By David Abshire and Maxmillian Angerholzer III
The
protests in Ukraine and Venezuela have laid bare a new fault line in the
21st century. Along this fault line sit an increasingly globalized
middle class, eager to link themselves with the West and modernity, and a
corrupt ruling class that seeks to maintain ill-gotten privileges that
are vestiges of a discredited past.
While no one wants to return to a Cold War era of confrontation and
brinksmanship, the United States can benefit from the wisdom of some of
the great Cold War presidents in confronting divides. First and
foremost, they would advise that America and its allies cannot remain
passive in the face of provocations by those who seek to oppress their
people and their neighbors.
No one should be surprised that Viktor Yanukovych, the deposed
Ukrainian president, chose an authoritarian alliance with his overseers
in the Kremlin instead of opening his nation to the European Union. As
the once closed doors of his ostentatious mansion are flung open, and
the extent of his ill-gotten gains is revealed to his impoverished
people, it becomes clear just how much Yanukovych had to lose from
political and fiscal transparency.
This same dynamic exists in Venezuela, where protests have pitted
middle-class students and urban dwellers against the Chavez-inspired
government of Nicholas Maduro. Similar to Yanukovych and Vladimir Putin,
Maduro and the heirs of the Chavez regime continue to enrich and
empower themselves while the Venezuelan people suffer shortages of basic
necessities, including food, medicine, and fuel—ironic for a
hydrocarbon rich nation. The level of cronyism is evidenced by the fact
that the Chavez children still occupy the Caracas presidential palace,
living in luxury while many of their countrymen go hungry.
In both Ukraine and Venezuela—and Russia as well—the societies are
thus divided between a political elite built around patronage and
corruption, and an increasingly globally aligned middle class who yearn
for economic reform and a voice in decisions regarding own destiny. This
is the fault line of our times. The great Cold War presidents would be
clear that America must stand firm on the side of those seeking freedom
and dignity.
President Eisenhower also understood that economic strength was the
wellspring of American power. For him, U.S. military might flowed from
our fiscal vitality. Similarly, the United States can show power today
by emphasizing why our free and open markets are superior to cronyism
and corruption. While economic sanctions appear to be an easy tool for
confronting these nations, there is more to gain through economic
exchange that empowers middle classes and intellectual elites.
President Kennedy insisted on a flexible U.S. military and the full
spectrum of options it afforded. He felt it was important to demonstrate
that the United States could conduct military operations that went
beyond the deployment of massive U.S. conventional or strategic nuclear
forces. In today’s environment, he might advise the Pentagon to use U.S.
Special Forces, training missions, and military assistance to build the
capabilities of allied nations. During the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy learned
the limitations of covert action, but he continued to support tools
like the Green Berets. He would likely applaud Defense Secretary Chuck
Hagel’s current defense budget and guidance, which emphasizes Special
Forces and nonconventional capabilities such as cyber-warfare. There is
also wisdom for the ages in Kennedy’s pledge, in his 1961 inaugural
address, to both allies and the oppressed:
“To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder. To those peoples … across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required.”
Finally, President Reagan understood the importance of balancing
strength with the flexibility to exploit political openings presented by
rivals. While the beginning of his administration was marked by a
military and diplomatic effort to push back against Soviet expansion and
nuclear blackmail, when Mikhail Gorbachev presented an opening for
reform and negotiation, Reagan seized the opportunity.
In doing so, he set in motion the events that led to victory in the
Cold War, successfully breaching the divide of Reagan’s time that kept
hundreds of millions of Eastern Europeans enslaved by Soviet tyranny.
Reagan also set up the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a
grant-making semi-independent organization under USAID that promotes
democracy. Reagan might have advised that Putin be given a face-saving
opportunity to roll back his oppression and rejoin the community of
nations.
Reagan might also have favored encouraging the use of NED as an
independent organization, to give the United States the flexibility to
act proactively in a changing strategic environment to bring Venezuela
and Ukraine back into the American orbit.
In addressing the challenge presented by Putin and his erstwhile
comrades, it is most important for the United States to reestablish its
leadership. Our allies do not want a return to Cold War geopolitics, but
they still look to Washington as the one capital that can rally the
West to collective action against a common threat.
The American people are tired of war and recession, but we cannot
retreat from our responsibilities and our role as a global leader. If
the collective voices of our greatest Cold War presidents could impart
one lesson of history, it would likely be that when people anywhere
stand up and fight for freedom and justice, the United States, and
American power, must stand with them.
1 comment:
Thanks for finding this one, in particular, Soph. It really helped me with something. I couldn't understand the bifurcation, except that it existed.
Along this fault line sit an increasingly globalized middle class, eager to link themselves with the West and modernity, and a corrupt ruling class that seeks to maintain ill-gotten privileges that are vestiges of a discredited past.
-- Seems pretty simple now. And it throws a light on the simple truth that all totalitarian governments are variations on a theme: cronyism. And that the governments (thinking of Russia, now) maneuvering to keep themselves intact are nothing more that people scrabbling to maintain their own network and power.
Then, I suppose we're seeing shades of China's future as well. (I'll deliberately leave ours out of it.)
Anyway, this one had some keys. And I feel really dumb, so I guess they were big keys. :)
Post a Comment