Events of the last seven days have found us reaching back into the dustbin of history and unearthing threads that carry dangerous import for the future.
Two quotes come to mind, both of them, as it happens, from two figures in 19th-century Germany – decades before that country would wage the two most violent conflicts in human history. “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best,” said the statesman Otto von Bismarck, who is most famously associated with the concept of realpolitik—a style of governance and diplomacy grounded in pragmatism and practical self-interest, rather than ideology or moral principles.
Realpolitik, literally “realistic politics”, means making decisions based on the realities of power, circumstance, and national interest, as Bismarck did in his quest to unify Germany—even if this meant strategic alliances, calculated wars, or adopting policies once deemed unthinkable. In sum, for Bismarck, might makes right. And he made the unthinkable possible—by engineering the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 to achieve German unification under Prussian leadership, using a manipulated telegram known as the Ems Dispatch to provoke France into declaring war. Fake news that proved conclusively that in war, the first casualty is the truth.
This leads us to the second quotation from, as it happens, another Prussian: “War is the continuation of politics by other means,” famously attributed to the military theorist Carl von Clausewitz in his seminal work, “On War”.
More than mere word warriors, Bismarck and von Clausewitz were the intellectual godfathers of German militarism, which came to full and bloody flower in August 1914, led by the imperialist bloodlust of the emperor Kaiser Wilhelm II.
We recount the brief history lesson to warn of its return, perhaps not by repetition but by rhyme, to borrow from Mark Twain. Realpolitik, as championed by two long-dead ideologues from a country that no longer exists, which cost the world nearly 40 million in blood and treasure, was repudiated by the new world order that emerged from the ruins of Europe and Southeast Asia exactly 80 years ago: the United Nations by name and nature.
We fear that in two places not known for war or rumours of war – the Caribbean and the Gulf emirate of Qatar – the first, fateful buds of a new era of warmongering may have found their official birthplace.
The destruction of an alleged drug boat off Venezuela by the United States last week, resulting in the deaths of all aboard, stands as a chilling example of extrajudicial killing on the high seas. It is a moment that eerily echoes Tuesday’s unprovoked Israeli airstrike in Doha, Qatar, which targeted Hamas negotiators actively engaged in ceasefire talks. Both incidents, occurring thousands of miles apart but united by a common logic, signal an unmistakable return to the unbridled realpolitik of the 1870s—a period where state interest and the raw pursuit of power eclipsed the rule of law and humanitarian norms.
Donald Trump’s decision to destroy a vessel claimed to be smuggling drugs, killing 11 people without trial or due process, is a shock to the sensibilities of the postwar era. The lack of any attempt to board or search the vessel and the immediate resort to lethal force starkly contravenes established legal and ethical norms.
Similarly, Israel’s decision to strike at senior Hamas officials in Qatar, an American ally invited by Washington to participate in peacemaking projects near and far, represents not only a dramatic escalation but a striking willingness to assassinate one’s adversaries, even in supposedly neutral or protected settings. This was no act of battlefield necessity, but a cold calculation to eliminate negotiators rather than win them. One more dangerous breach of sovereignty and diplomacy.
We cannot help but see disturbing historical through-lines to Bismarck’s doctrine of realpolitik, in which the pursuit of national interest is unfettered by moral constraints or treaty obligations. These acts of ruthless pragmatism, though rationalised as protecting the state amidst strong rivals, lay the groundwork for escalating tension–at least in Venezuela and the Arabian Gulf–secret pacts, aggressive power grabs, and ultimately, wider conflict.
The culture of ‘might makes right’, once unleashed, is not easily contained. Bismarck’s achievements—Prussian dominance unified through force—blinded successors to the peril of unchecked state ambition, helping set the stage for the catastrophic world wars that followed his era.
The historical echoes are as unmistakable as they are sobering. Today’s world, wracked by transnational crime, terrorism, and great power rivalry, faces a temptation to sidestep the slow, albeit imperfect work of law and diplomacy in favour of expedient violence and summary justice. When powerful states assert the right to kill, anywhere, anytime, in the name of security or national interest, it is not only those labelled as ‘terrorists’ or ‘criminals’ who are at risk. The very notion of international law, of the rights of the individual against the power of the state, is put to the sword.
We have warned before of a new era of cold, calculated power politics—an era whose resemblance to Bismarck’s realpolitik is neither accidental nor reassuring. This began in response to the October 7, 2023, atrocities in Israel with the ongoing erasure of Gaza.
The lesson of history is that such strategies, though tempting in the short run, are profoundly destabilising in the long run. They lead not to security, but to cycles of escalation, diplomatic breakdown and, ultimately, war. When the arbiters of order themselves flout the rules, the world is left poorer, more precarious, and infinitely more dangerous.
We are thus minded by other words, attributed to man of peace Mahatma Gandhi: “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.”
The post History’s sober warning–from another century, continent to our region appeared first on Barbados Today.
