but they start from two fundamental principles. First, that the states are the main actor of international relations. and as a main actor, he has to guarantee the survival and security of himself, both internally and externally, in front of other countries. So, internally, how do you do it? Laws, the monopoly of violence, that is, police, executive power... But of course, when you transfer the question to the international sphere, the answer changes. Because how do you guarantee your security in front of other countries? And here is where the second principle of realism comes from, which is that we live in an international state of anarchy. That is, each state is only facing danger and there is no authority that governs us all, so the way to guarantee your survival is by developing your capabilities. Realism focuses a lot on military capabilities, but also economic, technological, diplomatic. The clearest example that comes to mind is the Cold War, in reality. The Soviet Union versus the United States is an idea of... Realism. I was thinking of Speaker 4 (12:03) The Walking Dead. Speaker 1 (12:05) Me too. Speaker 4 (12:06) A chaotic, apocalyptic world where you can't trust anyone and you have to survive. Speaker 2 (12:11) And you need a stick and a stick. Totally. And if the person in front of you has Speaker 4 (12:15) a stick and a stick, you need a stick and a stick to hit him with a shotgun. You know, it's a bit of that logic. It's Speaker 2 (12:20) that logic, literally. Now, transfer this Walking Dead to the US and the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons. And even to their day-to Speaker 4 (12:27) -day life. I mean, people also think a bit like survivalists. They're a bit realistic. I mean, in my bunker I have to have the best capabilities because the world is in a state of chaos. How Speaker 2 (12:36) many bottles of oil do you have right now? Now Speaker 4 (12:39) less because the price has dropped. Speaker 2 (12:40) It's just that little is said about this. If I could store Speaker 4 (12:42) gasoline bottles in my house, I would have ten, but it's illegal. Speaker 2 (12:47) It's not sure. It's just that little is said about Edu being the survivalist of the office for the surprise of no one. And Speaker 1 (12:53) José Speaker 2 (12:53) Luis. And José Luis a bit too. Speaker 1 (12:55) But well, it's a bit that idea that Edu says. I say that at the end of the Second World War it was a special force because it was the moment when the great multilateral post-war project, the League of Nations, which is the predecessor of the United Nations, for those who do not know, but it failed. to prevent the Second World War. So, for realism, that was a demonstration that states weren't able to look beyond their interests and give in to a collective system. Speaker 2 (13:22) It's funny because people have their preferences about one theory and another, and there are great defenders of one and another. And realists, it's true, always have this point of, I told you. Whenever any other project fails, it's that realism always has a reason. Like Speaker 4 (13:40) the conspiranoics. Speaker 2 (13:42) Of course, they always have that thing of, we are above all of you. So, well, going back to these bases of the realist theory or this way of looking at the world, which prioritizes confrontation or puts it very much in the center, each state seeks to guarantee its own security in an anarchic system and does so by developing its own military, economic, technological capabilities. Why does this vision understand that this necessarily leads to confrontation? Speaker 4 (14:09) Well, this also gets quite hooked with the current reality, I would say, because in the end the states, from the realistic perspective, understand that they are armed in a system in which they live with other states in which... or those who cannot fully trust. In other words, you as a state are not accumulating power in a vacuum. You do it in a way that allows you to increase your political, military, economic influence, even on the rest, either to impose yourself on them or even to attack preventively. Hey, maybe he's not going to hit a chub, I'll hit him first. Or simply to... have the ability to defend yourself, that ability to dissuade. That's why, for realism, power is always relative and relational. A state is not powerful in absolute terms, but in comparison with others and in terms of its ability to influence others. The nuclear armament career, for example, illustrates this very well. No state develops nuclear weapons in absolute vacuum. It uses them both to threaten... to ease possible attacks, but in the end, their development also modifies the perception of security of others. For example, the rivalry between India and Pakistan, which is something that we actually saw two years ago when they had another Indian-Pakistan clash. Speaker 1 (15:35) Or last year. I remember that Speaker 4 (15:39) I said on Twitter, if there can be a nuclear war... It's between two ultra-nationalist states like these. But well, that looks very good. That career they have shows how re-arming a country can lead another to reinforce their capabilities. So, the power of each state depends partly on how it is compared with its rivals. Or we see it very well with Donald Trump and the nuclear proliferation, seeing that the Chinese are increasing their nuclear capacities. Or what we have proposed in the... the podcast of Cañones o Mantequilla. The other day we were talking about it with Arabia Saudí. Please, put it on. There we were talking about what happens in the Middle East if suddenly an Arab Saudi decides... I'm going to have a nuclear weapon because that's what will allow me to dissolve. Well, we'll probably see other states that want to obtain it too. So, what happens? What is that spiral of confrontation? What is known, as I said, as the security dilemma. This dilemma suggests that when a state increases its security, other states perceive it as a threat and react. increasing its own, which in turn generates reactions in other states in the same direction. What happens? That in this way, a spiral of tension and instability is generated. And here again I bring the idea that we are talking about states also to the life of a citizen. And it can be applied because in the end these theories help us to see states as little people. If you see that your neighbor is getting ready, your natural instinct is to regroup. It's a realistic perspective. You will see the sociopolitical reality as a wild competition in which there is no guarantee and you are alone. Speaker 1 (17:19) And Speaker 4 (17:20) right now what we are seeing is a bit of that trend at a social level but also at a state level. Speaker 1 (17:25) Yes, in fact, speaking of what Edu says, that theory is not simply theory, but it affects us on a daily basis. For example, the security dilemma. The closest international case we have is the case of Russia, Ukraine, Europe. Speaker 2 (17:39) Because Speaker 1 (17:39) in the end, Russia is annexed to Crimea, invades Ukraine. And what do we suddenly have now? We have half the continent talking about the Speaker 2 (17:45) fact Speaker 1 (17:45) that we have to rearm ourselves. We have already spoken about it and the cost of defense has been increased. Europe does not become bellicose overnight. a consequence of seeing Russia move, you feel that you have to prepare for the worst possible scenario. But that affects us in the end, both on a practical level, in terms of what it means to rearm, as well as polarization within the states and how we act as societies. For example, a recent example within Europe that occurs to me is Germany. We have had elections recently in Germany, in a region. And there is a rise now of the German far-right party, AFD, which does not understand if its proposal to put an end to the war with Russia against re-arming Europe is Speaker 2 (18:28) not seen. Speaker 1 (18:28) That type of polarization affects us at the most territorial level. And in fact, the war between Russia and Ukraine is also an example of the climate of distrust that there is now in the international order from a realistic perspective. That is, Russia did not decide to act. according to a Russian justification perspective, let's call it that, does not decide to act in Ukraine because yes, but does so to maintain its position in what it considers its security space in the face of the economic and social military expansion of the West and NATO. That is, it is again the mechanism of action-reaction. So, well, the same thing does Ukraine, which fights to guarantee its survival, and European countries react at the same time, right? Speaker 4 (19:08) I was thinking, do you remember Merseimer? Merseimer, for those who don't know, this is one of the main realist thinkers of today. This man is an eminence. And with the war in Ukraine, I remember that, and he also made statements recently, for Merseimer, supporting Ukraine is the result of a uncontrolled European-Tanist idealism. Because he, in the balance of power, says, evidently, a nuclear power like Russia has to have its areas of influence. And he says, in a realistic perspective, it would be necessary to tell Ukraine to cede that territory and to maintain it. Speaker 4 (19:50) Russia has no such capabilities. But of course, he says, hey, it's a nuclear power. So it's Speaker 2 (19:58) really Speaker 4 (19:58) cool. Well, they called Speaker 2 (20:00) him pro-Russian and everything, but of course, for me, he's a bit of an example of someone who... is too focused on theory and then doesn't accept other ways or other frameworks of looking at reality and saying, okay, but what is there? of the principle of non-intervention, of questions or norms that come from other ways of looking at the world. Of course, Merseimer, you still have to land more on international law and get out of this so Speaker 4 (20:29) clear Speaker 2 (20:29) orthodoxy. I Speaker 4 (20:30) remember that I said this on TV recently and Ferrer was a bit twisted in the eye, like, what did this guy say? But I suggested that from a realistic perspective, at the European level, Ceuta and Melilla