Society Issues Talk

Gandalf Grey · Guest

Oh What a Lovely (Cold) War

By Ernest Partridge
Created Mar 7 2007 - 11:40am

Ernest Partridge, Co-Editor
The Crisis Papers.
March 6, 2007

On February 10, Russian President Vladimir Putin startled the Munich
Conference on Security Policy with a speech that was strongly critical of
United States foreign and military policy. The speech drew an immediate and
harsh reaction from the U.S. media. However, after reading the entire speech
(found here [1]), I must say that it was, if anything, restrained. Some
extended quotations from Putin's speech are in order:

What is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the
end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one center of
authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. It is [a]
world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day
this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for
the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within...

We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of
international law.... One state and, of course, first and foremost the
United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is
visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it
imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this? ...

This is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels
safe. I want to emphasize this - no one feels safe! Because no one can feel
that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of
course such a policy stimulates an arms race....

Putin expressed particular concern about the expansion of NATO up to the
borders of Russia itself:

[NATO] represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual
trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion
intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made
after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations
today? ...

The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been
distributed as souvenirs. But we should not forget that the fall of the
Berlin Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice - one that was also
made by our people, the people of Russia - a choice in favor of democracy,
freedom, openness and a sincere partnership with all the members of the big
European family.

The new American Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates [2], followed the next
day with assurances to Putin and the Russians that "we all face many common
problems and challenges that must be addressed in partnership with other
countries, including Russia... I think no one wants a new Cold War with
Russia."

Though I may be earning myself a world of hurt, I must say that I am
unconvinced by Gates' reassurances and I dare suggest that Putin's
apprehensions might have some justification. (Standard disclaimer: while I
find much to admire in Russian history and culture, I detest Soviet
Communism [3]. In my frequent visits to Russia, I have seen what Communism
did to Russia and to my Russian friends).

For a validation of Putin's concerns, one need look no further than the
published objectives of the neo-conservatives, and particularly of the
Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the policies of which have been
largely adopted intact by the Bush Administration. For consider:

**Putin complains that a "uni-polar world" is a world with "one center of
authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making ... one
master, one sovereign." But isn't this precisely the published objective of
the neo cons and PNAC? [4]. As William Kristol and Robert Kagan [5] put it,
the time has come for the United States, the "sole remaining super-power,"
to impose a "benevolent global hegemony" upon the world. They explain, "a
hegemon is nothing more or less than a leader with preponderant influence
and authority over all others in its domain. That is America's position in
the world today." This is a virtual paraphrase of Putin's complaint.

**Putin is also alarmed by "a greater and greater disdain for the basic
principles of international law." This disdain is exemplified by The Bush
Administration's unilateral abrogation of the test-ban and anti-ballistic
missile treaties, its violation of the Geneva Conventions against torture
and of the Nuremberg Accords forbidding unprovoked war, and its refusal to
allow American citizens to be tried in international criminal courts. What
is all this, if not a "disdain .. of international law"?

**Putin asks: "[NATO] represents a serious provocation that reduces the
level of mutual trust... Against whom is this expansion intended?" A worthy
question. Why indeed need NATO expand up to the very borders of Russia, and
within the borders of the former Soviet Union? Why include the Baltic
Republics (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) and Georgia? Why attempt to add
Ukraine to the alliance? Why should NATO install "defensive"missiles in
Poland and the Czech Republic? Why, except to provoke and, perchance,
humiliate Russia for its alleged "loss" of the Cold War? Otherwise, these
developments must appear to the Russians as a revival of the Cold War
"containment" policy.

It would seem that Cheney, Rumsfeld and now Gates are old Cold War dogs
incapable of learning new tricks. They just can't adapt to a post-Cold War
multi-lateral world. "Just like any war," Putin observed, "the Cold War left
us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I am referring to
ideological stereotypes, double standards and other typical aspects of Cold
War bloc thinking."

Let's be perfectly blunt: Not everyone suffered because of the Cold War, and
not everyone was elated by its demise.

Most significantly, of course, the Military-Industrial Complex (expanded
since Eisenhower's 1961 warning about "the
military-industrial-academic-media-congressional complex"), flourished
during, and because of, the Cold War and then was hit hard and immediately
by the ending of it.

The ending of the Cold War was especially painful in the
defense-industry-intensive state of California. In a March 29, 1991 San
Francisco Examiner article, "State's Finances Collapsing," we read:

California's budget crisis has mushroomed into a full-blown, $12.6 billion
emergency requiring quick and drastic action, a somber Governor Wilson
warned... During a morning news conference, Wilson said the state is sinking
deep into recession, resulting in a sharp drop in state business and
personal income taxes. At the same time, rising unemployment and welfare
rolls are placing greater demands on costly state services." (Unfortunately,
not online).

Not mentioned in the article was the primary cause of this economic setback;
namely the canceling and reduction of billions of dollars worth of defense
contracts, following the end of the Cold War. As a result, thousands of
defense workers joined the unemployment rolls, and with the loss of profits,
tax revenues from defense industries dried up. Due to the state budget
crisis, thousands of state employees were "let go," including state college
and university faculties - Yours Truly among them.

Is it no wonder, then, that to many of our citizens, a disproportionate
share of whom are very wealthy citizens, "Peace" is a mixed blessing?

And so, with the dissolution of "the evil [Soviet] empire," and the
consequent cuts in the defense budget, the unreconciled Cold Warriors
desperately looked about for new enemies. Then, just in time, Osama bin
Laden came to their rescue. Next, Iraq, Iran and "Islamo-fascism." And then,
perchance, Russia-redux?

If the 9/11 attacks had been treated as the criminal acts that they were,
the entire world would have joined with us to track down and capture those
responsible for these crimes. Instead, the Busheviks chose to declare a "war
on terror" (against no nation, against no army, with no end in sight), and
to go it alone. So we restored the defense budget to unprecedented levels
and built more aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and jet fighters, to do
battle against brigands hiding in caves. Now we find that with this mighty
high-tech military we are unable to defeat Iraq, a small nation of
twenty-two million possessing no army, navy or air force.

Nonetheless, for the military-industrial-academic-media-congressional
complex, "My Gawd, how the money rolls in!"

A perpetual warfare economy and political order is a choice and not a
necessity. Careful planning for a transition into a peacetime economy can
ease the worst of the dislocations and suffering such as we saw in the early
nineties. Such planning did so at the end of World War II. But that kind of
planning must be done by the federal government, which is now anathema since
Ronald Reagan convinced many of us that "government is not the solution,
government is the problem." (See my "Swords into Plowshares" [6]).

Despite the arrogance and bullying of the Bush/Cheney regime, few nations
and people around the world wish the American people ill. Surely not Russia.
Only a few hundred, increased now to several thousand, Moslem fanatics want
to do us in.

To Vladimir Putin and his government I would urge: "be patient." "The
American public is waking up at last. Bush and his neo-con collaborators
have the support of less than 30% of the public, and their time in office is
running out - perchance faster than they realize. More and more of us share
your disapproval of American imperialism and American international
bullying, and have no desire whatever to see a return of the Cold War. But
also be careful: given our recent history, 'friendly advice' from the
Russian government, however well intentioned and well founded, might not be
well-received here, and might even backfire." (Consider the consequences of
bin Laden's cynical "endorsement" of John Kerry in the last election).

Far better that the American people be the instruments of political and
economic reform in the United States. For if not, the rest of the world
might, as it surely can, demolish the American economy without firing a
shot, by depriving the United States of essential resources (primarily oil)
and abandoning the dollar as the primary world currency. (See my "The
Vulnerable Giant" [6]). In short, "the outside world" simply will not, and
need not, submit to the neo-con's "global hegemony."

Moreover, the world need not fear a return of the Cold War. Bush, Cheney and
the neo cons seem incapable of appreciating the simple and stark reason why
this is so: the U.S. economy stands in the same relationship to the world
economy, as homo sapiens to the planetary ecosystem. We Americans cannot
survive alone as an advanced industrial nation apart from the world economy,
while the global community can manage quite well without us.

In the final analysis, the phrase "benevolent global hegemony" is a "tale
told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Copyright 2007 by Ernest Partridge

Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of
Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He has taught Philosophy at the
University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He publishes
the website, "The Online Gadfly" [6] and co-edits the progressive website,
"The Crisis Papers" [7]. His book in progress, Conscience of a Progressive,
[8] can be seen at www.igc.org/gadfly/progressive/^toc.htm [9] .

_______

--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson

NosmoKing- · Guest

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in
news:45f027cf$1$7441$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com: