Back to the future: thoughts on a bipolar world redux

Aerospace Power Journal, Spring, 2002 by Paul J. Bellaire, Jr.

COLD WARRIORS EVERYWHERE, rejoice! What you have yearned for since the fall of the Soviet Union has returned with a vengeance. Today we again face the old conundrum of "us" versus "them." Adapting a passage from the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "A specter is haunting Europe--the specter of Terrorism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this specter: President and King, Blair and Bush, French Radicals and German police-spies." This time, not only Europe but also global civilization is threatened.

On the one hand, there exist Westernized, secular governments run by the rule of law (no matter how corrupt and Inefficient), while on the other hand, there exist theocratic, fundamentalist regimes that follow the infallible Word of God (no matter how bizarre the interpretation). The two systems are mutually hostile. Conflict is inevitable.

In each camp, one finds a wide spectrum of political behaviors and deviations from orthodoxy. China still struggles with the rule of law but abhors insurrection and religious fanaticism. It is clearly an example of a secularized system. Iraq has suppressed Islam but has perverted it for fanatical purposes, utterly unfettered by the rule of law. Although it is not a Muslim theocracy, Iraq has no government at all by Western standards--merely thuggery.

Multinational coalitions dominate each camp. Although nominally unaligned nations exist outside these two ideologies, the vast majority of these recalcitrant states could never join the "other side." The choice for them lies between internationalism and isolation. Their national interests and goals are too well aligned with one or the other camp to sustain delinquency for long. The pressures on these fence-sitting states to toe the party line are just beginning, and neutrality will not be a viable option. China will eventually join "us," and Iraq will join "them."

A New World Order

In the very near future, US involvement in the Central Asian states of the former Soviet Union will become the linchpin of a truly "New World Order." These growing alliances represent a tectonic shift in American geopolitics that we have not yet fully grasped. Many of these states have untapped oil reserves as well as clear advantages of geography relevant to our new war against terrorism. We will not be leaving the area anytime soon.

Russia has sanctioned US involvement in the region and is eager to cooperate with the West. Why? The Russian Federation today has between 10 and 20 million Muslim citizens. Accurate numbers are difficult to obtain since many practice their faith surreptitiously or shun official counting. Even before the fall of the Soviet Union, Moscow experts understood that the Muslim South represented the country's "soft underbelly" and a grave threat to its national security. The weak independent states that now exist in the former Soviet South are vulnerable to Muslim insurgency (indeed, Tajikistan endured religious civil wars throughout the 1990s). (1) An unstable Afghanistan has been the bane of czars and general secretaries of the Soviet Union for over a century, and xenophobia is a Russian trademark.

The United States realizes that the Russians possess neither the resources nor the strong institutions required for the task at hand. For their part, the Russians wish to focus on regenerating their economic, political, and military power. They have also made the astute judgment that the southern "Islamic problem" presently lies beyond their capabilities to resolve (just as it lies beyond any single nation's ability, including that of the "last superpower"). So they are throwing their lot with the West and forming a united front that clearly serves their national interests. The Russians now understand that the enemy is not the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on the Western Front but Islamic fundamentalism on their southern borders. An entirely new foreign policy must be constructed to accommodate this political reality. (2) The United States and Russia have come to the realization that sustained collaboration in Central Asia will be necessary in order to solve the problem.

We must not underestimate this Russian policy shift. It will lead to stronger integration with NATO over the next few years and possibly to full NATO membership. This, in turn, will imply modification of US policies within NATO at large. In particular, the presence of Russian influence within NATO will substantially alter the alliance's stance toward Turkey. Since the two nations are historical enemies, a Russian-Turkish antagonism within NATO will pose at least as much of a challenge to the alliance as the ongoing Greek-Turkish face-off. The stress of maintaining these two separate feuds will likely lead to unanticipated political change within Turkey, which will certainly affect the Turkish-Iranian competition over Azerbaijan. We must also note that the Central Asian states are predominantly of ethnic Turkish stock (although Tajikistan has Persian affinities). Russia wishes to moderate Turkey's attempts at pan-Turkish nationalism and limit the Turks' influence in the region. NATO will probably acquiesce to these modest goals lest we lose Russia's cooperation in the New World Order. NATO cannot forget that Turkey is becoming the strongest ally Israel has in the region, which complicates the strategic complexion of the Middle East even further. (3)