US media: US diplomatic thinking should break free from the shackles of the Cold War Analysis | Ability | US

On July 13th, the website of the bimonthly Foreign Affairs magazine in the United States published an article titled "Cold War Trap" by Justin Winock. The full text is excerpted as follows:

When American decision-makers and commentators need guidance, they habitually turn to the Cold War. They draw lessons from events during the Cold War, consult with Cold War figures, and compare the characteristics of the Cold War with the current situation. The history of the Cold War has set language for debates about America's attitude towards the world. US President Joe Biden's recent assertion that there is no need for a new Cold War with China is just the most striking example reflecting the habitual thinking of the entire foreign policy community in conducting analysis.

Deeply bound by the Cold War ideology

This cold war impulse hinders more than helps. The inconsistency between today's reality and the history of the Cold War is hindering efforts to find new strategies for the United States. For about 80 years, US policy has been based on the country's advantageous position in terms of economy, military, technology, and political power. This dominant position enabled the United States to seek unconditional surrender from the Axis powers that had excessively expanded during World War II, contain the Soviet Union that had risen but suffered heavy losses during the war, and achieve regime changes in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nowadays, most analysts agree that the United States is facing a declining share of global GDP, a shrinking military advantage, a weakening technological advantage, and a diminishing diplomatic influence. This means that Washington will soon face a multipolar world for the first time since World War II. However, Americans are still bound by the concept of a gradually fading era - when their power was supreme.

The history of the Cold War has become a constraint on Americans' views of the world. The history of the Cold War has dominated their understanding of the past, distorted their way of understanding conflicts, dealing with negotiations, recognizing their own abilities, and even analyzing problems. The reason for this is that the history of the Cold War has limited the scope of debate to various possibilities of an unusual and past era. This narrow frame of reference misleads those who are trying to learn from the Cold War, blurring the inspiration of thousands of years of history in front of those who are trying to transcend the Cold War.

Political scientist Richard Neustadt and historian Ernest May have warned readers to be wary of historical analogies that, although useless or misleading, dominate decision-maker analysis. The Cold War has become such an analogy. Taking a key indicator as a measure, Harvard University's "Avoiding Great Power Wars" project shows that the share of the United States in global GDP has decreased from 50% after World War II to around 20% in 1991 and less than 17% today. As William Burns, former Deputy Secretary of State and Director of the CIA, wrote in this magazine in 2019, "The United States is no longer the only big child in the field of geopolitics.". In this situation, there is only one way to break free from the useless Cold War framework: to study more history.

Searching for answers from history

In order for Americans to think clearly about their ways of dealing with a multipolar world, they must understand those countries that have successfully dealt with various multipolar orders in the past. Analysts can consider the 19th century Vienna Conference. This conference restructured Europe after the Napoleonic Wars in order to better manage two types of conflicts: one is a power conflict, which is addressed by new territorial arrangements guaranteed by security alliances and conflict resolution systems; Another approach is to manage conflicts, which is addressed by a coalition of multiple agreements on governance principles and conservative countries. Alternatively, decision-makers could consider the Anglo German confrontation that began in the late 19th century: during this period, there was a mutually beneficial trade relationship between Britain and Germany, while also engaging in geopolitical competition. These examples make it easier for us to imagine how the United States and China may sort out and control disputes in areas such as trade, ideology, and geopolitics, rather than letting the Cold War unfold in its entirety.

History may also change analysts' perception of trading with opponents. At the beginning of the 20th century, a similar situation occurred: Britain reconciled with its old rivals France, Japan, Russia, and the United States to reduce the burden of protecting colonies and concentrate its efforts on dealing with the rising Germany. In this confrontation, from the late 1890s to the early 2010s, London and Berlin attempted multiple times to ease the conflict by holding talks on their navies and colonies. In Chinese history, there are countless examples of dynasties trading with enemies. Both the Han and Song dynasties established detailed treaties, trade, and diplomatic systems to coexist with powerful neighboring countries that could not be defeated in war, while striving to enhance their relative strength. As the dominant position of the United States declines, these historical facts demonstrate that countries can compensate for their weaknesses by prioritizing multiple goals, weighing trade-offs, and changing partnerships - a way of thinking and action that is vastly different from the rigid binary opposition of the Cold War era.

History also helps analysts learn the ability to manage in a world with limited resources. From the early 17th century to the late 18th century, due to the inability to strike a balance between competition and resources, the excessively expanding Netherlands fell out of the ranks of major powers. Except for the important exception of the Vietnam War, the history of the Cold War did not make Americans accustomed to the various problems faced by countries when they failed to align their goals, methods, and means.

Need to change the way we see the world

These and other historical facts help make Americans sensitive and see the world in a different way: a way based on tolerable trade-offs rather than uncompromising; A difficult measure based on determining the priority order of multiple goals rather than a comprehensive victory; A method based on practical and feasible policies rather than fanaticism; A method based on combining military and economic forces with diplomacy rather than brute force; A way of coexisting with people who cannot be changed or ignored by Americans.

Of course, Americans cannot find simple answers by copying an ancient strategy manual. They must always start from the uniqueness of their location and time, such as cultural values, domestic politics, technological progress, and the unprecedented demands of today's transnational issues. They should not overcorrect or forget the Cold War.

To achieve success in the upcoming multipolar era, the United States must break free from the shackles of the Cold War. Nowadays, the US foreign policy community is struggling within historical limitations - these limitations weaken its imagination and should not exist. If analysts broaden their horizons by delving deeper into the past, it is easy to break through these limitations.