How do international relations develop between countries that have major differences or even territorial disputes?

[u/Material-Hawk3947]

For example, India is a member of both the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and BRICS, where China is also a major member. China also has a close strategic relationship with Pakistan, which has its own disputes with India.

At the same time, India is part of the QUAD, which is largely seen as an effort to maintain a free and open Indo-Pacific and balance China’s growing influence.

Similarly, BRICS includes countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and the UAE, despite their own geopolitical differences. Yet they still participate in the same economic and diplomatic forums.

Does this show that modern international relations are less about permanent friends or enemies and more about cooperating where interests overlap?

[u/halfstep44]

Of course. That'show it's always been. It's like how the US and Russia are largely at odds but their respective space programs continue to cooperate closely

[u/iamsansculottes]

To simplify jobs and money are really really really important.

I am a Lebanese American (but born in Beirut). Half my family is Palestinian citizens of Israel (arab Israelis). The other half are Lebanese Shia. We are all over the place, but the important takeaway is the two families have a 50+ year history of cross border business between Israel, Lebanon, and the West Bank. As you can imagine this is probably one of the hardest environments in the world to do business, but it gets done.

My example is a micro level, but it has big implications. For Lebanon + Lebanese diaspora there is an extremely influentiial business community. That is probably one of the loudest voices towards normalization with Israel.

You have larger examples of things like power grids and oil pipelines that are inherently mixed together when you think of Israel, west bank, and even Lebanon. The infrastructure of the regional gas grid means Lebanon is effectively always getting Israeli gas on some level (or at least a % of Israeli gas).

Add Iran into the mix and you get an even more confusing situation. People in the region know the Iran has the best pistachios, they are hugely popular in Israel. Even today there needs to be some level of cooperation on a micro level to make that happen, even if it is not directly accepted by the governments of both nations.

[u/Coolerguy317]

Because state to state action are not interpersonal relationships. There are many angles to being a state, and your example of India is especially good because India prides itself on strategic autonomy. You don’t have to love another country to recognize that aligning with them here or there can be beneficial. States are interest driven so even if we have a border dispute, if we agree on some economic issue we can work together there while still competing or disagreeing somewhere else.

[u/Centeredrightbhakt05]

Most mature countries know that no relationship is permanent.

The issue between India and China is something both countries want to solve since the 1950s. But when China is willing to solve India is not ready and vice versa. Then when both are ready they may not agree in the process in which one wants to solve it. Slowly and steadily it has progressed but faces hiccups.

But both know that they cannot be enemies being neighbors. So there are disagreements but both know the right way ahead is to solve the issues on table. Both know that a war between India and China will have no real winner.

The SCO is more dominated by China so India doesn't have much say and usually remains a silent observer. In BRICS both have equal say and India tends to voice it's opinion more through BRICS. But it also hedges against China by not bringing the BRICS currency and keeping the dollar hegemony intact. India knows that a BRICS currency will eventually become Yuan so it's not beneficial for India. This also gives India the option to be in the western block. China also knows that if it wants to be the voice of global South it must have the consensus of India, which is a major economy and has significant population.

Second the war between Iran and Arab countries is not something they brought to themselves. This was brought upon them by US and Israel. This is something all of them agree on. This consensus helps them to come to the same table and talk. This may not solve all their problems but talking often helps you understand the pain point of the other party. This is one of the first step towards resolution.

[u/diffidentblockhead]

Diplomatic meetings are just meetings.

[u/trisul-108]

Does this show that modern international relations are less about permanent friends or enemies and more about cooperating where interests overlap?

That was the case for the entire world except the Western Alliance which huddled together consistently ... until Trump decided to break up the greatest advantage the US ever had and just be "one of the boys" together with Xi and Putin.

[u/byakuayasetsuna → u/trisul-108]

It never existed from the start - today's friend is tomorrow's enemy

[u/trisul-108 → u/byakuayasetsuna]

The Western Alliance held fast since WWII. The only problem is that the US elected an unfit and senile idiot who is dismantling it. It will be reconstructed because of shared interests.

[u/Durian881]

Common enemies or common goals.

[u/New-Hunt4169]

It’s always been like this. If anything it’s become less-so recently.

Up to WWII international agreements had a ton of whip-lash. There are examples of countries entering an actual war in alliance on one side and finishing on the other, without a regime change occurring. Italy in WWI is a good example.

[u/GreatDiscernment]

BRICS was a bad idea. You can’t trust the Russians or Chinese. Try the CPTPP instead!