By Michael Brenner*
All political rhetoric pivots around key words or phrases that resonate
with an audience and are evocative of deep-seated images and symbols.
Among Americans the most potent are democracy and freedom. They are
sprinkled liberally in public communications of any kind – spoken or
written. They are used interchangeably. For, in our minds, they are
shorthand for the entire American experience as it has been absorbed over a
lifetime. The legendary American experience.
Those two words, hackneyed to the jaded, have received a new birth of
as the United States embraces the idea of a Cold War sequel between
‘Democracy’ and ‘Autocracy.’ Objectively, of course that is code for the
contest for global primacy between the reigning hegemon (the US) and the
formidable challenge from China&/or Russia. That reality is expressed in
the addition of the phrase “National Security.” Together they form a
doctrinal iron triangle that crystallizes sentiment at home. In the wider
world, “rules based international order” is substituted for “national
security.” That rallying cry falls flat as the iron turns into rubber
abroad.
The overriding purpose is to etch a stark line between ‘we’ and ‘they.
The former encompasses the fellow liberal democracies cum allies of
the North Atlantic area which is extended figuratively to the ANZUS
countries, Japan and South Korea – the amalgam constituted as the
Collective West. The ‘they’ is composed of China – above all, Russia, Iran,
North Korea and whomever demonstrates either an affinity for the above or
opposes Western designs and policies. They are seen as the “running dogs’
of the threatening powers – Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria inter alia.
Then there is that fluid and indistinct grey area occupied by the
neutrals and uncommitted. The most strategically significant of these
‘independents’ are Turkey, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South
Africa, Argentina, Pakistan. It has been the aim of the Biden
administration to mobilize the maximum support possible among these states
on matters of basing rights, energy commerce, finance, trade
embargos/boycotts. Before the Ukraine crisis became acute in February of
last year, the primary target was China. The emphasis was on containing the
expansion of China’s global influence – pressing the argument that such a
development constitutes a multiform menace to the national interests of
other states and to global stability overall.
This abstract strategic formulation acquired sharper definition with the
onset of the confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. Washington leader
had provoked the conflict in the expectation of inflicting a mortal
politico-economic defeat on Putin’s Russia – eliminating it as a major
factor in the grand equation of forces between ‘we’ and ‘they.’ They moved
quickly and decisively to draw an irreversible “line of blood” between
Russia and the NATO/EU European countries. Deferential governments across
the continent – from London to Warsaw to Tallin – enthusiastically fell
into line. That instinctive display of solidarity conforms to the
psychological dynamic of the dominant/subordinate relationship that has
determined the Euro-American connection for the past 75 years. So deeply
rooted, is has become second nature to political elites.
The extremity of the prerogatives granted the United States to act in
disregard for European sovereignty and interests was demonstrated in
Washington’s destruction of the Baltic gas pipeline. That extraordinary
episode punctuated the unqualified Europeans’ commitment to serve as an
America satrap in its all-out campaign to prevent China as well Russia from
challenging its hegemony. Securing the obedience of the European economic
power bloc undeniability represents a major strategic success for the
United States. So does cutting off Russia’s access to capital investment,
technology and rich markets to the West. The heaviest costs are being paid,
though, by the Europeans. In effect, they have mortgaged their economic
future for the sake of participating in the ill-thought through severing
all connection with what now is an implacably antagonist Russia whose
abundant energy and agricultural resources have been a prime element in
their prosperity and political stability.
In the eyes of the objective observer, Washington’s gains in Europe have
been more than offset by the absolute failure to achieve its primary aim to
gravely weaken Russia. The latter’s striking economic resilience (a
complete surprise to poorly informed Western planners) left Russia not only
standing, but in a healthier position– thanks to a series of beneficial
reforms (above all, in the financial system) that auger well for the
future. The West’s economic war has led to an accentuation and acceleration
of a Russian program of reconfiguration largely unrecognized by analysts in
Washington, London and Brussels. Sharply reduced vulnerability to external
pressures, such as the misfiring American-led sanctions campaign, and the
knitting of a new network of global economic relations, is the outcome.
Indeed, Russia’s demonstrated strengths in design and manufacture of
military hardware, along with its abundant natural resources, mean that its
contribution to the overall power of the Sino-Russian combine make it an
all the more formidable rival to the American bloc.
The binary structure of the international system taking shape is easily
accommodated by American elites and populace alike. A Manichean view of
the world neatly fits the country’s self-image as Destiny’s child
preordained to lead the world into the light of freedom and democracy.
Since it is an article of faith to Americans that the country was imbued
with political virtue at its founding that any party who opposes them
stands in the way of an incontrovertible teleology. It follows that a
political entity that challenges American supremacy is not only a hostile
threat to the United States’ security and well-being, but by that very
fact, it also is morally flawed. Righteousness denigration of our foes
readily mutes into their designation as ‘evil’ incarnate. Who treats with
Satan?
The implications are profound. A conflictual relationship is presumed,
co-existence deemed unnatural and fragile, diplomacy devalued and
negotiation viewed as a poker game instead of horse-trading. Success
becomes defined as victory that eliminates the enemy. That attitude has
been reinforced by the 20th century experience. Defeat of the Central
Powers in WW I, the crushing of Germany and Japan in WW II, the collapse of
the Soviet Union and the evaporation of international Communism. Forgotten
are the straightforward powers plays in the invasion of Mexico and the
confiscation of its territories, the Spanish-American War, innumerable
interventions and occupations in Central America and the Caribbean. The
moral crusades of the next century facilitated the erasure memory of those
profane events and the preservation of belief in the United States inherent
virtue.
This continuity helps to explain the near unanimous, uncritical
acceptance of Washington’s precipitous casting of Russia and China in the
mold of past enemies. Thus, today’s Russia is viewed as the avatar of the
Soviet Union, and China as posing an even more ominous danger that did
Imperial Japan. Ignorance of far more subtle and complex realities is
cultivated seemingly as an automatic preference for s stereotypes that
conveniently match American self-identity, subjective experience,
philosophical conceptions, and national mythology. As a consequence, we act
on what are gross caricatures.
Russia is denounced as a tyranny under the ruthless rule of dictator
Putin. In truth, Putin is the head of a collective leadership that receives
highly favorable ratings from the populace, his copious writings and
speeches provide no evidence of aggressive ambitions, and – despite
political controls – there is a greater diversity of opinion on Ukraine
expressed in the media and by popular Russian bloggers than there is in the
United States or anywhere among our European allies. Considerably more
than in Ukraine where draconian controls have been imposed.
China, too, is depicted in terms so warped and simplistic as to be almost
cartoonish. The Beijing leadership’s clear vision of its prominent place in
Asia – and beyond – bears no resemblance to Japan’s Co-Prosperity Sphere
and Empire-building. This should be evident to anyone with either a passing
knowledge of Chinese history or reflection on its current activities. Yet,
official Washington – and the near entirety of our foreign policy community
– insists on accusing China as bent on belligerence and hostility toward us
even as we ourselves take the aggressive measures of flouting the
half-century pledge to the One-China principle and promoting Taiwan
independence. That distorted vision has the Pentagon clamoring for a
massive build-up of our naval forces in the Indo-Pacific region in
expectation that the great sea battles of WW II will repeat themselves,
while computerized war games have a become an avocation. The theme music
of ‘Victory At Sea’ sounding in the background?
The extremity of efforts to paint Russia (and to a somewhat lesser extent
China) as irremediable sinners who indulge in acts of criminality that
qualify as war crimes express the American impulse to righteously judge
others. This rash moralism is rooted in the theological dimension of its
peculiar sense of ‘exceptionalism.’ It also serves a strategic political
purpose in helping to marshal support for a ‘we vs them,’ zero-sum game. A
striking future of the current Ukraine/Russia situation is that an
objective observer must strain to find a compelling reason to lock oneself
into so rigid position. Washington minds drenched in neo-con dogma and
anxious about the durability of its global hegemony lacks that objectivity
and foresight.
That impulse to stigmatize the enemy is matched by the impulse to burnish
the democratic credentials of the parties whom Washington is backing**.
Ukraine is incessantly portrayed as carrying the banner of enlightened
political values. Mr. Zelensky is heralded as its bearer and honored in the
hallowed halls of Congress and elsewhere. Yet, the manifest reality is
quite otherwise. Ukraine is an authoritarian state – one infamous for its
corruption. All parties other than that supporting the current government
are banned; the media are totally controlled and permitted only to spout
propaganda; the offices of any civic groups are shuttered, and not least –
the neo-Nazi and similar intra-nationalist forces exercise disproportionate
influence in the security services and the corridors of official power.
Some boldly display Nazi insignia emblazoned on their uniforms and statues
are erected in the memory of Josef Bandera, the wartime ally of the SS who
directed mass murders of Nazi opponents.
Such is the power of rhetorical imagery, and so strong is the need for
moralistic justification of a high-stakes power political ploy, that this
glaring reality is collectively sublimated.
When we shift our attention from the bipolar dimension of the emerging
world system to the wider arena that includes other states, the American
values-based approach to designating friends and foes loses cogency.
Indeed, it becomes a distinct liability. For those countries neither
accept the United States’ self- proclaimed conceit of being the cynosure of
political virtue – at home and abroad, nor the demonization of countries
with whom they have had productive, pacific relations. They do not base
high-stakes strategic decisions on what Beijing is or is not doing to the
Uighurs in Xinjiang. Even Blonken & Company recognize this basic fact of
international life. Washington, therefore, is forced to make its appeals
for allegiance in very practical, conventional terms. While it does
lip-service to the ‘historic’ struggle between ‘democracy’ and tyranny,
that facile formulation cuts little ice in Ankara, Delhi, Brasilia, Riyadh
or other capitals. Some are anything but bastions of freedom themselves
(Saudi Arabia); are led by people who have suffered the pernicious effects
of American support for anti-democratic opponents (Lula who was jailed by
the autocratic Bolsonaro cabal favored by Washington); have close dealings
with Moscow or Beijing on matters of paramount national importance (Erdogan
in Turkey); or, while constitutionally democratic, prefer to apply the term
in its less than pristine purity (Modi’s India).
India is a particularly instructive case. American strategists plotting
their counter to the rise of Chinese strength presumed that they could
engage India in an Entente Cordiale encompassing Japan, South Korea, the
ANZUS and whomever else in the region they could entice or coerce into
joining. That hope always was vain; at least it was to analysts less
obsessed with the China ‘bête noir.’ Although relations between
Delhi and Beijing had been chilly ever since the Himalayan war of 1962, and
though India elites have felt an anxious sense of rivalry with a surging
China, Indian leaders are committed to dealing with what has become a more
complex relationship on their own terms and by their own means. India is a
civilizational state (like China) that harbors deep feelings of resentment
at how the British Raj for 175 years subjugated them, exploited them and
used India’s resources for their own strategic ends. Today’s self-confident
India is not about to allow itself to serve as a subaltern in a perilous
American campaign to maintain its dominance in the Asian region.
Furthermore, in regard to Russia, the two countries historically have
had close, mutually beneficial dealings – economic and diplomatic. It
should have been no surprise that Delhi has spurned Biden’s demand that it
join the project of isolating and punishing Moscow. Instead, it has done
just the opposite. India today is the second largest purchaser of Russian
oil – a substantial portion of which is refined and sold on the
international market at a handsome profit. Some goes to buyers in Western
Europe including the UK. Even the United States is a buyer of the
trafficked heavy-grade Russian petroleum that it needs. The Kingdom shares
in this lucrative boycott-busting with Saudi Arabia.
So, contrary to the standard American and allied rhetoric that Russia has
been isolated by the worId community, the awkward truth is that, to date,
not a single government outside the Collective West has signed on to the
US-directed sanctions regime. Incessant claims that Russia is a global
pariah suffering shunning and scorn, is obviously wrong. They pass muster
only in the distorted echo chamber of Western officialdom and media.
These distinctive geostrategic and economic security priorities of these
‘independent’ powers have obligated the United States to orient its
approach and to fashion its rhetoric quite differently than that employed
among the Collective West and in its portrayal of Russia and China. In
effect, it needs to think and to communicate on two planes. That is proving
a daunting challenge. It is not that America is alien to the traditional
game of ‘realpolitik’ and hard-nosed national interest. After all, it did
so around the world for the 40 years of the Cold War. Rather, it is
unconvincing when it crudely deploys arguments and pressure on
‘independent’ states to associate themselves directly in a cause that poses
risks and imposes tangible costs. Moreover, most see the American cause as
based on specious grounds – in both ethical and practical terms.
The American inventory of instruments to cajole or coerce remains
impressive. However, the vulnerability of other parties is diminished by
two, mutually reinforcing factors. One is their own valued assets (be it
oil, markets and commercial interdependence in a highly integrated global
economy, or critical regional influence in sensitive areas – the Middle
East). The second are the options that have opened by the shift of the
locus of world economic activity toward Asia and Euro-Asia. China itself is
the world’s dominant manufacturing center by a wide margin. The country’s
manufacturing sector is larger than those of the U.S. and the EU. Russia’s
criticality as a principal source of energy and agricultural products, made
manifest by the Ukraine affair, means that aligning with the severe
strictures demanded by the United States exacts an intolerably high price.
Washington can, and does, freely apply sanctions against any country that
flouts its will. And, yes, it retains a stranglehold over financial
transactions via SWIFT – that acts as the international monetary
clearinghouse, the dollar’s role as the world’s transaction currency that
forces others’ payments and reserves to pass through American banks, and
the de facto American control of IMF lending.
These levers of influence are being used with growing frequency and in
more dramatic ways. The starkest case in point is Washington’s arbitrary
seizure of Russian reserves in the order of $300 billion. It is now hinting
that the United States might take actual possession of the trove and
dispense it for Ukrainian ‘reconstruction.’ There have been precedents
regarding financial assets of Iran, Afghanistan and Venezuela (the last in
conjunction with the Bank of England). But the unilateral anti-Russian
move is of such a magnitude as to evoke concerns that the Americans could
abuse its supposedly custodial monetary role to hold hostage the assets of
any party that defies Washington. That concern has prompted drastic action
by Saudi Arabia, and others, to draw down their very large holdings in
American financial institutions. The consequent spreading trend toward
de-dollarization threatens a major pillar of the United States’ dominant
global position. It is encouraged by the China-led plans already being
implemented to create a set of alternative global monetary institutions.
Developments in the monetary sphere expose a fundamental flaw in the
American project to set ‘rule observance’ as one of the key ‘values’ for
definitively classifying ‘good’ and ‘bad’ states. For the theft of another
state’s monetary assets violates every rule, law, norm and standard
practice in international dealings. The already thin credibility of
Washington’s proposed formula cannot survive such blatant, self-interested
unilateralism. In the wake of the illegal invasion of Iraq, producing
carnage and accompanied by widespread torture mandated from the White
House, one might wonder whether the United States would be better off by
simply claiming raison d’etat without the moralistic flourishes.
Everyone understands the former – even when disagreeing with specific
actions, but resent the latter.
Foreign policy driven by dogma, that mistakes shibboleths for ideas,
whose audacious and grandiose ambitions defy reality is doomed to fail.
That leaves two open questions: how much damage – direct or collateral – it
will do en route to failure; and whether a fanatical pursuit of the
unreachable will end in a cataclysm.
……………………………
*Michael BRENNER, Professor Emeritus of International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh