The Dialectic of the Relationship Between Strategy and International Relations (A Historical Approach)

Discussing strategy and international relations is a highly complex matter, particularly for those who are not specialized in political sciences, strategy, or international studies. This complexity arises from the vast array of intertwined concepts within both academic fields, leading to significant conceptual debates, such that each field has become independent in its own right. Yet, despite this considerable overlap, there exist areas for academic convergence and intellectual cross-fertilization that drive the development of both fields jointly. This also strengthens the connections between the two terms, emphasizing that the field of strategy is broader and encompasses all other fields like international relations, which is the main focus of this discussion.

Regarding the term “strategy,” it has become a familiar and widespread concept that we frequently hear in our daily lives and read in various academic literature. This term has permeated every aspect of scientific, practical, political, economic, military, social, informational, commercial, and industrial life, among others. Its usage extends to individuals, places, ideas, and concepts, such as when one says, “This person has strategic visions,” “This location is strategic,” “This idea is strategic,” or “This action is strategic.” State (A) has employed strategic capabilities (solutions), while state (B) has a strategic role in a specific region. Many users and consumers of this appealing term attribute to it a significant psychological dimension, making them feel as though they are using words with obscure implications for the recipient. However, many do not grasp its substantial scientific and cognitive significance or the essence of its concept. Therefore, I will not provide a detailed explanation of international relations and strategy, as these topics have already been extensively researched by others. Instead, I will focus on the areas of practice and the historical depth of both concepts, starting with international relations.

The History of the Use of the Term International Relations

The word “international” was first utilized by Jeremy Bentham in the late 18th century, although its Latin counterpart was used by Reghad Zouk a century earlier. This term was employed to define a branch of law referred to as “the law of nations” or “the law of peoples,” which denotes the principles applied by the Romans in matters involving relations with foreigners. The term was later adopted by those studying international connections within a legal framework exclusively. Legal scholars sought to define the substance of applicable rules among players on the international stage and worked to translate these rules into reality and ensure their implementation. The term “international” was genuinely needed to define formal relations between monarchs, and perhaps the term “interstate” would be more accurate for expressing “international,” as the term “state” in political science specifically refers to such societies. The scientific study of international relations entails the objective and comprehensive examination of international phenomena, shedding light on the causes and factors determining their development and working to develop a theory from them.

This implies finding “regularities,” “constants,” or “laws,” as Montesquieu articulated — establishing necessary connections derived from the nature of things. For a long time, the term “international” was used exclusively to refer to the relationships between states, at a time when international relations meant merely the interactions among those states. This viewpoint is undoubtedly limited regarding the essence of international relations, which today reflects a wide and intricate arena of interactions among multiple entities of diverse natures.

The History of the Use of the Term Strategy

The earliest writings in this field appeared over twenty centuries ago, authored by some Chinese military figures. This was followed by works from military thinkers and writers from Greek, Roman, Arab, and European backgrounds that addressed fundamental and detailed concepts of warfare. This resulted in the emergence of a new branch of human knowledge termed “military art.” However, despite strategy’s birth in a military context, it has evolved into a comprehensive concept due to significant developments in societies, methods of warfare, and state management, particularly after the evolution of societies and shifts in the nature of life, alongside increased human requirements. The interconnection between war, politics, and society has partially shifted the concept of strategy from the battlefield to the political arena, making military action one of the many instruments of strategy, alongside politics, economics, and other tools employed by strategy to achieve its objectives.

The global leap that has occurred in various fields over the past century has integrated strategy into all aspects of life. The 20th-century conflicts turned into wars of nations and peoples due to the developments brought about by the two World Wars in weapon systems and the emergence of nuclear arms, alongside the Cold War and subsequent events highlighting the role of liberation movements globally, underscoring the reliance of warfare on national resources and capacities. Consequently, strategy has become comprehensive through its utilization of all national resources and encompassing in its goals to fulfill national ambitions. Stakeholders have asserted this reality, attaching the notion of comprehensive strategy to it. Thus, strategy evolved from military hands into all fields, with its comprehensive nature distinguishing it from international relations.

Debate around the field of strategy and international relations, and the comprehensive nature of both concepts, has persisted for some time. Some argue that international relations are broader than strategy, asserting that strategy is merely a part of international relations and a tool within it. However, this assertion lacks precision and is more emotionally charged than it is anchored in scientific foundations, thereby neglecting the rightful place of strategy. I do not express this due to my expertise in strategy, but it is a fact that strategy is broader and more comprehensive than international relations, supported by historical realities, primarily:

The term “strategy” has existed for a significant amount of time, as we mentioned (approximately over twenty centuries). Although initially used to refer to military terms and leadership in battles, the concept of strategy has long been present. Meanwhile, the concept of “international relations” did not emerge until the late 18th century with Jeremy Bentham — indicating a historical gap of about 18 centuries between the emergence of these two concepts. While the latter was first used during that period, the concept of international law and relations existed under different names, such as the law of nations and peoples in Roman times. Most political scientists agree that contemporary international relations arose after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Since then, international relations have undergone six stages, which we will outline to clarify that the concept of strategy appeared before the concept of international relations. These stages reflect the historical epochs of international relations:

1. First Stage: From the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 until the Congress of Vienna in 1815. This stage was characterized by international relations being limited to interactions among sovereign nation-states, excluding any kind of organizations or groups that did not possess the attributes of a state, regardless of their role in international society.
2. Second Stage: From the Congress of Vienna in 1815 until the outbreak of World War I. This stage saw the evolution of international political relations, marked by qualitative developments in conference decisions, which collectively established a new international balance assuming responsibility for security and stability in Europe.
3. Third Stage: From the end of World War I in 1919 until the outbreak of World War II. This period featured the emergence of collective security, crystallizing with the establishment of the League of Nations under the Versailles Treaty on June 28, 1919.
4. Fourth Stage: From 1945 (the end of World War II and the founding of the United Nations on June 26, 1945) until the collapse of the communist system and disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of the Gulf Crisis in 1991, with some pinpointing this to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. This stage is notably marked by the Cold War, during which international relations transformed into a bipolar system (the United States and the Soviet Union), and the ideological clash between communism and capitalism.
5. Fifth Stage: From 1992 until September 2001, this period followed the downfall of the communist system, reunification of East and West Germany, dissolution of the Soviet Union, and emergence of the second Gulf War (1990-1991), indicating the disappearance of one pole and the beginning of the transition to a unipolar system dominated by the United States as a superpower atop the global hierarchy.
6. Sixth Stage: From September 11, 2001, to the present, characterized by a comprehensive war led by the dominant power in the global hierarchy (the United States) against what has been termed international terrorism. This period is evident of the United States’ dominance in controlling the new world order.

Since these stages are agreed upon by specialists in international relations, it is important to note the historical precedence in their emergence. This means that the concept of strategy appeared long before that of international relations. Is it possible that the older (strategy) could be a part of the newer (international relations)? Strategy appeared significantly earlier than international relations and entered practical fields in political and military life prior to international relations. While the concept of strategy was initially linked to battles and military command in wars, if we were to examine the fields of work, application, and comprehensiveness, we find the following:

Field of Work and Application: Strategy operates across all areas, both internal and external, covering political, military, economic, social, and cultural matters. Thus, there are military strategies, political strategies, economic strategies, and social and cultural strategies, in addition to the overarching comprehensive strategy of states. In contrast, international relations function externally only, though they are outcomes of domestic affairs stemming from internal contexts. Nevertheless, they are exclusively focused on foreign relations, unlike strategy, which works both domestically and externally and includes everything. Is it conceivable for the more comprehensive to be a part of the smaller?

An important point to mention is that international relations did not arise until the establishment of nation-states, meaning the origin of nation-states in the mid-17th century coincided with the emergence of relations among nations. These relations evolved alongside the political, economic, and social development of nations, leading to the emergence of the term international relations founded on legal principles established after the Treaty of Westphalia. This reinforces the notion that international relations are a relatively recent field compared to the term strategy, whose history spans over twenty centuries.

Furthermore, it is necessary to distinguish between strategy and foreign policy, which is part of international relations expressing the official political aspect of the state. Foreign policy, as defined by Hans Morgenthau, consists of a set of activities and actions undertaken by a state towards other states aimed at achieving its objectives within the constraints imposed by international interaction rules and state power. Thus, foreign policy actions — including diplomacy, which falls under the umbrella of international relations — operate as an instrument of strategy within the framework of its external environment (regional and international). Therefore, Carl von Clausewitz views the relationship between foreign policy and strategy akin to the relationship between means and goals, with strategy being the overarching framework encompassing foreign political means.

References

• Strategy in the Contemporary World: An Introduction to Strategic Studies” by John Baylis, James J. Wirtz, and Colin S. Gray
• On War” by Carl von Clausewitz
• The Evolution of Strategy: Thinking War from Antiquity to the Present” by Beatrice Heuser
• War and Change in World Politics” by Robert Gilpin
• “Strategy: A History” by Lawrence Freedman
• “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” by John J. Mearsheimer
• “Grand Strategy in Theory and Practice: The Need for an Effective American Foreign Policy” by William C. Martel