A new Cold War?
Faintly reminiscent but are the emerging dangers in the world signs of a Cold War?
As the world slides deeper into a new era of competition and rivalries, is it fair to say a new Cold War is emerging out of the ashes of the collapse of the Soviet Union? Indeed, some of the features of the new world order are reminiscent of the intrigues during the second half of the 20th century but our chief political scientist argues that the differences not only matter but make the current situation much more dangerous.
►•ur concept on of a Cold War s based on only one h stor cal example so far – the r valry between the U.S. and the Sov ets. Can you br efly go over the ma n features of that confl ct?
The Cold War was essentially competition between two rival blocs, two rival visions of how societies and politics should be organized. This competition was conducted in ways that did not include direct armed conflict between blocs. The bloc led by the Soviet Union entertained a vision of constructing the world along socialist lines while the other, led by the U.S. pursued a vision of a socalled “free world” which subscribed to a liberal economic system accompanied by liberal democracy. The key component that kept this rivalry from turning hot was the balance of terror generated by the possession of nuclear weapons. Without the nuclear arsenal of the U.S. there was no reliable Western defense. Equally, the countries of the Warsaw Pact relied, in the final analysis, on the nuclear capabilities of the Soviet Union. Avoiding direct conflict, the two blocs competed both for economic domination and for the hearts and minds of people. Propaganda played a very important part of in their highly competitive relationship. They also competed through ongoing conflicts in other parts of the world by using proxies; but the major players themselves did not engage in armed conflict and took every measure not to do so for fear that if they did, things would easily escalate into a total war which would annihilate both sides.
►S nce then, of course, more countr es have acqu red nuclear weapons and the world has become much more compl cated. Is what we’re see ng today the emergence of a new Cold War?
We need to be somewhat careful in using such terminology. We have a tendency to look at new developments and ascribe meaning to them in terms of what we have experienced in the past. When we see the new form that global politics is taking today, we mobilize our knowledge of the past and refer to new developments as the reemergence of the Cold War. No doubt there is a tense state of relations emerging among major actors, but whether it has the characteristics of a Cold War that I have outlined above is open to debate.
First of all, well-defined competing visions of good society are lacking. Currently, there is no rival to the liberal democratic vision that the competitors of the U.S. are offering to the world. Secondly, in the current situation, there seems to be no blocs and no bloc leaders. In fact, the leadership of western bloc is eroding while that of the socialist bloc has already dissipated. When you look at the U.S., it is trying to absolve itself of the responsibility of providing se- curity for Western Europe. Russia wants to be treated as a superpower but, economically speaking, it is not a particularly important country. It still has nuclear weapons, which forms the basis of its claim. Third, unlike the Cold War during which the economics of the rival blocs were rather isolated from each other, the economies of today’s emerging rival powers are closely integrated, particularly when we refer to the emergence of China.
►At the same t me, we’re see ng a breakdown of l beral democracy. We’re see ng a r se n author tar an sm, wh ch looks more l ke Sov et-era leadersh p. Does the current emerg ng Cold War mark the end of pol t cal deology?
During the Cold War, democracy versus authoritarian systems was a major domain of contention. Now the competition is no longer so much about democracy. There are so many governments with authoritarian proclivities in the world that authoritarianism is coming to be taken as normal. So, in a sense, your question becomes: Are we talking basically about economic rivalry which we mistakenly term as a new Cold War? Clearly economic rivalry is a very important underlying dimension of it because, for example, when you examine some of the basic complaints about Chinese behavior, they are about intellectual property rights and cyber security regarding new industrial technologies and state subsidies to businesses. Economic concerns prevail over those of security.
►In the past, because there were only two major players, the Cold War was eas er to manage. Now t seems there s a much b gger r sk for t to turn hot.
In fact, if you only examine Syria, you can easily see how much more difficult it has become to manage a variety of actors each trying to gain the upper hand without running into conflict with other major regional or global powers. Currently, there are Russian troops, American troops, French troops, Turkish troops, Syrian troops, Iranian troops and militia, and possibly others.
Of course, when you think about the expression Cold War, it was actually limited to relations between members of two blocs rather than outside of it. The blocs have become considerably weak but we still tend to think of a global core area that includes China and Russia and stretches into Europe and the United States. And the idea is that these countries are not fighting each other directly but rather indirectly, through proxies or through economic competition.
►The common thread between Cold Wars s fear generated by a world n flux, whether t was the dawn of the nuclear age after the second world war or the contemporary effects of rap d global zat on and technolog cal advancement. Are we see ng a pattern emerg ng here where global sh fts generate anx ety and produce Cold War scenar os?
Fear and mutual distrust tend in a vary significant way to undermine international cooperation that could provide for more stability and prosperity for all. Particularly when you have adverse economic developments people tend to become very protective of their own interests and uncompromising. This makes problems even worse. This is hardly a question of military security. Conceptualizing this state of affairs as “Cold War” is not a desirable way of naming it because the terminology generates fears and affects behavior in unwanted ways, thereby potentially initiating a deadly cycle. What we need instead is for reason to prevail and for the major powers to put an end to the cycle before it begins.
INTERVIEW: