Obama just killed the Cold War myth, and not a moment too soon. In the speech he gave in New Economic School in Moscow yesterday he said, among other things
...within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Now, make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.
Coming from someone else, of a different nation, most of the world would perceive this as a more-or-less uncontroversial statement of fact. Coming from the President of the United States, however, it's a radical, but deeply needed departure from the expected.
Although Obama has been president for just over six months now, we've already begun seen his foreign policy quite clearly. In my opinion he's so far done what he promised in last year's campaign, as far as FoPo is concerned. To stake out a new path of engagement with the world. To show respect to other countries culture, values and sovereignty, to respect our differences - while not shying away from asserting our own opinion - as long as we recognize that it is such. In short, to act as a responsible citizen of the world, rather than a playground bully. If we lead, we should lead by example and consensus - not by coercion and threats.
Republicans view this as cowardice, appeasement, weakness and even 'surrender'.
It isn't. It is a recognition of reality. It is not only a better way to serve our interests in the world, it is the only way. Thinking otherwise is to adapt the twisted logic of the bully or gangster who demands 'respect', which to them means little more than having people fear him. Any person who's socially well-adapted knows that that is not respect.
But more importantly: It's not a good or efficient way to lead people.
The reason that point is more important is that it strikes at the heart of Republican and other foreign-policy 'hawk' thinking. They'd like to justify their cynical and aggressive stances, like most cynics, with the idea that they're just being realists. They're advocates of realpolitik - putting the USA's best interests above 'bleeding-heart' concerns and petty morality. That was the rationale that was allowed to dictate US foreign policy throughout the Cold War and the Bush Administration.
Thing is, it's wrong. Not just morally wrong, but wrong. It did not work.
The Vietnam War was of course our greatest mistake. But it's worth considering our other 'interventions'. The reinstatement of the Shah in Iran - initially hailed as a victory turned out to be a complete disaster for US interests in the long term, whereas we've now seen a popular movement for increased democracy there, which we had nothing at all to do with. US support of military coups and regimes in South America, 1954, 1972 and others, left that continent polarized and dysfunctional. And recent events in Honduras illustrate, we've yet to see the end of it. We're embroiled in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - both initiated to oust regimes that we either indirectly supported or created during the Cold War.
This isn't to say that the USA should take an complete non-interventionist, isolationist stance. Obama does not propose such a thing either; that would be shirking our 'civic duties'. But just as in social contexts, it's a matter of knowing when to get involved, and when it's simply none of our business. We should not act unilaterally - if other countries are hesitant to get involved, it's often a telltale sign it's none of our business. That's the reason why so many of our allies were prepared to follow us to Afghanistan, but not Iraq.
That was the other big fallacy of the Cold War. Everything was 'our business'. By dividing the world into two spheres of influence we created a zero-sum game where it was always all about us. The Soviet Union loses in Afghanistan - a country nobody really cared about one bit - and this was a victory for the USA somehow.
This thinking isn't dead yet. It's still very much alive, primarily in the GOP. It was seen on display when Republicans called for open support of the protesters in Iran. It was seen when Jim DeMint voiced his support for the military coup in Honduras. It was seen last year when John McCain demanded we line up in support of Georgia. The fact that these appeals didn't resonate is a sign of progress - media, the public, the world, has moved on. We're no longer stuck in Cold War thinking, even if some of our senators are.
Which brings me to Obama's quote that I started off with. We did not end the Cold War. And in particular, Reagan most certainly didn't (as if he somehow was behind the Hungarian Politburo's decision to start tearing down the Iron Curtain). For the Republicans, stuck with their 'all about us' thinking of the Cold War it was naturally just a small step to add it to their hagiography of Reagan. You're not going to find a lot of East Europeans who agree with that view though.
Republican/Neo-Con policy is dead. It's doomed to failure because it doesn't work, and the world has changed. Without the Soviet threat this post-Cold War era simply doesn't buy the necessity of aggression, and our allies are no longer prepared to ignore that egocentric world view. Bush provided ample proof. Either we can alienate our friends and allies, become universally reviled around the world - and endanger our own security and interests. Or we have to accept this new reality, this 'Obama Doctrine'.
Because being the better of two bullies just doesn't work once the other one's gone.