In early August, Russian tanks rolled into Georgia and IR students the world over started celebrating the return of their field of study to mainstream relevance. Then, I thought for about two seconds and realized that was a very twisted version of wishful thinking. First of all, none of us should wish the return of the Cold War, it would be miserable (doing missle drills during the middle of your work day would be very annoying). Second and more importantly, it just is not realistic. Reason being–and I will use a quickly tiring cliche here–is that the world is too interconnected.
I cite as my principle evidence what has happened to the Russian economy post-Georgian invasion. In this recent article, FT reporters list a number of disheartening statistics if you are a Russian investor. The main statistic is that the Russian stock market has plunged 45% since May. While this slide predates the invasion of Georgia, its hard to say that the Russian economic slide and bellicose Russian behavior are not related. It may also be true that the correlation is the reverse of what you would expect, that the economic slide precipitated the Russian invasion because politicians wanted to show national strength amidst economic weakness. I highly doubt that to be the case, but if that was their strategy, then they only accomplished further weakening their economy and putting themselves further into a corner politically. Regardless of what they may have thought, sabre-rattling is not an effective course of action anymore.
The difference between now and the pre-1989 world is economic inter-connectedness. The USSR could behave the way it did because it actually had control of a sphere of influence both politically and economically. In those days, its satellite countries traded within the Soviet bloc and their currencies were not traded on open markets. Now, even the Ruble is traded on an open market and former Soviet countries of all shapes and sizes (Russia included) are joining the free trade regime. Ukraine and Georgia may not be members of NATO but they are members of the WTO. Then there are the EU members from the former Soviet bloc like Poland. Russian wealth is also largely dependent on Europe buying Russian oil. In short, these economic ties preclude any swift turn backwards in time or allegiance to the Cold War.
What does this have to do with the impending presidential election? Well, from the Republican side we have a man with a wealth of foreign policy knowledge and experience who professes to be an economic novice. On the Democratic side we have a very intelligent yet untested man who seems to understand the way the world works. Because of his inexperience (yes, I said it but I don’t mean it like that) it is hard to say if Mr. Obama would be capable of handling foreign policy’s complexities but he has given every indication that he is intelligent enough to understand it fully. However, I view Mr. McCain’s foreign policy record as detrimental. He has foreign policy experience but his views were cemented during a truly bygone era when communists were communists and foreign policy entailed blockades and nuclear buildups. Now, the so-called “communists” are better capitalists then we are and blockading just about anyone hurts someone’s pockets that we do not want it to. The fact is that economics is foreign policy and foreign policy determines the prevailing economics. Having a rudimentary understanding of either, or even claiming that the two are separate, is simply unacceptable.
While I accept the idea that global economic integration contributes to peace, I disagree that it provides any sort of guarantee against the return of Cold War-esque hostilities. The world was extremely integrated in the first decade of the twentieth century, but what followed were two world wars and a fifty year cold war. So I wouldn’t write off a new round of hostilities between the US and Russia, although I do find it unlikely.
As for the McCain/Obama debate, I’m not sure I’m ready to concede that the lessons of the pre-1989 era are much less relevant today than they were at the time. Yes, terrorism presents a new challenge (and one that McCain seems to have inflated beyond all reason), and the Russia-Georgia conflict has had economic repercussions that may confuse McCain, but who’s to say that today’s bullies (like Vladimir Putin) are much different from those of the past (say Nikita Khrushchev). That said, I agree with your general point that Obama seems to better understand the nuances of the situation. And I’d point to one of my favorite quotes from George Bernard Shaw, who rightly congratulated Hegel as understanding that “we learn from history that man can never learn anything from history.” McCain may have overlearned some lessons, such as how to confront yesteryear’s dictator, that will not serve him well in a changing world. But Obama would do well to brush up on his foreign policy history, or at least give the impression that he has.