The Hindu : The post-Cold War world

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Mar 22, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

The post-Cold War world

By P.V. Narasimha Rao

The conflict had now to be, logically, between Western and non-Western cultures since the cultural dimension had played an important part in empire-building.

THE SITUATION in the post-Cold War world has proved much more complex than expected. The world seems to have been left to fend for itself in a bewildering situation where practically no precedent is available for guidance.

In 1991, one of the Superpowers collapsed. The other remained — alone, unchallenged. 'So, fall in line now, folks!' cried many. Yet the world is not at all clear on many issues — suggesting that there could be alternatives other than merely `falling in line.' Theories are propounded almost daily, but fall like ninepins almost the next moment.

In point of fact, not much that can be called meaningful has happened after the Cold War to demonstrate that a new era has dawned. One feels a little alarmed about why the expected golden period has not arrived and why the possibility of its appearance is becoming dimmer by the day. Let us go to the root of this disappointment. After the Cold War, the nuclear weapon States have had no one to fear. They have enough nuclear weapons and are armed to the teeth as before. The calculated scaling down in numbers has been more than offset by the upgradation in sophistication. The most naturally expected outcome of the end of the Cold War was meaningful disarmament, so that the limited and diminishing resources of this planet could be deployed to augment human welfare and well-being in the twenty-first century.

But nothing of the kind has happened. Why?

Some thinkers in the advanced countries have come up with formulations. They do think there will now be no war based on ideologies. One line of thinking goes thus: now that the Cold War has ended, international politics is moving out of its Western phase. From now on the core of global politics will be the interaction, in other words conflict, between civilisations inter se. Just consider for a moment why the possibility of conflict in the cultural field scares them and why they have drawn pointed attention to it post-Cold War.

In the first place, why are they thinking of conflict and not peace and cooperation, which the world was looking forward to when the Cold War ended? The whole of the 20th century could be briefly described as consisting of two hot wars followed by a long cold war. After this continuous war orientation, it was to some extent natural that the psyche continued to look for the next adversary, rather than to the next era without adversarial relations.

Next, if you suddenly switch to peace, what will happen to the enormous destruction capacity you have built over the greater part of the twentieth century? And to those individuals, industries and organisations that came into existence to maintain that gigantic machine? Most of the acts of empire-building and colonisation of the last two centuries and more were accomplished by bloodshed. What came to be called the white man's burden was, after all, discharged through killing and pillage.

The first and second World Wars were fought mainly between white nations. The clash of civilisations thesis has now changed the configuration. There is now no rationale for conflict between white nations, except perhaps on economic issues in the long run. After the end of the Cold War, the question inevitably arose: will the history of recent centuries be forgotten or wished away? Since this looked doubtful, the identification of the next adversary became inevitable. The conflict had now to be, logically, between Western and non-Western cultures since the cultural dimension had played an important part in empire-building.

This automatically brought on the questions of colour and race, taken simply as a means of easy identification. The result is that mankind is riddled with multiple prejudices that become concomitants of the erstwhile white man's burden. Not many of the problems of the Cold War seem to have been solved except the disappearance of one of the contenders. They have drawn new battlelines; we were hoping all battlelines would go out of reckoning, yielding place to a different dream. That dream has been punctured by saying that there is going to be a confrontation, of a new kind, between the West and the rest.

Therefore according to this logic how could the Western powers take the risk of divesting themselves of weapons, including nuclear weapons? They believe that since other people want the benefits of modernity plus the identity provided by their own cultures and values, this insistence on identity is bound to develop into confrontation — in the garb of cultural confrontation. The necessary corollary is to keep your powder dry. The actual wording: "World politics is being configured, re-configured along cultural lines with new patterns of conflict and cooperation replacing those of the cold war." So the world is back to square one.

The person who made this prognosis was the Coordinator of Security and Planning for the National Security Council in a recent United States Government. After the euphoria of half of the 1990s, this theory at first appeared unrealistic and improbable. But one is no longer sure. We have seen examples of religious or other frenzies getting hold of ordinary people. When this happens, day-to-day problems, however important, get relegated to the background. Blunders on a mass scale, such as electoral decisions, could be manipulated by manipulating that frenzy. Irrational confrontations must be expected hereafter on an increasing scale while ideological questions will constantly be lost sight of.

The other nagging question that recurs and often overpowers decisions is the thirst for immediate revenge — rather a revenge series — that assumes top priority over all other considerations at a given time. It is an obsession that never relaxes its grip over decision-makers. A sense of pride over one's importance, both at national and party levels, hijacks sober considerations and brings the matter to a level that recalls the vendetta-based atmosphere of the Middle Ages. The result is there is no consideration of anything on its own merit. Since this game can be played by everyone, it is the only game that goes on in human affairs as problems pile up and their intensity and urgency increase.

If you are too `realistic' and wish to stick to the present position, you simply mark time, hoping for some fortuitous opening. Consequently, you do not have the slightest control or originality in your approach. You make no progress. On the other hand, if you lean on the grandiose or utopian side, you are completely out of the mainframe of feasible contemporary thought. It is therefore necessary to find a middle path.

Samuel Huntington, while offering his theory of a clash of civilisations, also predicted that problems of stark and sub-human poverty of the twentieth and earlier centuries might not persist in their previous form. This prediction may not be far wrong. Hereafter poverty will increasingly take on a highly disguised appearance, much more difficult to detect and address; it may even look as if it has actually gone down both in developed and developing countries.

This change has come and is coming from Western lifestyles; it is so attractive that it is sure to engulf almost all societies. It is a system of usurious loaning in which a person is able to line up important consumer items all at once and set up his home establishment just as a person who has spent his own money and bought each single item separately. There is nothing to indicate that one of them has to pay for his purchases almost for the rest of his life. Life-style obstacles are thus removed at once and a veneer of equality is created. This appearance tends to divert the attention of the middle class from real economic issues to a considerable extent. Yet the scourge of increasing disparity in the world does not go away. On the other hand, it tends to become more and more insoluble, eventually leading to a dilution of sovereignty and a strengthening of hegemonistic tendencies.

How does one precisely define `the only Superpower'? It obviously means a power that has no equal in military, political and economic — all fields. Its influence and power to enforce compliance on its own dotted lines are greater than those of any other power. And lastly, there is an influential line of thinking according to which a Superpower has no boundaries. Wherever it finds its interests extending, it is supposed to have full justification for taking action. And it is itself the sole judge who identifies those interests, with no one able to dispute its perception.

This logic of a Superpower could, from one standpoint, appear more absolute than what the world has witnessed during its long history — such as monarchy, huge empires, oligarchy, and dictatorship. The concept is still evolving and new annotations and embellishments are being enunciated. The belief is that such a scheme can be sustained and maintained for all time to come. All that has been said about the nation-state and its sovereignty for centuries stands abrogated, in effect replaced by one `Super-sovereignty' to which other sovereignties and sovereign nations have to submit.

However, voices are being heard — and are getting louder — to the effect that this scenario is unworkable and will be a disaster for the whole world. Instead, it is being asserted that only through consensus and cooperation will the world prosper. Some thinkers vehemently oppose unilateralism and the concept of what has come to be called exceptionalism. They also question the wisdom of one country — whatever its might — going it alone in the belief that it will be acceptable to all others.

The word `interdependence' is now being read and heard in the political literature authored by Western scholars. It was very much part of the terminology of the Non-Aligned Movement. NAM and the G-77 elaborated on the concept. One does not remember the concept finding any endorsement in the developed world in those days. This point is particularly important because interdependence does not quite jell with the situation of a single Superpower to which all other national interests have to make themselves secondary.

A manufacturing country can prosper only if there is someone outside its territories able to buy its goods. If the consumer middle class in developing countries is out of pocket, consumption will be the first victim along with the manufacturer. Since there are no longer the old Empires to compel or cajole subjugated peoples to buy goods made in the factories of the Empires, the coming down of international economic barriers is indeed a positive event. This was repeatedly pointed out but somehow the bloc set-up came in the way.

Meanwhile, exploitative and iniquitous devices seem to be permeating global institutions, if the loud protests being heard everywhere are any indication. It will not take too long for this situation to go out of control and make the new system counter-productive. The dialogue between lone exceptionalism and consensus on a live-and-let-live basis is therefore of the essence today. It is bound to be a ding-dong affair.

Given a single superpower, the well-known concept of social contract gets completely out of focus. There is always the possibility of one country's interests getting universal primacy in some garb or another. This applies to the idea of preventive war because if this right is conceded to one country, others will also take advantage of the same right, to trample upon the rights of countries weaker than them in a hundred ways. No amount of policing can stop it.

(This is the first of a two-part article by the former Prime Minister.)

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

AN UNRELIABLE ALLY

A SONG AND DANCE FOR VOTERS

The post-Cold War world

Iraq: Bush, Blair seek new U.N. backing

Redefining secularism