This book written by British diplomat Robert Cooper proves vital to understand the world of the XXI century in terms of political and military power.
First of all, the book elaborates on the British worldview -not the way we wish it to be- taking a middle stance between the American perspective and the continental Europe position represented by France and Germany.
The world calls upon the Americans who understand it but little is done to comprehend the changes taking place in the United States and this is noted by Cooper who points out that Americans are becoming more nationalistic when Europeans nationalism is waning, that the 9/11 attacks have made them aware of the military power as the key to their role as a superpower and that foreign policy focused on values and rules that always characterized Washington’s diplomacy is now shifting towards the pragmatism the European diplomacy used and now abandons.
He clearly defines that the central problem to solve for world security is today the risk represented by mass destruction weapons in the hands of fundamentalist terrorism, which may cause dozens of millions of victims to an extent like the one compared to the two world wars.
At the beginning of the XXI century, the countries coexisted between different worlds: the premodern, the modern and the postmodern.
The first category includes the so-called 'rogue states’ -which along with terrorism and proliferation are considered both by Europe and the US as a threat to international security- as happens in most of Africa and could happen in some regions of Latin America -he mentions Colombia- or in the former Soviet Republics of Asia. They are countries where the national state has failed to consolidate or has dismantled.
The second is based on the national state. It is the European model of the second half of the last millennium, which has now left the old continent. Countries like China, India, Brazil and Pakistan are included in this world. They long for a world in which the national state is essential and the international agreements and structures play a secondary role.
The postmodern has decided to yield the traditional sovereignty in the hands of transnational agreements -Cooper does not believe in supranational structures and the recent failure of the European Constitution seems to prove him right- showing the European Union as the most relevant case. Japan and Canada are also included in this world category.
The problem comes with the countries with greater military power: US and Russia. The former belongs to the postmodern world in many aspects but it may be considered as modern in its unilateral actions. By contrast, Russia shows features of the three categories.
For diplomacy to act effectively in this complex world where three coexist -there is some coincidence with the three civilizations of Alvin Toffler- Cooper sets five rules: it is necessary to know foreigners better; although we live in a globalized world, it is important to understand that politics is defined locally; it is not easy to influence foreign governments but it is necessary to succeed in foreign policy; we must understand the fundamentals of a country’s policy are deeper than their national interests declaimed and only by 'redefining identities’ will we have the chance to build a true international community.
The relationship between the US and Europe is the final chapter of the book, where the author realistically maintains that as long as this continent is unwilling to take a more active role in defense -spend more and enhance capabilities- it will be impossible to talk on an equal footing with Washington, which continues as the guarantor of the European security through NATO.
But he points that while the US may win any war, it is not prepared to gain peace without the involvement of other countries and he cites what happens in Iraq beyond the impact Saddam’s arrest generates.
As regards South America, it is mentioned few times in the book, which also cites Colombia as a risky case compared to the premodern world, Brazil as an example for the countries in the modern world and the Mercosur as an attempt to access the post modern world from the Southern Cone of the Americas.
Argentina is only mentioned thrice. First, it is taken as an example of how a local conflict not affecting the interests of big powers would not generate any international reaction, and it also mentions an alleged Argentine attack to Paraguay. The next two are references to the Malvinas war. The first states that Argentina’s decision to regain the isles through weapons responded to a modern state that failed to notice it was beginning a war with a post modern one and member of the EU and NATO. The second made reference to war cases triggered by alleged errors such as Argentina’s assumption that Great Britain would not fight for islands with low strategic and economic importance.
To conclude, Cooper’s worldview of the XXI century in terms of international politics expresses the British viewpoint, which as I see it, is a good break-even point between the American perspective and the continental Europe vision. This is the reason why I consider it fundamental to understand the complexity of the prevailing conflicts and threats.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |