How geopolitical pragmatism masks structural power asymmetries and erodes collective security frameworks
Original framing: “Is pragmatism replacing ideology in international affairs?” — Al Jazeera
The current 'pragmatic' turn mirrors 19th-century imperial realpolitik, where European powers justified colonial expansion as 'civilizing missions' or 'balance of power' necessities. The Bretton Woods system (1944) institutionalized neoliberal pragmatism, embedding corporate interests into global governance under the guise of 'stability.' Historical precedents like the 1973 Chilean coup—where the CIA and multinational corporations overthrew Allende to 'restore pragmatism'—show how 'pragmatism' often masks violent counter-revolution.
The framing of 'pragmatism' as a neutral shift in international affairs obscures how neoliberal technocracy has repackaged colonial extraction as 'efficiency,' with institutions like the IMF and WTO acting as enforcers of corporate sovereignty.
Historical analysis reveals this is not a departure from ideology but its most insidious form—where market dogma masquerades as realism, and structural violence is rebranded as 'stability.' Indigenous epistemologies and feminist economics offer concrete alternatives, from Buen Vivir trade zones to citizen assemblies, but these are systematically excluded by the same elites who benefit from the current system. The trickster’s laughter exposes the absurdity of framing authoritarian regimes as 'pragmatic partners' while ignoring their role in perpetuating gendered and racialized violence. The path forward demands not just policy reforms but a paradigm shift: replacing transactional alliances with relational accountability, and replacing GDP with intergenerational justice as the metric of success.