How to prevent a new Cold War?

Tuesday 26. On August, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recognized the two Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent. 27. By August, the United States had planned to send two US naval vessels to the Georgian port city of Poti to supply humanitarian supplies. At the same time, Russian soldiers patrol in Poti. The United States changed its mind, and what could have happened remains uncertain. What is certain is that the relationship between the United States and Russia is not top.

19. On August, NATO's foreign ministers agreed that Russia's action in Georgia must have consequences for NATO-Russia relations. NATO also stated that Russia has violated international law during the Georgia conflict. Russia responded 20. August ceasing all cooperation with NATO for the time being.

Russia has also recently sent warships to the Mediterranean and is considering deploying weapons in Cuba. In Finland and Sweden, the development has contributed to increased debate about whether the countries should join NATO. In other neighboring countries, the authorities fear similar crises related to their outbreak regions. Moldova fears that the transnational republic will try to erupt, and the conflict between Ukraine and Russia over the Crimean peninsula may widen.

- Poor situation description

Robert Kagan, author and adviser to Republican presidential candidate John McCain, stated after the outbreak of Georgia that this incident is as important as the fall of the Berlin Wall, and closes the bracket in history between 1989 and 2008 that was not characterized by crass superpower rivalry.

Stein Tønnesson, director at Prio, believes Kagan is wrong, and cites three reasons why the term "new cold war" is not suitable to describe today's situation.

- The Cold War was ideological, communism stood against capitalism, this dimension is not present today. Secondly, during the Cold War, there was no economic integration between the United States and the Soviet Union, but now both the United States and Russia are closely integrated into the world economy. Today we have a conflict between market states. The third difference is geographical. At that time, the Soviet Union had a strong position inland in Europe, to the Iron Curtain in the middle of the continent. Today's conflict is about Russia's neighboring areas, ie the area that was part of the Soviet Union and the old tsarist empire, says Tønnesson.

Iver B. Neumann, senior researcher at Nupi, agrees with Tønnesson. He believes that Kagan's two categories, in which capitalist democracies are set against capitalist authoritarian states, are not enough to create a new cold war.

- Russia is now trying to assert its spheres of interest, but Russia is playing its cards poorly. So bad that they even scare off Ukraine, which is now increasingly seeking the west. Russia is simply not a worthy opponent in this context, nor is Russia particularly interesting or dangerous. We can afford to bullet a little against Russia, they do not pose a huge threat on the geopolitical scene, says Neumann.

The legacy from Orienteringthe circuit

Thus, Tønnesson and Neumann agree that the story does not repeat itself. But despite the obvious differences between the Cold War and the new post-conflict security policy situation in Georgia: Can some of the thoughts from Orienteringthe circle, which 56 years ago founded what would later become New Time, be fruitful in the current situation?

Da Orientering started up, one could read the following in the sample issue that came out in December 1952: «In this time of black and white painting, we need a magazine that can look soberly and objectively at the conditions and not paint those in the east as devils and those in the west as angels – or vice versa. " The first ordinary issue, published on 19 February 1953, continued in the same way: «The world will drive into a new great war, if an alternative is not fought in time… The responsibility for the growing danger of war must be shared by both major power blocs, and our critical assessment of the inter-ethnic conflicts will therefore be directed both to the East and to the West. Especially by joining the unemployment pact, our own country has also become co-responsible. "

Orienteringthe scribe argued for what they called "the third way", which included, among other things, the independence of being able to criticize both east and west at the same time.

Stein Tønnesson believes that the concept of the third way was closely linked to the ideological struggle between communism and market liberalism, a conflict we do not have today. That said, he still believes that Orienteringthe idea of ​​screeching to criticize east and west is also relevant in today's situation.
– Absolutely, criticizing both sides in a conflict is a good principle that is still valid. Norway and Europe should occupy an intermediate position in relations between Russia and NATO partner the United States with a view to preventing the conflict from escalating.

- How can we help reduce tensions between the United States and Russia?
– There are several things that should be done. We must try to get Russia back in partnership with NATO. Then we must prevent a conflict from arising in Ukraine, and this will require active diplomatic efforts. In addition, we should proceed with Georgia's application for NATO membership and make it a condition that Georgia agrees with Russia on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In practice, this will mean that Georgia will have to give up these two regions. They have not been an integral part of Georgia since Georgia became independent in 1992, and it was Georgia's attempt to integrate these two regions now that led to Russia's reaction. Georgia is entitled to these two areas under international law, but there is little doubt that the people there prefer Russia.

Former Prime Minister Kåre Willoch points out two things he believes can help avoid a new Cold War
– First, to act in a wise way towards Russia, purely psychologically. One must take into account that a great power that feels that it has suffered such great losses in recent decades, is particularly vulnerable. I look with deep skepticism at proposals to further mark Russia's decline, for example by including Georgia in NATO. The second point is that we can not be naive either. We must not turn Norway into a temptation, a land of milk and honey that can be occupied in a few hours.

- Are we too naive? Has the reorganization of the defense from invasion defense to contributions in international operations gone too far?
– Yes, the process has gone too far. What has been built up has been insufficient. It has been a necessary reorganization, but it has resulted in a weakened preparedness.

- In light of recent events, it may look as if we are heading towards increased polarization between the US and Russia. Is it too late to turn around?
– It is still possible to maintain a good relationship. But it depends, among other things, on showing respect for the Russians' attitude. Be aware that all European countries would show great interest in a minority from the same nationality within the borders of another state, Willoch says.

In your eyes, are we moving away from a situation in the wake of the Cold War where the policy of power at least partially gave way to a greater focus on softer forms of use of force?
– The West's behavior towards Russia and other parts of the world, especially towards Iran, may indicate this. This whole tendency to regard an opponent as a state of robbery is unfortunate in my eyes. This rhetoric has contributed to the damage, says Willoch.

The difference between the US and the EU

Asked about any of the thoughts from OrienteringThe sketch is relevant today, Iver B. Neumann also points out that the concept of the third road is tied to a special situation during the Cold War.
– But if we peel away the historical, there will always be room for more roads. Russia is now like any authoritarian society, and not an alternative that has any appeal to anyone in Norway today. That said, there is a great need for an alternative to the United States, and Europe has a golden opportunity to create an alternative package, where capitalism with a human face is the essence. In the US, people work hard, but productivity per hour is not higher than in Europe. People in the United States are struggling, without being able to afford proper insurance or the right retirement age. It would be wise for Europe to make the United States the main opponent in matters of social organization of society. In Europe, there is a large degree of consensus that the issue of quality of life must result in a certain level of welfare schemes, so here there is a big difference between the American and the European model, says Neumann.

- At a Nupi conference this spring, you created a debate with a proposal that Norway should opt out of NATO and join the EU. Are you up to this even after Russia's conduct in recent days?
– Yes, NATO is becoming less and less important. The United States is no longer interested in NATO or in Norway and the High North, the closure of the Keflavik base in Iceland in 2006 is an example of this. Norway must choose between the USA and the EU and then take the consequences. If we do nothing, it means continuing to dilate the United States, says Neumann.

He points out two parties that he criticizes for preventing a better debate about Norway's place in geopolitics: the Right and the SV.
– Both parties are based on the idea that either they are for, or they are against, both the USA and the EU. Both SV and Høyre talk about "the west", a term that is increasingly being tapped for content. The USA and the EU pursue different policies and are different alternatives that Norway should choose between.
- Will this also apply if Obama wins the November 4 presidential election?
– I do not think he will significantly break with the line the United States has been on lately. Clinton was in a sense a better empire builder than Bush, but he did not use military force. Bush, on the other hand, shoots from the hip and has been stung for it, says Neumann.

Germany is the answer

SV veteran Stein Ørnhøi believes that Neumann has both the right and the wrong.
– He is right that we use the term West too much, and that NATO is an illusion. At the same time, we must not create a similar illusion about the EU. It would have been great if it was possible to create what the EU Neumann believes in. But as an instrument of security policy, the EU is also an illusion. We saw that in the Iraq war, in the Balkans, and you see it in connection with Georgia, Ørnhøi answers.

He believes that the key for Norway is not the EU, but Germany.
– Javier Solana has tried to create a common European security policy for 20 years, and has not succeeded, precisely because it is impossible to gather such different security policy priorities under a common umbrella. Germany, on the other hand, is a northern European country in the context of security policy. They get a third of their oil and gas from the North Sea, and we have common interests with them. Gerhard Schröder and Joschka Fischer were tough. The new German government has also shown some resilience. Had it not been for Angela Merkel, Georgia would probably all be a NATO member. And then we would have been on the brink of a world war, says Ørnhøi.

- We must take into account that Putin is the world's most popular politician in his own country, and he is because he has rebuilt the Russians' faith in themselves. Then you can not have fools ravaging the border zone of Russia. What I am really worried about is that it is now catching fire in Estonia, Lithuania and Lativa. We have given a security guarantee to the extremist nationalist leaders in these countries, and they have large Russian minorities, says Ørnhøi.

League of democracies

Torbjørn Røe Isaksen, former head of Young Right, now editor of Minerva, also disagrees with Neumann's analysis.
– We assess the EU and the US separately, but believe that Norway should have close ties to both. In the United States, I understand that most people in the foreign policy establishment are happy that the EU is a successful project and is getting stronger, with the exception of a few neoconservatives. Although the EU is increasingly working on security policy, the EU does not provide the type of military security that NATO has done, says Røe Isaksen.
- If the Republican John McCain becomes president of the United States, he has said that he will create a league of democratic states. If the UN Security Council is blocked, a decision in such a league can be used as legitimacy for military interventions. Do you think this will be a sufficient basis for identification?
– In such questions, the realist and the idealist in me are in constant conflict. The idealist in me supported the invasion of Iraq, although I ended up being discouraged due to the lack of a UN mandate. The realist in me says that nation building is difficult! At the same time, the idealist in me is ashamed that the world community did not intervene in Rwanda. Both total rejection and overzealousness towards interventions are unwise. The conditions on the ground in the country in question are most important. Given a case such as the Balkans, a decision from such a league of democracies can be a sufficient basis for legitimating an intervention, says Røe Isaksen.

Stein Tønnesson is, like Stein Ørnhøi, a member of the SV, but the two party colleagues have different opinions about the challenge from Iver B. Neumann.
– I am a supporter of Norwegian membership in both NATO and the EU. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has taken on new member states, and has had a positive development, with the exception of its involvement in Afghanistan. I hope for a better relationship with the United States when a new president is in place, but it could be difficult because both Obama and McCain can demand more European troops in Afghanistan.
- Can it be an alternative for Norway to be outside both the EU and NATO?
– I think it almost becomes too hypothetical to answer. Support for NATO has increased since the Cold War, and the intensity of resistance among those who oppose it has declined. I think it is even less likely that we will leave NATO than that we will join the EU, Tønnesson concludes.