ShareThis
by Paul Ballard
April 16, 2013
“The world is like a Mask dancing, if you want to see it well you do not stand in one place.” ~ Chinua Achebe, Nigerian novelist, 1988
“ My interest is in the future because I am going to spend the rest of my life there.” ~ Charles Kesselring, U.S. electrical engineer and inventor, 1946
“America won a huge victory across the Cold War : we stood down the world’s only other military superpower, simultaneously setting in motion globalization’s great advance around the planet. Then America needed to embrace the new security environment in which it faced no peers. But we failed dramatically by clinging to the dream of a “near-peer” to justify retaining a military fashioned primarily for great-power war.” ~ Thomas P. Barnett, U.S. political scientist, 2004.
In 2014 when our troops finally depart Afghanistan, America will be at peace for the first time since the Nine Eleven attack in 2001. Fittingly that will be almost a quarter century since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 brought an end to the Cold War.
In the intervening years, much in the world has changed beyond all recognition : The world economy has dropped communism and united around the concept of the capitalist market. The rigid separation of the world into two separate blocs of West and East – led by two superpowers, the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union – has disappeared. In its place there is a far more integrated yet far more decentralized world, led by a single superpower, the U.S.A. A world with far greater diversity and democracy. A world divided by fundamental differences of political ideology has been replaced by one where most nations share a common interest in economic advancement for their people in our globalized market economy.
However, as continuing tensions and controversies over Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Israel-Palestinian conflict, and the changing Middle East among others show, it is quite ironic how little U.S. foreign policy has changed its orientation since the end of the Cold War. The Soviet Union may have long disappeared, and the bi-polar global political system with it. But U.S. policy is still caught in approaches hailing back to that earlier age. It is as if U.S. foreign and military policy were still dominated by the need to confront a – by now long departed – great-power adversary across the chess board of the world.
With the ending of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the receding of fears of terrorism sparked off by Nine Eleven, American foreign policy stands truly at a cross-roads. U.S. policy needs fundamental re-orientation. It urgently needs to be based upon a fuller understanding of the world as it is today, and how it will evolve in the +future.
The key questions are : How has U.S. foreign policy stayed mired in its Cold War past ? And, more importantly, how should it be refocused to take up the challenges of the future ? How should the U.S.A. lead the world of the 21st. century ?
Legacy of the Cold War : It is worth recalling quickly how world politics worked during the forty years of the Cold War (1948-89). It was dominated by a bi-polar system of two rival blocs. The world was divided into competing spheres led by two super-powers. Each super power paid close attention to controlling events in the smaller states inside their power blocs, to keep them in the fold. They sought to expand their influence by alliance or control of states in the other super-power’s sphere, or among the smaller group of non-aligned states of the world – including India and China. Super power politics aimed at expanding global reach, at the expense of the other. Military systems were put in place to repel aggression and deter start of war by the other side. Nuclear weapons were controlled by the two power blocs. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT, was designed to prevent acquisition outside these. Across the regions of the world, the over-arching influence of the two super-powers limited political freedoms in individual nations. Outside super power support kept undemocratic leaders in power. Regional politics was suppressed – as were democracy and freedom movements in smaller states.
The end of the Cold War fundamentally changed this state of affairs. In a few years, and without a shot being fired, the straight-jacket of the Cold War bi-polar system was washed away. This opened up new opportunities and challenges for smaller states across the world. Many of them experienced a new-found freedom to chart their own political course domestically and internationally. Absent the centralizing force of the two power bloc conflict, there was a sudden and considerable devolution of political power to the regions. Regional politics took on a far greater role. The overall number and level of conflicts across the world declined considerably since the end of the Cold War, as the United Nations tells us. Now, conflicts are mainly regional – or between neighbors – rather than broadly international in scope. Supported by the U.S. and its allies’ interest in promoting democracy, many nations have made the transition to more open representative systems of government.
The Emerging New World Order : Since the end of the Cold War, political developments in different regions now occur increasingly based upon regional dynamics, without necessarily involving directly the interests of the world’s remaining super power, the U.S.A. Yet, U.S. foreign policy has continued anachronistically to regard every development across the world in relation to itself, as directly affecting U.S. power. By focusing exclusively on the impact upon America, the prime importance of regional conflicts and tensions are misread, at times with devastating and costly consequences, as in the tragic and unnecessary Iraq war :
~ In Iran, the pursuit of nuclear power (and perhaps nuclear weapons) is seen as a threat to America, Europe and Israel. Yet, viewed in regional terms, the political dynamics may be quite different. For, Iran is the leading Shia Moslem power in the Middle East. Its actions can more consistently be seen as an effort to support fellow Shia in their growing epochal region-wide conflict with aggressive Sunni Islam, led by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Morocco. Since the overthrow of the Shah and the 1979 hostage crisis, U.S. policy has been to isolate and sanction Iran, even long after the Cold War. Yet, America has no long-term strategic interest in siding with the Sunnis against the Shia. U.S. interests must clearly lie going forward in maintaining relations with both sides to help sustain peace based upon a regional balance of power. Cut off from access to modern conventional weapons by ever tightening sanctions, Iran may increasingly be tempted to nuclear weapons, to balance the advantages of the Sunni powers. But opening dialog with Iran could be strongly in America’s interest in future. For example, it could provide a more effective diplomatic and political solution to the dreadful conflict between Sunni and Shia in Syria. An out-of-date policy of sanctions against Iran may work ultimately against U.S. interests. And let’s not forget, the Nine Eleven hijackers were Sunni from Saudi Arabia, not Shia from Iran!
~ In South-East Asia, the U.S.A. in the Obama Administration’s “pivot to Asia” is seen by some as confronting China, by supporting smaller Asian states and its ally, Japan. Yet, America has strong mutual economic and security interests it shares with China. A vital turning-point in the Cold War occurred when Pres. Nixon led the opening to China that shifted that nation ultimately away from communism and into a largely capitalist economy today. Similarly, in Burma, the recent reforms aimed at opening up to the West are part of an effort to counter-balance Chinese regional hegemony. So, once again, U.S. interests long-term do not lie in taking sides for or against China or the other states. They lie strongly in playing a vital positive role in supporting peace through a sustainable regional balance of power.
How Should America Lead in the 21st Century? : These and other foreign policy challenges point to a new role for America in the world. In the New World Political Order now emerging, the U.S.A. needs to avoid reflex actions from the Cold War past leading it to take sides in what are now predominantly regional conflicts. This means especially avoiding being drawn into costly and diversionary military conflicts in far smaller, economically weaker states with no remote ability to challenge U.S. power. Working with its long-term allies in the Europe, Japan and other OECD states, America needs to take the lead in sustaining regional balance of power regimes among smaller states across the world.
This will involve a quite new approach – calling more than before upon diplomatic, development aid, international cooperation and political mediation efforts. In an era of peace, such alternative means can likely be far more effective than military power alone. This will enable America prudently to reduce and refocus its military spending while enhancing its political strength internationally. In a world set for further massive changes by 2050, U.S. foreign policy must view the world as it really is today. It must also vitally anticipate, as best we can, how the world will look tomorrow. Not yesterday!
I, for one, hope that our political leaders will bring U.S. foreign policy out of the Cold War and into the 21st Century as soon as possible!