THE COLD WAR – BEING RETRACED

“It’s a very different world from the old Cold war.”
– Zbigniew Brzezinski, former US National Security Advisor

 Geopolitical pundits are aroused as Russia and the US challenge one and other with a series of actions that may be merely chess moves, or as some say, may herald a renewed bi-polar world like that which haunted the globe for decades after World War II – the Cold War.

 Differences over a host of  matters, from an apparent Russian claim on the North pole sea floor to Middle Eastern affairs have brought media headlines and some sharp verbal sparring. In particular, the US proposal to create a missile shield on Russia’s border, ostensibly for protection of NATO, and the division of views over Kosovo have heated things up.

 “Kosovo is a key issue,” noted EAMF founder Dariga Nazarbayeva in her opening remarks.  “It appears to be the most critical and sensitive challenge the world is currently facing. Many believe that it questions the whole modern global order and relationships between nations. Many, both in the West and the East, are still behaving as if the ‘cold war’ is not over yet,” she said.

 Zbigniew Brzezinski, US National Security Advisor to President Carter and thus a participant at the time, said the old Cold War was altogether different from the present relationship between Russia and the West.

 Subjectively, the Soviet Union and the United States had been promoting two opposing visions of the future.  Objectively, the two powers had been engaged in territorial rivalry based on the threat of the use of armed force.

 “It was a zero sum game between two world systems,” he said.

 This confrontation ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

The relationship between Russia and the United States was now on a more normal footing, even if they still resorted to threats on occasion. “We can live with it,” Brzezinski said.  “It’s a very different world from the old Cold war.”

 Marc Perrin de Brichambaut, Secretary General of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), said he also took a positive view of the current state of international relations.

 “This is a time of great opportunity,” he said.  “There is no serious risk of armed conflict on a world scale, there is increasing economic inter-dependence and there is a new generation of world leaders.”

 A process of readjustment in relative positions was underway in international relations, but this should not be seen as too dramatic.

 “What is important is what comes after, how we work for the future.”

 Brichambaut said every country now had the opportunity to help solve current international and regional problems, such as failed states and drug trafficking.

 “This is the real competition, how well can each nation work and relate together in an inter-connected world.”

 Mark McKinnon of Canada’s Globe and Mail, said rivalry between East and West was back again, but in a new form, fuelled by separatist issues such as the status of Kosovo.

 “We are still looking at rivalry based on different visions of the world,” he said.

 The comment pointed not just to visions but to other change. First, there are many players with a  variety of powers now. China looms dramatically as it now consumes more of the world’s top commodities than the former largest buyer, the US. It is now Japan’s largest trading partner, also displacing the US. And while it speaks of growth in friendship, both its economic engine and its military capability are increasing, making all its neighbors a bit nervous. Dr. Brzezinski told the assemblage that “If I was a Russian, I would be more concerned about Russian-Chinese relations than about the Russian-American relationship.”

 Secondly, there has been shift upon shift for the former Cold War opponents. Not only did the USSR disappear, there was a nuclear stand down between the big players. Meanwhile, Russia moved into a period of rebuilding and diminished presence on the world stage while, after 9/11, the US engaged in a war on terror and opened the Iraq War.

 And, as McKinnon also pointed out, from the 90’s to now, yet another difference arose. In the first Kosovo crisis in the 1990s, the United States could dictate its policy to Russia, he said. That was no longer the case, as the world had moved towards a multi-polar system of international relations. Economic power also has shifted with the rise in energy prices and now, the question of basic food supplies.

 “No rules or common sense were left when the cold war ended,” maintained Mikhail Leontiyev, Anchor of “Odnako” on Channel 1, Russia, who went on to say “whatever comes will be more of a pluralist Cold War, not polarist.”

 “The US failed to form a way to deal with the order of the world,” Leontiyev said. He then turned to the matter of how mass media are involved in the process. “Western media color things their way. There is also an element of Russian media that show a pro-western view. Mass media exist not in a vacuum but in the context of their respective country needs.”

 This engaged the audience.

 “I worked for the Washington Post and was trained by UPI,” said Julie Finley, the US Ambassador to the OSCE. “I have a question for Mr. Leontiyev. Do you believe the roles of reporter and an analyst in the press have become so merged that readers don’t know fact from fiction? Have we lost that ability to be clear and just give the facts  for the recipient of the info to make their own decisions? If that has been lost, might that be a way that aids and abets misunderstanding between nations?”

 Leontiyev responded that he does not believe in objective journalists; the potential for manipulation is always present, he said. “Objective journalists – western journalists working in Russia – understand. But what they say and know is very different from what they write. It is what the reader wants.

 “They want to keep their jobs;  they would otherwise do something different.”

 From the floor another delegate went further: “Western media still live with the cold war mentality and in fact Second World War, when they wanted to see Russia totally defeated.”

 This drew in Dr. Brzezinski who contended there is something basic to misunderstandings. “Every country feels it is not understood well enough or appreciated well enough by others. I am prepared to accept that Russians do think the West doesn’t understand the wonderful things that are happening.

 “But if you look at polls; or at the number of Russians visiting US and Americans visiting Russia, the  situation today is like night and day compared to the Cold War era.”

 Thus bringing the discussion back to topic, he noted that there was a desire for security which caused expansion of NATO following the collapse of the Soviet Union.  “Today, for example, the Russia/Poland relationships are probably better than anywhere, and I hate to think what Estonian relationships would be if they were not part of NATO, they would probably be like those with Georgia.

 “As far as the missile defense system is concerned, I am not sure that program will be implemented if Democrats come to power – there is much more skepticism on the Democratic side of Congress than the Republicans. They will cut funds.”

 This comment brought a rejoinder from Leontiyev, who first admitted that at least it was true the US is engaged in dialogue. “It has not yet proven productive, but there is a dialogue. My own personal view is somewhat skeptical. (The missile system) is a system designed against a non-existent threat in order to defend western Europeans who do not ask for such defense. And, it involves a system that has not been developed. I don’t see any reason when there is no great desire to have such a system.”

 Brzezinski’s observation on the US election, the topic of more extensive discussion in later sessions at the 7th EAMF, set the stage for a new US position versus the rest of the world. Meanwhile, the change of leadership in Russia must be examined as a new administration takes its place.

 “There is no doubt Putin feels strongly that Russia has to stand up to the US to demonstrate that its phase of international weakness is finished,” Brzezinski said “He thinks that by drawing clear lines and using strong language that message is transmitted.

Secondly, it does seem politically useful, giving him more support, more acclaim -- he is restoring Russia to international preeminence.

 “I think he is also demonstrating that despite the new president (Medvedyev), it is the present president and the future prime minister who dictates foreign policy. Putin is telegraphing the de facto situation – he will be the single voice for Russia when it comes to expressing foreign policy.”