It's Hostile, It's Real, but Don't Call It Cold War

Roots of conflict with Russia, Iran, and China lie deep in history

I congratulate Noah Smith on his post on Cold War Two, which is the clearest and most coherent expression of his geopolitical views so far. I would also like to recommend highly his blog, Noahpinion, which covers the world from a clear and intelligent economic perspective.

A lot of what you see in the news is just Cold War 2

However, I would like to voice a few important caveats:

ISSUE ONE

The fact that Iran, Russia, and China, are united in their desire to dethrone the United States as leader of the maritime nations does not mean that they are capable of cooperating closely or effectively. In World War II, although Japan, Germany, and Italy ran on parallel tracks in their dreams of conquest, they never coordinated their strategies. In fact, Germany was rather irritated over its lack of control of Italy's bonehead initiatives.

If nuclear war erupts, it will be obvious which power should receive the ultimate level of punishment.  If conflict remains on a conventional level, the US and its allies may be faced with the choice of deciding which conflict to concentrate on first, just as the WW II allies decided to defeat Germany before turning their focus to Japan.

ISSUE TWO

I greatly prefer Sarah C.M. Paine’s framework of “maritime” vs. “continental” powers as a way of referring to the hostile parties. It points toward the solid economic difference between two ways of seeking prosperity. Maritime powers are dependent on trade for their prosperity: they flourish in conditions of peace. Continental powers go out to conquer peoples and resources— they dominate their neighbors and suck them dry.  It has become increasingly apparent that the Maritime strategy is both the swift and enduring path to wealth.

Furthermore, any attempt to regard Russia, Iraq, and China as ideologically aligned is nonsensical.  What do Russian Orthodoxy/Russian exceptionalism, Shiite theocracy/expansionism, and Marxist atheism/Chinese exceptionalism have to do with each other ideologically? The only basis of ideological agreement would be a preference for autocracy—which is dubious because the people of the countries are never consulted on this preference. 

In addition, because the countries of Russia, Iran, and China are all continental powers that share borders, they have to worry about their so-called allies’ future ambitions against their national integrity. Before Russia buddied up with Iran, they were very worried about Iran’s influence over Muslims living inside Russia.

Choosing to call these countries the “Axis of Evil" makes us look closed minded and eager for hostility. If we choose to call them the "Continental Powers," the message will be clear and explanatory, since it is our goal to persuade these countries to embrace the Maritime path, rather than beat them down.

ISSUE THREE

I absolutely deplore the resurrection of the term “Cold War.”  When the end of the original Cold War was celebrated, I was unconvinced. Unresolved animosities and issues remained, and I fully expected a resurgence of hostility.

In fact, the conflict we are experiencing today is only the latest stage of a conflict that has gone on since the 1500s. That is when Britain, the Netherlands, and Portugal became the first countries to adopt a maritime economy. During the next few centuries, they remained locked in recurrent conflict with the continental powers of France and Spain.  The greatest single step toward world peace took place in 1945, when Germany, along with the rest of Europe, embraced the maritime path to prosperity.

Because our current geopolitical conflict spans centuries rather than a single 40-year Cold War, I suggest we call our present situation, “The Long Watch," and I suggest we call our foreign policy toward the continental powers, “Persistent Advocacy." 

Note that the Maritime model is best for all nations. It depends on economic freedom and initiative from below, and thus it promotes the development of intelligence, knowledge, and human freedom.

This is proven by the recent history of China. China transformed itself from an impoverished peasant society to an industrial giant by temporarily adopting maritime policies from 1980 through 2010. Clearly, Xi Jinping regarded this as a temporary stage toward the goal of building Chinese power. Since coming to power in 2012, he has reverted to continental-style belligerence and expansionism.

However, I don't think the Chinese people are with him.  They tasted 40 years of the sweet fruits of the maritime model, and I don’t think they want to go back. To cite one impediment, there is a universal draft law on the books in China, but I bet it would be absolutely hell trying to enforce it.  I think Xi knows this and it is a big curb on his military aspirations. Not even Putin feels comfortable going to full mobilization in Russia.

Bottom Line

We need to embrace language that both expresses our determination and recognizes that advocating for the maritime model throughout the world is a long-term project—it will take as long as it takes.  There is no need to describe this process as a “war” because it is, on its deepest level, a conversation, even a courtship.  It may become a war, but we don't have to declare it a war until it is.

The odds are with us in the long run, because the Maritime model is the best model going.  Adam Smith has never stopped being right.

Below is a picture of Robin Williams in Moscow on the Hudson. Robin plays a defecting Russian saxophone player who is seconds away from fainting dead at the sight of 87 flavors of soda in an American grocery store. Note excellent Pepsi product placement.