Peace, Confrontation or Drift ? Which Way are the World and American Foreign Policy Headed ?

~ “Persuasion is the resource of the feeble; and the feeble seldom persuade.” ~ Edward Gibbon,1788.
~ “Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” ~ W.B. Yeats, 1921
~ “By private messages and public statements, in the Cuban Missile Crisis the United States committed itself to action should the Soviets cross an unambiguous line (deploying offensive missiles in Cuba). All that was required was for the United States to use its strategic superiority in a way that demonstrated American determination to see the missiles removed, while at the same time allowing Moscow time and room to retreat without humiliation.” ~ Zelikow and Allison, 2009.
~ Ultimately, as it took many so long to recognize, a stable world order in which the use of force is as severely circumscribed and regulated as police action, and in which peace can be maintained while legitimate needs can be satisfied and grievances can be addressed through mechanisms not involving bloodshed, is beneficial to all sides.” ~ Beatrice Heuser, 2011
~ “Positive peace implies a social and political ordering of society that is generally accepted as just. The creation of such an order may take generations to achieve, and social dynamics may destroy it in a few decades.” ~ Michael Howard, 2001
~ “The way in which Russia was reborn after 1991 created inequalities between Washington and Moscow that Russia has found hard to accept and that Putin is determined to reverse.” ~ Angela Stent, 2014.
Watching recent dramatic events unfold in world politics – especially in Ukraine and in Syria but also elsewhere – like me you may have begun to have the unsettling feeling something fundamental is changing in the world in which we live. Despite the apparent complacency of Western media and our political leaders in America and in Europe, these developments are sharply jolting our assumption until now that since 1991 we are living in a more peaceful, orderly, inclusive post-Cold War era. The far greater prosperity we have generally enjoyed due to the globalized economic system that has emerged since is based in no small part upon that system of order. This is what the eminent British historian Michael Howard has called the “invention of peace”. Or as Beatrice Heuser says : “a stable world order” where grievances can be settles without bloodshed is “beneficial to all sides”. So, once it is called into question, the stakes for our future are potentially very high.
New Challenges to World Peace : Now, Vladimir Putin’s Russia has done exactly that. By invading Ukraine and seizing Crimea – in contravention of the 1994 Budapest legal agreements ending the Cold War in which Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons in return for guarantees of its sovereignty from America and Europe, and from Russia. This follows many years of similar Russian breaches of those agreements – notably the 2008 war and seizure of territory in Georgia, and many years of economic coercion to bind former Soviet Union FSU states to Russia by force. Earlier this week, in the Duma (Russian Parliament) in Moscow, in a triumphant and defiant speech, Putin made clear these actions were part of a broader plan to reunite Russians in all the FSU – in effect rebuilding the Soviet empire without Communism.
~ Meanwhile, the deepening humanitarian disaster and carnage in Syria’s civil war risks sucking in all major countries in the region – from Turkey and Lebanon to Egypt and Saudi Arabia – as it displaces millions as refugees and has killed almost a quarter million Syrians in three years. ~ In Egypt, a constitutionally elected government was overthrown in a 2013 coup creating a military government even more brutally repressive than the one that preceded it. ~ At the same time, Saudi Arabia has spent over two decades sponsoring spread of extreme conservative Wahhabi Sunni Islam across North Africa, in Pakistan and other major Moslem countries, provoking conflicts in weak states such as Mali. ~ Since 2001, an extreme rejectionist government in Israel has expanded settlement construction undermining prospects for peace with the Palestinians, despite recent valiant efforts led by U. S. Sec. of State John Kerry. ~ In South-East Asia, an increasingly assertive China is challenging for control of disputed islands and military superiority in the South China Sea – to the rising concern of Japan and other Asian nations. ~ In Europe, prolonged austerity policies imposed by Germany and other northern European nations have severely weakened economies and social cohesion, and created political divisions, giving rise to extreme right wing political parties.
Key Questions : How has decoupling of systems of economic and political order evolved in past 20 years? How has US foreign policy responded? What are the major challenges now ahead for the US and its allies and for the world? How should they respond now?
U.S. and Western Political Responses : Distracted for a decade by the US-led “war on terror”, Western powers have aimed on the surface to maintain an appearance of unity in the “international community”, while the growing strains and differences have emerged. This has enabled them to pursue their own individual economic interests despite growing political differences and challenges. Crucial weaknesses today in the response to Russian aggression in Ukraine result from individual EU nations’ strong trade ties with Russia. Ironically, economic ties have become stronger just as political conflicts have deepened. So, Western countries have often sought short-term economic advantage despite rising political tensions. Equally, this meant in the 1990s, Western countries – notably Germany – did relatively little to provide economic and financial support to Russia’s then crumbling economy. This even though the “peace dividend” from the end of the Cold War was substantial. The resulting economic chaos and disorder in Russia’s economy together with the sense of relegation of Russia from super power to mere “regional power” status has helped fan the flames of Russian nationalism exploited politically by Putin. This resembles eerily in some ways the lack of economic support for defeated Germany after World War I that gave rise to extreme nationalism under Hitler eventually leading to World War II. For, while weaker economically in relative terms, Russia today still has far broader influence extending beyond its own region – notably in Syria, Iran and with China.
Challenges Facing US and Western Foreign Policy Now : For several years now, American – and European – foreign policies have failed to address directly or forcefully enough the challenge posed by Russia – and by other deepening international political crises mentioned above. Little was done to counter Russian aggression in Georgia in 2008. Now, inaction in the past weeks has enabled Putin to score a ‘fait accompli’ victory that may well prove difficult if not impossible to reverse, while also setting a dangerous precedent for future actions by Russia and other nations potentially. Ominously, tens of thousands of Russian troops are massing on Ukraine’s eastern borders. Yet, the G7 communiqué this week remains vague on economic sanctions and rules out any form of military response – even of a tactical nature. The opportunity to create no-fly zones in Syria to protect the civilian population and provide leverage to bring the brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad to real negotiations was missed two years ago.This has greatly complicated and deepened the conflict there – potentially even handing victory to Assad! US and European unwillingness to acknowledge that the July 2013 military take-over in Egypt was indeed a brutal military coup has led to an appearance of complicity – America is still providing $1.5 billion annually in military assistance even after thousands have been killed and yet more jailed as free speech has been curtailed. Now, as Edward Gibbon noted many years ago in his magisterial book “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” (see quote above), persuasion is weak and all but ineffective.
Immediate Conflicts to Address Now : At the height of the Cold War in 1962, faced with major risks of sparking a global super-power nuclear conflict, the US led by Pres. John F. Kennedy shrewdly faced down the Soviet threat of offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba, in a manner that averted military conflict while also deterring future aggression and containing Soviet expansion. By contrast, today, weak and vacillating approaches by America and Western powers risk merely deferring mounting conflicts so that, left hanging too long, they become still more serious intractable and destructive later. By using national economic interests as excuses for avoiding political action now, ironically they risk actually undermining even their economic interests more severely later. A Russia emboldened by flouting international agreements and invading Ukraine – and annexing Crimea – will most likely step up similar pressures on other FSU states and Eastern Europe. This risks building to a worse conflict later on. And/or eventual imposition (too late) of more severe long-term economic sanctions – that would be more harmful to both sides.
Facing down the conflict now in a savvy way that obliges Russia to rethink its aggression, but also offers face-saving recognition of Russia’s stature in the world as well as far greater economic and financial support would be preferable – as being less harmful economically as well as less destabilizing politically. For this, much greater political will and concerted and united political action are crucially needed right now from America and Europe.
Pres. Obama needs to step up and provide the leadership to bring this about now. Rather than minimizing the current situation’s importance as a way of evading it, the full gravity of the choices need to be taken on board now and acted upon. It took almost fifty years of Cold War to bring about the period of greater peace and openness the world has enjoyed since 1990. We all have an interest in consolidating it, rather than letting it slip away through ever deepening unresolved conflicts.
I, for one, sincerely hope that our political leaders will urgently take up the challenge of remaking Western foreign policy much more purposively and forcefully in a savvy way. We could all feel safer and more confident in the future!