Those who think foreign policy is all about values must be either detached from reality or else true romantics. Or idealists.

As an admirer of US President Obama, I nevertheless tend to agree with those who argue that although he believes in everything he promised he is finding it increasingly hard to deliver what he promised.

Even though the term ‘realpolitik’ has often been used to almost give a Machiavellian tinge to politics, it remains relevant to this day and age.

For the simple reason that while ever politician and leader must show vision and communication skills to win people over, at day’s end power considerations tend to remain as important as ideals, morals and principles.

The goings on worldwide right now could not have proved this point more forcefully.

If we look at the various attempts at an Arab Spring in a number of countries, we find that due to mainly strategic interests and considerations some governments have hesitated to adopt the same assertive stance against one or a set of countries as they might have done vis-à-vis others.

In some cases, countries’ actions were not triggered by any human rights considerations but purely by their grand designs to redraw the map of regional alliances in accordance with their own interests.

Some have even applied the ‘better the devil you know’ maxim, since nothing tends to unsettle them more than newly emerging sectarian confrontations and growing instability close to home or in their own backyard.

In other cases certain actions are merely triggered by preventive considerations.

As the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies recently remarked – in this context (according to them), Saudi Arabia is doing its utmost to prevent the ‘new’ Egyptian leadership from forging closer links with Iran.

With the same line of thought at the back of their mind, certain governments in the Gulf have been “seeking to inoculate the monarchies against possible dangers to their stability”.

In fact, various monarchies have proved to be the less threatened governments or regimes so far in the Middle East.

Were one to analyse most countries’ recent forays in foreign policy, one would find that considerations of balance of power and ethnic rivalries are intertwined in their newly discovered activism.

Closer to home we have seen signs of how certain countries have been “sliding from a struggle to overthrow an autocrat into a murkier contest between factions and tribes”.

While some countries talk of establishing a secular democracy – something that no level headed person can in any way dream of opposing – “several recent acts of revenge have cast their ranks in a less favourable light”.

This becomes even more relevant in those countries that have been plagued by tribal tensions for ages.

While I am not a supporter of strong armies, on the other hand countries that fragment into civilian bands of various militia fighters will risk ending up as potential failed states.

Some leaders might inspire more confidence than others in these particular hot spots.

But at day’s end they will stand to be judged purely on the basis of their control over their own fighters.

For some reason or other Tito had managed to paper over the cracks in the former Yugoslavia. Whether certain North African and Middle Eastern countries will manage to reconcile the differences among their own internal factions and tribes might prove to be a trickier proposition.

Recently, MEDPO published an interesting study entitled “State (un) Sustainability in the Southern Mediterranean and Scenarios to 2030.

As a European based think tank, their main concern was the potential EU response to such scenarios.

They made it clear that there is neither one size fits all situations or solutions.

On one hand they identified countries that have just experienced revolutions.

Others that have attempted this route remain embroiled, at the time of writing, in violence and authoritarianism. While others, according to this Institute, “have rhetorically at least stepped up their commitment to reform”.

Not to mention those that continue to be enmeshed in old conflicts irrespective of whether the Arab Spring becomes an Arab Summer, Autumn or Winter.

While many analysts have been rejoicing at the drift towards democratisation (and who can blame them for doing so?), those who believe in realpolitik will instantly recall that wherever relatively free elections were held, discomfort – to put it mildly – was experienced in many diplomatic circles.

Whether we are talking of the 88 seats that the Muslim Brotherhood had won in the Egyptian Parliament in 2005, the strong showing of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the resounding Hamas victory in the OPT – Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Living as we do in a post 9/11 world, will all those singing the praises of democratic processes continue to do so if this turns into the shape of things to come?

Mediterranean unity has been a concept that has been pursued like a pipe dream since the 70s or even earlier. But most seem to be in agreement – including MEDPRO itself – that “the revolts are likely to lead to a far more heterogeneous and fragmented region than the one we once (thought we) knew”.

While many have been rejoicing at the revolutionary fever that has ostensibly taken over one of the key countries in the Arab world, if my political radar was sharp enough when I was in Germany recently, I got the impression that an Islamic resurgence could easily tempt certain elements to opt for a restructured authoritarian rule “without a veritable turn towards democracy”.

I have deliberately left the Israeli-Palestinian issue out of the equation and the possible or potential outcome of the Palestinian UN General Assembly resolution to recognise the Palestinian state, because that in itself merits an article on its own.

As things stand both sides – the Israelis and the Palestinians – seem to have already mobilized a global diplomatic campaign.

Forgetting for a moment the Israeli-Palestinian issue – which we can only risk doing at our own peril – the most telling conclusion is that drawn by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace when it stated that certain countries cannot allow the street to dictate in an arbitrary fashion what the government must do. But they cannot expect that people will forever accept the equally arbitrary decisions taken by interim governments.

[email protected]

www.leobrincat.com

Mr Brincat is a member of the Standing House Committee on Foreign & European Affairs.