Liberals and only liberals can win the new cold war

Many pundits resist the idea. Many politicians caution against a rush back to the past. Bernard Kouchner, who, as the French say, “does not keep his tongue in his pocket”, tried yesterday in an interview with France 2 to put some nuances into his condemnation of Moscow’s rash behaviour..But a fact is a fact. The succession of moves and countermoves around the Georgia crisis can be termed as a new Cold War.

Doomsday scenarios sketched in the atomic 50s may seem extreme in the current context. Compared with the promise of Mutual Assured Destruction that characterized the Old Cold War the tensions between Moscow and the West seem indeed less apocalyptic. And the increased trade relationships between Russia and Europe, in particular in the strategic field of energy, provides a very different frame that might blunt the space for bare-knuckled confrontations.
However the ideological clash is as strong as it was during the Cold War. Two visions of politics are facing each other: authoritarianism and democracy. And two visions of how to practice geopolitics are colliding : swashbuckling unilateralism or reasonable multilateralism.

Soft power, real power
This is why Barack Obama will be better placed than John McCain, a “third term Bush”, to win over this new battle. As it was the case during the fist Cold War the political field is crucial and the Democrats, with their claim to base their internal and foreign policies on human rights and international law and standards, can draw more allies in their camp than a Republican candidate that fundamentally adheres to the tenets of the current U.S. administration.
Rebuilding the soft power of the U.S. after 8 years of heightened anti-Americanism can only be secured by a new Administration, with no links to the Bush years. John McCain likes to call himself a maverick and to disclaim any responsibility in the messy heritage of Bush’s flawed and disastrous policies. He rightfully refers to his opposition to the use of torture as a symbol of independence, but his world vision is too closely identified with the most conservative circles of the U.S. to be adaptable to the current needs of the world. John McCain even sounds more hawkish and less reasonable than the new team of “Bush father cautious realists”, like Defence secretary Robert Gates, that were invited to join the White House after the Rumsfeld’s fiasco became too obvious.
Barack Obama has promised to base his concept of U.S. leadership on persuasion, consultation and cooperation. This commitment might be denounced as a cover for weakness in U.S. right wing circles, but a mere look at Obama’s foreign policy advisers show that he has no intention of flip-flopping on the defense of U.S. interests. If his foreign policy team is more internationalist than Bush’s entourage it is not at all a “bunch of appeasers”.
In the late 40s, the response of the Truman administration to the fall of “the Iron curtain” on Europe might serve as an inspiration. It was based on "self-interested generosity" (the Marshall Plan), the constitution of strong military alliances (Nato), the creation of intergovernmental organizations that blended the interests of the US with those of the rest of the world, and the concern to act with restraint and judgment. If it did not always perform the way it was supposed to and led to unholy alliances with right wing dictatorships it provided a logic for a form of “ethical realism” as defined by personalities like Reinhold Niebuhr, John Kenneth Galbraith or George Kennan.
That means also that Barack Obama should go further up the road toward an more truly liberal foreign policy than what was the case under president Clinton. A new flavour, more progressive, less attached to the interests of the corporate mammoths, more concerned with the fight against poverty and social injustice, less accomodating towards "friendly dictators",will have to be added to the U.S. foreign policy agenda if if America really wants to win the hearts and minds and counter the "charm offensive" of the Chinese and the bullying tactics of the Kremlin.

.