2025 seems to be the year of an all-or-nothing policy. Putin wanted the complete subjugation of Ukraine. Netanyahu for the total elimination of Hamas. Trump for the destruction of Democrats, migrants, EU. Wilders threatened this month with complete ‘breakdown‘ if there is no radical right-wing cabinet.
But is that also the motto of the average Dutch person? What about you? Do you live by the mantra: all or nothing, or ‘preferably just a little’? There’s a good chance that most of the NRC-readers have been socialized well, are satisfied with a little, and do not want to take on the whole tablecloth. I must also honestly say that all-or-nothing thinking is part of something that psychologists see as a pathological condition. According to the classic theory of American psychiatrist Aaron Beck (1921-2021), all-or-nothing thinking is a cognitive distortion of reality, which can lead to problems on three fronts. It starts with someone with high expectations becoming deeply disappointed in themselves (‘I’m a failure’), then seeing the world as hostile (‘no one wants me’), and finally thinking that the future will only bring doom and damnation (‘it will never get better’). The result of this negative, self-repeating triad? Major depression, or worse.
How people deal with this themselves is food for their therapists. But how we deal with this cognitive distortion in national and international politics is a matter of collective interest. I do not want to talk about national politics now (which is also urgent, but given the stubborn attitude of the VVD, slightly less interesting), but about our belief in international relations and international law as the backbone of those relations.
That is also not a good thing. In fact, it has never been this low. Wherever you open reports or newspapers, no one really seems to believe in it anymore. ‘Are we witnessing the death of international law?‘ asked The Guardian in June of this year, where it was more of a rhetorical question than an open one. What do you mean, question mark, I thought Global South Forum. The US attack on Iran and the war in Gaza have long been proof that international law is in the grave.
The next step was not long in coming: whether it was up to the Americans and Israel (because of the judgments about Israel’s genocidal policy) or to a number of African countries (because of the alleged neocolonial, anti-African and ‘Caucasian’ bias), the ICC had better be disbanded. And then I haven’t even mentioned the fact that if you say something critical about Russia or China, all kinds of people immediately start talking about how bad NATO/the West/Europe is. It seems as if all rules against each other and against each other’s alleged hypocrisy are being erased.
Everything Trump does must be bad, says one camp. Everything the EU does cannot be right, the other believes
In short, we are suffering from a serious bout of all-or-nothing thinking in international relations worldwide. Such that this black and white thinking is taken to the extreme. Once something or someone is drawn into that negative triad, it cannot get out. Everything Trump does must be bad, says one camp. Everything that elitist and corrupt EU does cannot be right, the other believes. Do business with Israel, or talk to Hamas? That is only possible if you are prepared to brave storms of criticism.
Now I am the first to argue for a foreign policy and international relations that are also based on values. But I will once again quote the maligned John Mearsheimer, who used to say wise things: “Institutions (in the international arena) function best when they are somewhat a reflection of existing power structures.” Or take Barry Buzan, who also noted that foreign policy should not and cannot be an expression of our idealism, but can only “yield practical results if it is able to adapt to the realities of a multipolar order.” Actually, this is just what Reinhold Niebuhr always advocated The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness (1944), namely that those who want to act as “the children of light” (in international relations) must be “armed with the wisdom of the children of darkness, but free from their evil will. They must know the power of self-interest in human society, without giving it moral justification.” Yes, there is self-interest, but you cannot promote that to value. And yes, values do matter, but you should not make them absolute. Niebuhr called himself a “tamed cynic”: you know that idealism will always be disappointed, but that doesn’t stop you from continuing to do your best and still make something work.
I recently read the beautiful new biography of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer by Norbert Frei, about whom much and much can be said critically. Especially when it comes to Adenauer’s opaque practices towards post-war dictatorial regimes in Southern Europe and South America, his repression of the opposition in his own country, and his tough anti-communist stance towards the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. In 2025 we would have canceled the best man immediately. But still. In September 1955, Adenauer overcame his reluctance, visited Moscow, and secured the release of 10,000 Germans from Soviet captivity. After sometimes more than 10 years of captivity, the first returned home around Christmas 1955.
The aforementioned Aaron Beck not only invented the theory of the negative triad, he was the godfather of cognitive behavioral therapy. This therapy means that you keep telling yourself that all-or-nothing thinking is wrong. It’s not realistic. What is that then? Don’t give up, don’t declare international law bankrupt. But keep going, and believe and hope for a little success. Let 2026 be the year of being happy with a little. For ourselves, and for the rest of the world.
The journalistic principles of NRC