Meanwhile, there’s the New Cold War
by digby
We’ve been doing a lot of political navel gazing these past couple of weeks and haven’t really focused on some of the other things that have happened around the world. One of the more interesting events has been the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and a couple of interesting speeches from both Vladimir Putin and Mikail Gorbachev.
Putin’s speech was quite amazing. This piece in Salon dissects it in an interesting way all round but I think this gets to the heart of it:
In essence — the speech is long, carefully phrased and difficult to summarize — Putin argues that the New World Order the Bush I administration declared as the Soviet Union collapsed was a fundamental misreading of the moment. It is now a 20-odd-year failure hacks such as Tom Friedman compulsively term the successful spread of neoliberalism in the face of abundant evidence otherwise.
“A unilateral diktat and imposing one’s own models produces the opposite result,” Putin asserted. “Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.”
Such is Putin’s take on how we got here. His view of where we have to go now is yet more compelling. Our systems of global security are more or less destroyed — “weakened, fragmented, and deformed,” in Putin’s words. In the face of this reality, multipolar cooperation in the service of substantial reconstruction agreements, in which the interests of all sides are honored, is mandatory.
“Given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing on fundamental things,” Putin said. Then:
What could be the legal, political and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours. However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in international affairs can agree on harmonizing basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where unilateral actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms.
It is essential to read this as an attack on the U.S. because it is one. But there is a follow-on recognition not to be missed: This is the speech not of some kind of nostalgic empire builder — Putin dismisses the charge persuasively — but of a man genuinely afraid that the planet is close to tipping into some version of primitive disorder. Absent less adversarial international relations, we reach a moment of immense peril.
That speech is especially interesting in light of the other speech by Gorbachev in which he said this:
The 83-year-old accused the West, particularly the United States, of giving in to “triumphalism” after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the communist bloc a quarter century ago. The result, he said, could partly be seen in the inability of global powers to prevent or resolve conflicts in Yugoslavia, the Middle East and most recently Ukraine.
“The world is on the brink of a new Cold War. Some are even saying that it’s already begun,” Gorbachev said at an event marking the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, close to the city’s iconic Brandenburg Gate.
Apparently, Gorbachev has been feeling this way for a while. This piece in Huffington Post explains:
Vladimir Putin and Mikhail Gorbachev could not be more different as leaders. But they are both proud Russians who don’t think their nation is getting its due. They are like “ bent twigs springing back after being stepped on,” in the phrase Isaiah Berlin used to describe how resentment and aggressive nationalism are rooted in the backlash against humiliation.
Here is what Gorbachev told me in 2005:
Americans have treated us without proper respect. Russia is a serious partner. We are a country with a tremendous history, with diplomatic experience. It is an educated country that has contributed much to science.
The Soviet Union used to be not just an adversary but also a partner of the West. There was some balance in that system. Even though the U.S. and Europe signed a charter for a new Europe, the Charter of Paris, to demonstrate that a new world was possible, that charter was ignored and political gains were pursued to take advantage of the vacuum. The struggle for spheres of influence — contrary to the new thinking we propounded — was resumed by the U.S. The first result was the crisis in Yugoslavia in which NATO was brought in to gain advantage over Russia.
We were ready to build a new security architecture for Europe. But after the breakup of the Soviet Union and the end of the Warsaw Pact, NATO forgot all its promises. It became more of a political than a military organization. NATO decided it would be an organization that intervenes anywhere on “humanitarian grounds.” We have by now seen intervention not only in Yugoslavia, but in Iraq — intervention without any mandate or permission from the United Nations.So much for the new thinking of 20 years ago the West so eagerly embraced when I announced it.
I do not find these attitudes surprising and it’s not because Vladimir Putin is hostile to America although he is. And Gorbachev has a point. Any country whose leaders strut about declaring itself “the essential nation” and exempting itself from international laws and norms by evoking its own “exceptionalism” is going to face that kind of criticism sooner or later. There is a price to be paid for unilateralism even if your heart is pure (and even if you cover it with figleaves like “coalitions of the willing.”) In the eyes of others it often looks like domination. The Russians are not a good gauge of such thinking, of course, but it’s still worth keeping in mind. Other people don’t understand that in our country we have decided that our leaders’ rhetoric is completely irrelevant. They still think they’re saying something when they speak.
I’d urge you to read this piece at least which offers a fascinating retrospective of US, Russian and European leaders on the events that led to the fall of the Wall. It was more accidental than I realized but then most big historical events feature a large element of chance.
Perhaps most interesting to me is the fact that Margaret Thatcher sounds like total lunatic, pretty much writing off Germany for all time because of the “character of its people,” and accusing them of a racism that could never exist in England. She said this in 1995! George Bush Sr, on the other hand, comes off like a smart diplomat who understood that American “triumphalism” would lead to bad ends — in that moment anyway.
It’s a time capsule worth reading if you’re interested in such things.
.