On March 2, the Valdai Club held an expert discussion, titled “Whose Rules? Revisionists and Status Quo Defenders in World Politics”, based on the new report of the Club “Institutional Revisionism in International Politics: a Product of Boom, a Child of Decline, or Something Else?”
The moderator of the discussion, Valdai Club Programme Director Oleg Barabanov, briefly outlined the history of the concept of “revisionism” in his opening remarks, noting that in our time this concept is no longer associated with the re-division of the world. He pointed to the difference between “balance of power revisionism” which is natural for international relations — that is, attempts by states to change the existing balance of power, if it does not correspond to national interests, — and revisionism with respect to institutions, norms and values. He stressed that the first trend is typical for China and Russia, and the second takes place in America.
The author of the report, Igor Istomin, Associate Professor at the Department of Applied International Analysis at MGIMO University and Senior Research Fellow at the Davis Center at Harvard University, described the behaviour of three leading powers — the United States, China and Russia, whose reputation in the expert community clearly contradicts the practical side of the matter. While undoubtedly striving to change the global balance of power, Beijing and Moscow, for various reasons, agree on the issue of supporting existing institutions and take a cautious attitude towards their revision (although Moscow is much more conservative). On the contrary, Washington actively criticises the rules of the game, including those that were created with its direct participation. At the same time, the US adjusts international institutions to suit its own interests. This long-term political trend arose long before the Trump administration.
During the discussion, William C. Wohlforth, Daniel Webster Professor at the Department of Government at Dartmouth College, noted the lack of clarity of the definition of revisionism proposed in the report, but agreed with the author that the United States is indeed revisionist. Xiang Lanxin, Professor at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva and Director of the Centre of Belt and Road and Eurasian Security at the China National Institute for SCO Studies in Shanghai, emphasised that China has its own long-term approach to international relations. He added that the projection of Western categories on Chinese policy, such as revisionism, could lead to errors in understanding. Raffaele Marchetti, Professor of International Relations at LUISS Guido Carli University (Rome), noted that in order to have a complete and accurate picture, more attention should be paid to the nuances of interstate relations and the international activities of non-state actors.
