Cold War, Whatever

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who's noticed that John McCain wants to start a new Cold War. Fareed Zakaria's also on the case:

We have spent months debating Barack Obama's suggestion that he might, under some circumstances, meet with Iranians and Venezuelans. It is a sign of what is wrong with the foreign-policy debate that this idea is treated as a revolution in U.S. policy while McCain's proposal has barely registered. What McCain has announced is momentous—that the United States should adopt a policy of active exclusion and hostility toward two major global powers. It would reverse a decades-old bipartisan American policy of integrating these two countries into the global order, a policy that began under Richard Nixon (with Beijing) and continued under Ronald Reagan (with Moscow). It is a policy that would alienate many countries in Europe and Asia who would see it as an attempt by Washington to begin a new cold war.

Right. I mean, regardless of what you think of the merits of McCain's thinking on this front, surely the country deserves some debate and analysis of what's going on here. Instead, insofar as any attention has been paid at all to McCain's foreign policy vision it's centered on his empty promise to try to act nicer to Western Europeans. But his views toward Russia and China would represent a much more dramatic and consequential departure from current practice -- just not in a friendly and moderate way.

Comments

And I can't see the 'acting nicer to the Europeans' bit of the proposed McCain foreign policy being even remotely effective if he follows policies of passive hostility towards Russia and China, as the Europeans will continue to favour engagement, and will be distressed at the threat to international order that McCain's policy would represent.

Posted by Andy | April 28, 2008 2:27 PM

"Debate and Analysis" are for wimps. We know who are enemies are and if we don't go after them first they'll only wind up on our doorstep. Action is what's required. I mean, have you learned nothing since 9/11? Look at how we've broken al Qaeda and their Islamofascist ilk, forced Iran and North Korea to abandon their nuclear programs, and brought stability, peace, and prosperity to the Middle East. If we could impose our will there, we can impose our will anywhere - provided we have the will to act. I mean, we didn't get all of that from setting around and thinking!

Posted by Shawn | April 28, 2008 2:37 PM

I may be off the mark here, but wasn't one major facet of the Cold War that it tended to reinforce the status quo? Exclusion and MAD were supposed to increase stability. The two Superpowers were satisfied (or dissatisfied) roughly equally, so things never really boiled over into a shooting match between the two of them.

What McCain is talking about is just about the opposite of that. It would not be a "new cold war," because it would not enforce stability. Russia is a dissatisfied power, and becoming more dissatisfied as it loses its former influence and prestige. China is a more satisfied power than Russia, but its influence is increasing steadily. It is not a wise move to antagonize countries that are in that kind of flux. Particularly not if those countries have nuclear weapons, have 20% of the world's population, control the energy supplies of a good chunk of our allies, and hold the purse-strings on a lot of our debt. And most especially not if our defense capacity is exhausted from years of policing two grinding civil wars.

And that's not even getting into the issues of Venezuela and Iran - two minor powers that are extremely dissatisfied, but whose influence is increasing due to oil prices and our bungling of the situation in Iraq. These are not the kinds of countries that you want to isolate and injure.

Posted by Tel | April 28, 2008 2:45 PM

My feeling are mixed. On the one hand, McCain's policies could do much damage to the rest of the world, and result in the death of many innocents. On the other hand, his policies would almost certainly accelerate the decline of American power and influence, which, in the long run, would be a very, very good thing for the world, and would, also in the long run, mean many fewer innocent deaths.

Posted by LarryM | April 28, 2008 2:58 PM

But McCain has strong character.

Posted by Brent | April 28, 2008 2:59 PM

sheesh! even more proof, as if we need more, that mccain is THE neo-con candidate. let's not negotiate with china and russia because , you know, they're EVIL. as commented up the thread, this isn't a "cold war" in any sense of the historical term.

Posted by dj spellchecka | April 28, 2008 3:03 PM

You're right, of course, Larry. I mean, we all know the Chinese will be far, far kinder masters than us Americans. Good one.

Posted by Shawn | April 28, 2008 3:17 PM

Concerning Putin's sins, Fred Hiatt is beating the tom-toms today, even making fun of a mistress.

Posted by Hedley Lamarr | April 28, 2008 3:53 PM

McCain's foreign policy views have not been debated in terms of his empty pledge to be nicer to the Europeans.

McCain's foreign policy views have been debated in terms of McCain's time as a POW in Vietnam. His alleged expertise in military and global affairs seemed based entirely on having had his plane shot down while he was bombing Vietnam. He suffered greatly afterward as a POW, and this has always given him the moral status of a hero in the US. But how does it make him know anything about foreign affairs--or even about military affairs? The Democratic nominee has to take a page from the GOP playbook and attack McCain on what is supposed to be his strength. Expose him as a fraud with no claim to authority in foreign policy or warmaking. And don't forget to salute him as an authentic American hero (Obama's got the right line here).

Posted by Doug | April 28, 2008 4:56 PM

Are we really sure this isn't just posturing to try to consolidate the conservative base? After all, McCain can say just about anything right now and the MSM doesn't cover it. You only see news about McCain if you want to see it. Us liberals are ignoring him while agonizing over the two Dem candidates slugging it out on the front page. Only the conservatives and Republicans are reading about McCain after finding the story buried on Page 8.

Posted by Darin M | April 28, 2008 7:09 PM

Key paragraph from Zakaria: "To reorder the G8 without China would be particularly bizarre. The G8 was created to help coordinate problems of the emerging global economy. Every day these problems multiply—involving trade, pollution, currencies—and are in greater need of coordination. To have a body that attempts to do this but excludes the world's second largest economy is to condemn it to failure and irrelevance. International groups are not cheerleading bodies but exist to help solve pressing global crises. Excluding countries won't make the problems go away."

This is very true and cuts to part of the reason why realism is simply superior to neoconservatism as a governing ideology (neocons are only useful as critics on the sidelines, not as people actually wielding power). Moral purity is worth just about nothing in international affairs if you can't get anything done. Neocons love to complain how Libya is on the powerless UN human rights commission, yet they don't want to fix international institutions to make them more effective. Instead, they would rather just stroke their own egos.

Posted by Reality Man | April 29, 2008 1:13 AM

Zakaria often has a good point, and this is surely one. The idea of starting a fight with Russia and China at the beginning of his administration is so obviously stupid as to call into question McCain's motives more than his "thinking" here. I suspect Darin M is right--maybe he's just trying to get some attention when the press is all Demo horse race all the time.

This is an argument that Obama will win every time it comes up. Dems should bring it up a lot.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 29, 2008 10:04 AM