Does Normalisation between States Work?

Discussion

The relations between states change quite drastically as the political, economic, social and cultural changes are constantly occurring in the world and they influence the stances of the states.[1] The base of the relations between states is the national interests, and the national interest also is subject to change in the face of the changing circumstance of the states.[2] The friendship between states is way too different than the concept of friendship between people as they are unpredictable because the states alter their positions on matters differently than the people.[3] The US and India are an excellent example of such states who have had many ups and downs in their relations. In the modern context, they have become cordial toward each other. The Indian leadership has always been tilted toward Russia, but in the recent past they showed an inclination towards America and made fast paces towards closer ties with Washington. The change of scenario after the 9/11 in South Asia has brought India and the US closer.[4] The relations between France and the UK in the past are also a good example of how the two nations fought for hundreds of years but are now friends and have almost the same stances on the matters of global significance.[5] National interest drives the way a country would react to certain actors in the global politics. The relations between nations are based on national interests but there are some issues that go far beyond the scope of national interest as the ideological importance of these issues is way stronger.[6] The issues like that between Israel and Palestine[7], Pakistan and India[8], the US and Russia[9], Armenia and Azerbaijan[10], or Saudi Arabia and Iran are all very complicated, and the normalisation of such issues is not very easily approachable.[11] The relations where the powers that have ideological differences can be normalised in some context but the core issues that are unsolvable can come up at any time and make matters worse and go back to the hostility.[12] The countries in these cases cannot come to wholehearted agreements and points of considering each other their equal partners in the matters of cooperation and there are chances of a falling out between them at any point. The relations between Israel and Palestine, for example, cannot be cordial even if the Israeli’s let Palestine be a state that is in many ways their right.[13]

States cannot really come to terms in a hundred percent equal terms in any case as there are problems of everyone wanting to be better than others.[14] Plus, as discussed earlier the normalisation cannot hold because most of the things that states agree on one day can change in the aftermath of even one statement from one state against the other.

In the current era, the relation between the US and Russian Federation are not as bad as they were in the cold war period as the relations were very hostile back then.[15] In the modern reality, the relation between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin can be seen as a promising element that can bring betterment in ties between the nations. However, there is a lingering tension between the two that no matter what happens does not seem to go away as the two states are powerful states who want to get a dominant position in the global politics and one cannot let the other get to the top even when there is no question at the moment about America being a dominant power.[16] The resurge of Russia is still seen as a threat to American century along with the cordial ties of Russia and China.[17]

A search for the term “Normalisation” on the internet is not very fruitful for a researcher who wants to find a definition of the word in a Political Science and International Relations context. The internet sources that can be found are predominantly related to the normalisation of database systems and in some terms of statistics that are not very easy to understand. Regarding the Political Science and International Relations, the normalisation is the removal of the hostility and animosity between two states. The term is related to creating a peaceful coexistence between states, but the modern political arena has become a bedrock of bad ideas and ideological intolerance.[18] The dominant nations define what is and is not moral and acceptable, and those who believe in different things or view world differently are considered enemies or at least backward and primitive.[19] The forceful entry of post-modernisation in the society is the reason that things have become way too sensitive and now talking about anything is impossible because it means war. These strict rules and cultural appropriations made necessary, makes people hostile toward the reigning powers.[20] The psychological, social, cultural and religious dilemmas that these generalisations create lead to the acts of terrorism and bad ideas being dominant in a society.[21] The duplicitous stances of the great-powers in the political and economic front as well have made a scene like that of Cold War.[22] The role of Russia and the US in case of dealing with ISIS in Syria can be seen as an important determiner of the de-normalisation of the relations between Russia and the US that had been a reality for some time now after the 9/11. The developments like this have created a hostile and confusing global environ that was a reality of the Cold War period.

Normalisation is not as easily achievable in the modern context as many non-state actors have considerable power in the political standing of countries.[23] The pressure groups like terrorist and business corporations, media empires have a substantial amount of influence in the political arena.[24] The narratives and discourses that are dominant in the world are clearly being manipulated by the groups of people who want to have power in the world in doing their bidding at any costs. In the wake of discourses around the globe, the normalisation process has become more complicated. The states have less sovereignty and more people to answer to in the form of nonstate actors, public opinion makers and the public in the democratic states.

Normalisation

The importance of diplomacy for the global peace cannot be neglected or undermined as it is one of the leading logical steps that can be taken to remove hostilities. Most states go through at least one confrontational or hostile period of relations with one or more nations.[25] There is a need for understanding and handling the problems between states to make the hostilities and animosity go away.[26] However, in some cases, the diplomatic failure can bring the animosity back after a break. The normalisation process is necessary to make the diplomatic steps take a strong hold and create more reasons for cooperation than aggression. Normalisation is defined as

“normalisation is seen as a process involving: the recognition of the need for measures to reduce tension or friction, and their introduction; promotion of improved relations; and isolation, containment or resolution – wholly or partly – of major sources of dispute or tension”[27]

“Normalisation between two states is the concept of subsiding the hostility and bringing them closer to implement a sense of healthy positivity for cooperation.” When two states are at war or at odds for an extended period the normalisation between them is quite hard. The process of normalisation takes long, but it also depends on the extent to which the state has had the conflict. The longer the conflict and more complex the issues is the longer it will take for normalisation. And the normalisation cannot say to be a thing for forever as there are cases where normalisation did not work for much longer. One of the examples of such cases is of Pakistan and India who came close for a small time and increased cooperation in 2000’s after tense ties but the peaceful outlook remained for a brief time as the public opinion within both states was against the measures that were being considered by the governments. The Kashmir problem is all or nothing game in these two countries, and there is no logical way to solve this problem. However, normalisation of relations between European states is quite a significant step as the different states were each other’s mortal enemies and are now a part of a joint confederation. Normalisation is a very tricky subject regarding relations between states, and there is a need for making a strong framework for normalisation. The framework, however, is tough and next to impossible to make as there are more than 200 countries in the world and all of them look at the world differently in some way.[28] The nations want sovereignty that the powerful states can impede in some ways that are not seen as an infringement of rights but is, in reality, hard for the smaller countries to cope with. The conflicts are also different in almost all cases hence the framework cannot be all-encompassing and relevant in every separate situation.[29]

Process of Normalisation

The process of normalisation does not work in every case the same. The steps however that can be a part of this process are all systematically combined in a model. Ten steps are proposed by Ronald Barston that become a part of the normalisation process in an organic order. The steps are 1) Reestablishment of contact, 2) Informal exchanges, 3) Low-level signaling) 4) Partial resumption of trade, 5) initiation or resumption of Preparatory Negotiation, 6) removal of trade of embargo restrictions, 7) Policy revision, 8) normalisation negotiation, 9)conclusion of normalisation agreements and 10) normalisation implementation.[30] The steps logically follow each other, and the relation of the steps is also natural with each other however the sometimes a few steps might be left out or change order because of the situations in particular cases. The real world is unpredictable, and there is no perfect way of proposing theories that would actually help in every single situation. The concept of normalisation is not always perceived the same as the states have different ideas of what is normal but the relations between states have to be brought to a normal place where they have more incentive to be friendly. The starting point for the normalisation process is also hard to find again because of the same problem of everyone conceiving the idea differently. And even if the point of start is met there can be a clash on how to proceed and what are the main hurdles in the process of normalisation.

Influences on normalisation

The process of normalisation is dependent on many factors going right or wrong for its fruitful implementation. The process as described above follows a pattern of steps, but the steps do not always go as planned. The internal or external changes in the country’s political, social, religious, racial or any other indicator can easily reverse or undo all of the progress very easily.[31] The relations between the states that are in need of normalisation are never in the right place, and the effects of such situation changes can be long-lasting and debilitating for the normalisation process. Core issues are very important to address, but in some cases, the core issues are left for later to instil some form of friendliness towards each other but can still lose the steps taken for the betterment of the relations between the states. In some cases, the instant goals of the states can change abruptly because of the political situation, and that can lead to pulling the focus away from the normalisation process.[32] The normalisation process can be discarded at any time if the ideological or any other sort of changes occur within or externally that happens all the time in the global political arena. Carryover effect can also take its toll on the diplomatic ties between the nations because political elite within a country does take their experiences seriously and one bad experience can lead to speculations of the sort that are not helpful for the state. The carryover effect can be seen as a major influencer on the normalisation process. The fact that the behaviour of nations is a derivative of the human behaviour according to the Realism paradigm can be counted as the premise relates to the ideology. The states, in this case, is a magnified human being.     [33]

Approaches to Normalisation

The normalisation process is a complex and time taking process. The consistently changing political environment makes it even harder for the normalisation with all the fast-moving scenario that change overnight making the relations with states more under question as there are no permanent allies or enemies in the international relations. The global political arena is filled with the examples of nations “changing sides” even though it is not an appropriate word to use in research. The sides have been changed, and that can be seen in the situation of the Middle East and Africa in a lot of cases.[34] The perspective of the nations involved is very important for the process of normalisation, and there is a need of making the process easier by making normalisation of the concept of normalisation possible. What this means is that the approach to normalisation should be the first thing the states in question should take into consideration for making the normalised.[35] They should find a way to develop consensus on what they deem would be the right way to approach the process, and the delegates from both states should work hard on it. The deployment of normalisation should be by how the nations perceive the process after the normalisation after the negotiation on its meaning and framework. Taking such steps would y make the process go smoother as it would help the nations’ delegates come to a consensus on something before the start of the process.

Even in this case as well the conflicts like border issues and such cannot really be left out of the agenda and they make the normalisation process hard as they are the core issues that can never really be subsided unless solved reasonably. The relinquishing control or taking over an area that was under the other nations control also does not give much confidence to the states as one feels defeated and the other feels triumphant.[36] This could cause a blow out in the later times as the resentment of loss can be a deadly thing. The league of nations and the treatment of Germany, blowing out into a newer and the deadliest war can be considered a perfect example of this argument. The war or conflict in case of different nations depends on their scope but the chances of future blowouts of dominating for normalisation. Normalisation has to be on the terms of equality no matter how big or small the nation is. Normalisation is not a process that can become completely functioning on its own. The process depends on the will to compromise and adjudication between certain factors depending on the willingness of the parties.

Does normalisation occur naturally?

The Process of normalisation depends on the factors that are discussed above as there are many such instances that the normalisation can occur naturally because of the circumstances between two states follow the same pattern. The initiation of the process as well as natural in some cases. The example of Russia and Pakistan can be seen as an example in this case as the relations between the two states have been non-existent or mostly filled with animosity.[37] The recent shift of India to the US changed the scenario for both Pakistan and Russia, and they have started coming close and started to cooperate on the matters they would not even have discussed in the past. The relations have not moved fast or on a large scale at all, but the creating of a seed of friendship between the two estranged states can be seen as a situation based natural closeness.[38] The Normalisation in other cases cannot even be perceived to be natural as the animosity between the two states is way too much. The example of Palestine and Israel comes to mind. In this case, there is no way that the two would naturally come together and start solving problems the two nations need to be pushed together for a peaceful and viable solution ad at the same time the process of coming together should also be facilitated and moderated by the international community.[39] The killings of thousands of civilians by the Israelis and vice versa cannot be taken out of the equation when talking about the issues. The viable solution, in this case, should be something that is monitored and proposed by the mutual consent of the two parties by the global leadership.

Saying that the states start normalisation automatically or under supervision or push from the outside factors are both wrong assumptions. The move can be initiated due to circumstances that put them together without any outside force or at some point it could be the other way around. The relations between states are way too complicated to be minimised to the level of mere speculation. As discussed above that the relations between the states way too complicated and different in each case. That is why there is no way of saying how the process of normalisation starts. The question cannot get a satisfactory answer, but when the process starts, it takes longer or shorter periods of time to complete also depending on the factors that affect the initiation of the process in the first place. The debate on the normalisation cannot be won because there is an example for every different argument that holds true in one case and can be discarded completely in other.

 The examples of normalisation in the world

The normalisation process has worked in many cases in the world, but it can never be said with certainty that it will hold that place for ever in the instances that it has worked. There are many instances of the nations that went to wars for years and then became allies.[40] The nations in the European Union are very much a good example of this as they have been in wars with each other in the history, but due to finding a common goal they combined their forces and made a coalition that is one of their stronger military and economic institutions in the world.[41] The normalisation between the European nations can be seen as a model of normalisation for the modern world, but the current factors like Brexit show that the normalisation might not hold for long.[42] Brexit is not a clear indication of any war or conflict but it is just a nudge towards the selfishness of the states that is an outcome of the modern state system that has the focus on making the national interests an absolute necessity to achieve even at cost of other nations like in case of the US intervention in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan where the motto seemed different than the states objective and led to the deterioration of the state of affairs in these countries.[43] The world political situation in the current arena is quite deteriorating as the wars and peace accords are being done in favour of the agendas of, particularly strong and powerful nations.

 Conclusion

The relations between states are unpredictable, and there is no way of properly predicting the terms and conditions that they would apply to other. The state relations in the fast running global machine are in many ways different than the way things were done in the world in the past. The unipolarity, growing economic connections, weakening of the state borders due to globalisation and the terrorism and unrest in the eastern world have all contributed to the massive changes in the global arena. The new trends in the world have been strongly focused on the cooperation in the world, but at the same time, there are many states that hold hostile inclinations toward others. The reasons range from territorial conflicts to ideological differences, and all of these differences contribute to the global political unrest. The normalisation of relations between these states can be brought as the international community can play a role in it or the nations at odds can want to end conflicts. Normalisation, however, is not the easiest goal to achieve as the nations would have alternative demands and even if the normalisation is achieved, there is a chance that the nations could fall out because of the change in attitudes due to changing global politics and alliances. Normalisation is a positive way of making the states come to common terms, but there is a chance that the terms would change and the normalisation would lose its effect.

Bibliography

Ahmed, Ayaz. “Pak-Russia Relations and Future Prospects.” Defence Journal 20, no. 7 (2017): 14.

Barston, Prof R. Modern Diplomacy. 3 edition. Harlow: Longman, 2006.

Baylis, John, Patricia Owens, and Steve Smith. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford University Press, 2017.

Cypher, James M. “Hegemony, Military Power Projection and US Structural Economic Interests in the Periphery.” Third World Quarterly 37, no. 5 (2016): 800–817.

Di Cataldo, Marco. “The Impact of EU Objective 1 Funds on Regional Development: Evidence from the UK and the Prospect of Brexit.” Journal of Regional Science 57, no. 5 (2017): 814–39.

Finkelstein, Norman G. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Verso, 2003.

Fürtig, Henner. “Iran’s Rivalry with Saudi Arabia between the Gulf Wars,” 2002.

Ganguly, Sumit. Conflict Unending: India-Pakistan Tensions since 1947. Columbia University Press, 2002.

Greenwood, Justin. Interest Representation in the European Union. Springer, 2017.

Hameiri, Shahar, and Lee Jones. “Rising Powers and State Transformation: The Case of China.” European Journal of International Relations 22, no. 1 (2016): 72–98.

Jervis, Robert. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton University Press, 2017.

Kelley, Judith G., and Beth A. Simmons. “Politics by Number: Indicators as Social Pressure in International Relations.” American Journal of Political Science 59, no. 1 (2015): 55–70.

Kennedy-Pipe, Caroline, and Nicholas Rengger. “Apocalypse Now? Continuities or Disjunctions in World Politics after 9/11.” International Affairs 82, no. 3 (2006): 539–52.

Korpi, Walter, and Joakim Palme. “The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality, and Poverty in the Western Countries.” American Sociological Review, 1998, 661–87.

Kratochwil, Friedrich. “On the Notion of ‘Interest’ in International Relations.” International Organization 36, no. 1 (1982): 1–30.

Larson, Deborah Welch, and Alexei Shevchenko. “Status Seekers: Chinese and Russian Responses to US Primacy.” International Security 34, no. 4 (2010): 63–95.

Lederach, John. Little Book of Conflict Transformation: Clear Articulation of the Guiding Principles by a Pioneer in the Field. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc., 2015.

Leiner, Martin, and Christine Schliesser. Alternative Approaches in Conflict Resolution. Springer, 2017.

Lindsay, Alexander Dunlop. Religion Science and Society in the Modern World. Oxford University Press (1943), 2016.

Luttwak, Edward N. “Give War a Chance.” Foreign Affairs, 1999, 36–44.

Martin, Gus. Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. SAGE publications, 2017.

Menon, Rajan, and Alexander J. Motyl. “The Myth of Russian Resurgence.” The American Interest 2, no. 4 (2007): 96–101.

Metternich, Nils W., Shahryar Minhas, and Michael D. Ward. “Firewall? Or Wall on Fire? A Unified Framework of Conflict Contagion and the Role of Ethnic Exclusion.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 61, no. 6 (2017): 1151–73.

Migdalovitz, Carol. “Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict.” LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, 2001.

Mishra, Bhabani. “India-US Relations: A Paradigm Shift.” Strategic Analysis 29, no. 1 (2005): 79–100.

Murray, Nancy. Dying to Forget: Oil, Power, Palestine & the Foundations of US Policy in the Middle East, War Against the People: Israel, the Palestinians and Global Pacification and Shell-Shocked: On the Ground under Israel’s Gaza Assault. SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England, 2017.

Nugent, Neill. The Government and Politics of the European Union. Springer, 2017.

Nye Jr, Joseph S. Is the American Century Over? John Wiley & Sons, 2015.

Olins, Wally. “Branding the Nation—The Historical Context.” Journal of Brand Management 9, no. 4 (2002): 241–48.

Oto-Peralías, Daniel, and Diego Romero-Ávila. “A Model of Two Styles of Imperialism.” In Colonial Theories of Institutional Development, 27–39. Springer, 2017.

Rodrik, Dani. “When Ideas Trump Interests: Preferences, Worldviews, and Policy Innovations.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 28, no. 1 (2014): 189–208.

Rogers, Clifford J. “The Military Revolutions of the Hundred Years’ War.” The Journal of Military History 57, no. 2 (1993): 241.

Russell, Richard L. “The Gulf in a Wider Context: Outside Nation-States in the Intensifying Iranian-Arab Security Competition.” In Security and Bilateral Issues between Iran and Its Arab Neighbours, 39–59. Springer, 2017.

Sharon, Guni, Roni Stern, Ariel Felner, and Nathan R. Sturtevant. “Conflict-Based Search for Optimal Multi-Agent Pathfinding.” Artificial Intelligence 219 (2015): 40–66.

Smokova, Lyudmila S. “Migration, Tolerance and Globalization in the Modern Society: Social and Psychological Aspects,” 2016.

Spolaore, Enrico, and Romain Wacziarg. “War and Relatedness.” Review of Economics and Statistics 98, no. 5 (2016): 925–39.

Thompson, William R. Great Power Rivalries. Univ of South Carolina Press, 1999.

Wallensteen, Peter. Understanding Conflict Resolution. Sage, 2015.

[1] Kennedy-Pipe and Rengger, “Apocalypse Now? Continuities or Disjunctions in World Politics after 9/11.”

[2] Kratochwil, “On the Notion of ‘Interest’ in International Relations.”

[3] Olins, “Branding the Nation—The Historical Context.”

[4] Mishra, “India-US Relations: A Paradigm Shift.”

[5] Rogers, “The Military Revolutions of the Hundred Years’ War.”

[6] Rodrik, “When Ideas Trump Interests: Preferences, Worldviews, and Policy Innovations.”

[7] Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict.

[8] Ganguly, Conflict Unending: India-Pakistan Tensions since 1947.

[9] Thompson, Great Power Rivalries.

[10] Migdalovitz, “Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict.”

[11] Fürtig, “Iran’s Rivalry with Saudi Arabia between the Gulf Wars.”

[12] Luttwak, “Give War a Chance.”

[13] Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict.

[14] Korpi and Palme, “The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality, and Poverty in the Western Countries.”

[15] Larson and Shevchenko, “Status Seekers: Chinese and Russian Responses to US Primacy.”

[16] Menon and Motyl, “The Myth of Russian Resurgence.”

[17] Nye Jr, Is the American Century Over?

[18] Lindsay, Religion Science and Society in the Modern World.

[19] Oto-Peralías and Romero-Ávila, “A Model of Two Styles of Imperialism.”

[20] Smokova, “Migration, Tolerance and Globalization in the Modern Society: Social and Psychological Aspects.”

[21] Martin, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues.

[22] Cypher, “Hegemony, Military Power Projection and US Structural Economic Interests in the Periphery.”

[23] Baylis, Owens, and Smith, The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations.

[24] Baylis, Owens, and Smith.

[25] Spolaore and Wacziarg, “War and Relatedness.”

[26] Wallensteen, Understanding Conflict Resolution.

[27] Barston, Modern Diplomacy.

[28] Baylis, Owens, and Smith, The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations.

[29] Metternich, Minhas, and Ward, “Firewall? Or Wall on Fire? A Unified Framework of Conflict Contagion and the Role of Ethnic Exclusion.”

[30] Barston, Modern Diplomacy.

[31] Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics.

[32] Kelley and Simmons, “Politics by Number: Indicators as Social Pressure in International Relations.”

[33] Baylis, Owens, and Smith, The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations.

[34] Leiner and Schliesser, Alternative Approaches to Conflict Resolution.

[35] Sharon et al., “Conflict-Based Search for Optimal Multi-Agent Pathfinding.”

[36] Hameiri and Jones, “Rising Powers and State Transformation: The Case of China.”

[37] Lederach, Little Book of Conflict Transformation: Clear Articulation of the Guiding Principles by a Pioneer in the Field.

[38] Ahmed, “Pak-Russia Relations and Future Prospects.”

[39] Murray, Dying to Forget: Oil, Power, Palestine & the Foundations of US Policy in the Middle East, War Against the People: Israel, the Palestinians and Global Pacification and Shell-Shocked: On the Ground under Israel’s Gaza Assault.

[40] Greenwood, Interest Representation in the European Union.

[41] Nugent, The Government and Politics of the European Union.

[42] Di Cataldo, “The Impact of EU Objective 1 Funds on Regional Development: Evidence from the UK and the Prospect of Brexit.”

[43] Russell, “The Gulf in a Wider Context: Outside Nation-States in the Intensifying Iranian-Arab Security Competition.”