Washington is recklessly striving for a new Cold War, but this is a bad idea
The desire of the ruling elites in Washington to resist Russia and China at the same time does not meet the interests of American citizens, writes the Washington Post. According to the author of the article, the United States will decline, but not through the fault of external forces.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
When China launched live-fire military exercises off the coast of Taiwan, simulating a "reunification by force" operation in response to the protocol visit of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the frenzied obsession of both parties with the Cold War against China and Russia reached new heights in Washington.
"The leaders of both parties," Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin reports, "understand that the United States has an obligation ... and is interested in countering America's enemies both in Europe and in Asia." The US has shown that it can simultaneously fight China and Russia, he adds. The Senate voted for the admission of Sweden and Finland to NATO. 95 people were in favor, one was against. The Taiwan Invasion Prevention Act has the support of both parties. And Republican and Democratic politicians are vying to give the Pentagon more money than it asks for.
The Cold War is a comfort zone for America. We won the last Cold War. We are in a white coat. We are a democracy against authoritarianism. We have the largest and best army. Well, who would argue with that?
But there are still intrusive questions. Will a new cold war, in which we will simultaneously confront Russia and China, provide Americans with genuine security? Will it really contribute to the implementation of the "foreign policy for the middle class" announced by President Biden? Or maybe the majority of Americans prefer that our country curb its desire for foreign adventures and start putting things in order in its own home?
The main threat to our security now lies in weather disasters caused by climate change. There are already billions of dollars worth of casualties and destruction from forest fires, floods, epidemics and droughts. Monkey pox reminds us that global pandemics deal the deadliest blows. And throwing money at the Pentagon in such a situation is pointless. Wouldn't it be better if the trips of the special representative of President John Kerry would attract the same attention as the spectacle that Pelosi staged in Taiwan? It is impossible to fight climate change and pandemics without the participation of China and Russia, but after Pelosi's visit, the Chinese officially stopped all negotiations on these issues.
Biden's foreign policy team has focused all its attention on creating bases and mobilizing allies to encircle and contain Russia and China. However, the Ukrainian conflict has shown Russia's military weakness. Meanwhile, because of the sanctions, the world has lost Russian food, fertilizers and minerals, which are vital for the whole world. Economic constraints could not but contribute to the global recession.
The Pentagon calls Beijing "an equal opponent." But his strength is in the economy, not in the army. China is a leading trading partner for many countries of the world from Latin America to Africa and Asia. When Pelosi made a stop in South Korea after her visit to Taiwan, the president of that country did not accept her. As we learned, President Yoon Seok-yeol was on a short vacation and watched a play at the theater. Such a clear disregard on the part of a loyal ally, which has deployed almost 30 thousand American troops, is probably a reflection of the fact that China is South Korea's leading trading partner. It would make sense for the United States to focus on developing new technologies (as Beijing does) that will become a defining feature of the markets of the future, rather than spending more than a trillion dollars on a new generation of nuclear weapons that are unlikely to ever be used.
Resurrected Cold War warriors claim that the deployment of American troops around China and Russia is defensive in nature. But, as Stephen Walt notes on the pages of Foreign Policy, they ignore the "security dilemma", which is as follows. What one country considers harmless measures to strengthen its security, another may take as a threat. One after another, American administrations have declared that Ukraine "has the right" to join NATO, since this is a security measure protecting it from the Russian threat. Moscow was also unlikely to be reassured by Biden's statements that "Putin cannot remain in power," as well as the long-standing habit of the United States to support "regime change" around the world.
Formally, Washington recognizes that Taiwan is a Chinese province. But he is arming the island and strengthening his military grouping in the Pacific Ocean. Pelosi called her visit "an unequivocal confirmation that America stands shoulder to shoulder with our democratic partner Taiwan, which protects itself and its freedom." Beijing sees this as an encroachment on its national sovereignty, a violation of our official position and a provocation aimed at spurring the independence movement in Taiwan.
Cold War warriors believe that most of the world is for us. Yes, our NATO allies rallied against Russia when it started fighting in Ukraine. But, as the Economist reports, two-thirds of the world's population lives in countries that refuse to impose sanctions against Russia. Much of the developing world is skeptical of the US claims of democracy and a rules-based order. Because of this, sanctions become less effective. So, since the beginning of the special operation in Ukraine, China has increased purchases of Russian oil and gas by 72%. And it also reflects the strengthening of Beijing's "soft power" and the decline in the importance of the US armed forces.
Great powers decline mainly because of their internal weaknesses and inability to adapt to new realities. In an era of dangerous inter-party hostility, the reflex desire of both parties for a new cold war is an amazing contrast. But with old habits, new problems cannot be solved. So it is hardly possible to build a dynamic American democracy.
