Foreign policies are claimed to be driven by ideology but in reality this is more so in rhetoric and articulation of foreign policy than in its substantive evolution and implementation. Ideology, of course, gets invariably invoked to project and legitimise foreign policy goals and moves. These moves are primarily based on perceived strategic and material interests of the concerned states and their regimes. The first two world wars and the following Cold War were all rationalised and explained on the basis of ideology; of fighting for democracy first against the forces of fascism and then against ‘expanding’ communism. Similarly, the end of the Cold War has been projected as the ideological victory of liberal polities and open economies against communist state control over economy and political freedom.

The post-Cold War unipolar order has also been projected as the one based on ‘superior’ moral values of human rights, democracy and economic freedom. But all these global conflicts were precipitated by a clash of strategic and material interests of the states involved and only these interests drove their respective foreign policies. The questions of ideology versus interests and ethics versus power have been debated between the realists and the liberals in the discourse on international politics for decades, even centuries. However, when one goes under the skin of these ideological arguments and weighs them against concrete policy practices; the enduring reality of power and interests emerges in bold relief.