In New York City on September 20, 2018, the Intelligence Squared hosted a debate of
critical importance in helping one understand much of what we are currently
seeing on the global scene.
The debate
developed along three main questions. The first was on the role of NATO (“NATO
is no longer fit for purpose”), the second was about Russia (“The Russian
threat is overblown”), and the third was on Iran (“It's time to take a hard
line on Iran”).
To discuss
these important issues, five very special guests were invited, namely: Derek
Chollet, Executive Vice President of the German Marshall Fund of the United
States and former US Assistant Secretary of Defense; Stephen F. Cohen,
Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies and History, New York University; Reuel
Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a
former CIA Analyst; John J. Mearsheimer, American Political Scientist &
Professor at the University of Chicago; and Kori Schake, Deputy
Director-General at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Looking at the panel, one immediately notices how Cohen
and Mearsheimer were invited to bring a realist point of view to the
discussion, as opposed to the other three who have an interventionist view of
American foreign policy, viewing the United States as the indispensable nation.
Cohen and Mearsheimer have worked for years, if not decades, to explain to
American and international audiences how Washington's hegemonic policies have
accelerated the end of the US unipolar moment as well as spawned chaos around
the world.
Cohen, and
especially Mearsheimer, are pure realists. Without going into the merits of the differences between
offensive realism, defensive realism and offshore balancers, they both have a coherent vision
of why American actions have provoked the results we have seen around the world
since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
For those who
follow Cohen and Mearsheimer and see themselves as realists when observing international
relations, watching this debate was painful and frustrating, but also immensely
useful for understanding today's divisions. In fact, the other three panelists
must be carefully analyzed. Derek Chollet is part of the neoliberal camp,
having served in the Obama administration. Chollet finds himself amongst the
field of the imperialists who, following the debacle in Iraq in 2003, opted to
subvert sovereign countries using a different set of methodologies, namely,
coups d'état organized through such things as color revolutions and the
so-called Arab Spring. In the
name of spreading democracy, countries like Libya, Ukraine and Syria have
suffered unspeakable devastation at the hands of the US and her allies.
In order to
represent the full spectrum of US foreign policy, former CIA agent Reuel Marc
Gerecht was brought in as a hardliner, repeating the type of neo-conservative
arguments reminiscent of the Bush era. Kori Schake, a former adviser to G.W.
Bush, completed the lethal neocon-neoliberal offering, representing the
position of NATO and the most Russophobic and Iranophobic countries in Europe.
Looking at
these guests and at the questions asked, it was obvious that positions that
were diametrically opposed would emerge. Cohen and Mearsheimer argued practically
in symbiosis, with slightly different perspectives but coming to the same
conclusion. The United States,
following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, found
itself the sole superpower facing no direct adversaries. Washington's
subsequent mission was to remake the world in its own image and likeness,
exporting democracy to the four corners of the world and attacking its
geopolitical adversaries with soft or hard power. But this course of action,
ironically, only served to accelerate the end of this unipolar moment.
Mearsheimer and
Cohen tried to reiterate in their every answer how Washington has only managed
to damage itself through its own foolish thinking and actions. Regarding the first question
concerning NATO, both Mearsheimer and Cohen emphasized that NATO's eastward
expansion following the end of the Cold War was the main cause of instability
in Europe. The
three neoliberal-neocons -- who for the sake of convenience I will now call
“the imperialists” -- responded that it was in fact the European countries who
demanded America’s presence in Europe for the purposes of protecting them
against Russia. The three imperialists brushed off or ignored Mearsheimer's
simple and straightforward riposte, borrowed from Obama and Trump’s election
campaigns, that the European allies only wanted the US in Europe in order to
avoid increasing their own military spending. Having apparently not heard what
Mearsheimer said, the three insisted that as long as Poland and the Baltic
countries demanded a US presence, Washington was obliged to respond. It was
also frustrating for Cohen to explain, for the umpteenth time, how NATO's
advance towards Russia’s borders damaged relations between Russia and the US,
two countries he believes should be global allies on multiple fronts.
Mearsheimer even urged the three imperialists to think of the Monroe doctrine
and of how intolerable it would be for the US to have a foreign power plant
itself militarily in the western hemisphere. He also recalled the Cuban missile
crisis, brought on by the USSR’s military proximity to the US.
Unfortunately,
the three imperialists, even when painted into a corner by Cohen and
Mearsheimer's arguments, simply ignored or glossed over them. The most
aggressive imperialist of all was, unsurprisingly, the former CIA agent, who
pushed the arrogant line that America’s presence in Europe is necessary not
only to keep Russia at bay, but also to prevent the Europeans from descending
into a Hobbesian state of nature and tearing each other apart, as happened in
two world wars.
Not
surprisingly, the arguments used by the former CIA agent regarding NATO in
Europe received the full accord of Kori Schake and Derek Chollet. Cohen’s
reminder to those present that the coup in Ukraine was organized and financed
by the West was dismissed as false and ridiculous. Derek Chollet averred:
"the manifestations of the Maidan were spontaneous, invoking a greater
proximity to Europe in the face of a dictator in the hands of Moscow." The
second question was related to the first, discussing Russia and its role in the
world. Once again, both Cohen and Mearsheimer had to summon all their patience
and explain to the general public how Putin has always acted in reaction to
Western provocations. NATO's eastward expansion (in spite of Bush's verbal
promise to Gorbachev not to extend NATO beyond Germany) was the cause of the
war in Georgia in 2008 and in Ukraine in 2014. Of course the three imperialists
denied these arguments, accusing Putin of unprovoked aggression, confirming in
their mind why the US presence in Europe is needed to oppose Russia as a
negative actor on the international scene. Not even Mearsheimer's echoing of
Kissinger's strategy to divide Russia and China convinced those present that
the aggressive attitude towards Moscow and Beijing was only damaging the United
States, accelerating the end of the unipolar moment and forging the birth of a
multipolar reality that will leave Washington isolated from the other great
powers.
The three
imperialists affirmed that the cooperation between Russia, China and Iran
should not be surprising since dictators always confederate with each other;
and besides, they say, this situation should not scare the United States, as it
has the capacity to deal with multiple fronts simultaneously. Fortunately,
Cohen's words, recalling the disasters in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya
put paid to such delusional optimism, provoking laughter from the audience.
Such moments served to highlight how ridiculous the imperialist arguments are.
Two or three such arguments were enough to open the eyes of audience members
who may not have been familiar with opposing arguments to the ones presented by
the imperialists.
Two such
instructive moments stand out. The first was in response to the former CIA
agent, who called for a coup d'état in Iran, stating that the United States
knows how to conduct these successfully. But Mearsheimer’s rejoinder, recalling
the failures in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, provoked loud applause from
the audience. Mearsheimer reminded how these arguments were employed by Obama
and Trump during their election campaigns to win office. The second moment,
even more effective, concerned Iran. In response to Kori Schake, who argued for
greater pressure on Iran because of its alleged interference in the region in a
bid to expand its influence in many neighboring countries (Syria, Iraq,
Lebanon, Yemen), Mearsheimer
pointed out the staggering level of hypocrisy involved, where the United States
of America is the world champion of regime change and interference in the
internal affairs of other countries. The strong applause that followed
testified to the incontestable truth of this observation.
Unfortunately,
the debate ended with most of the audience continuing to believe that NATO is
of fundamental importance, Russia is an evil actor, and the US needs to place
more pressure on Iran. The number of people who changed their minds before and
after the debate was important (Mearsheimer and Cohen changed the attitudes of
about 10% of those present regarding the first two questions) but still
marginal compared to the total.
As an online
spectator, I experienced different feelings. My main frustration lay in the
David-and-Goliath nature of the debate, with the arguments of Cohen and
Mearsheimer contending against all the accumulated lies of the mainstream
media, amplified and repeated by the three imperialists present. The public was
certainly more accustomed to hearing the imperialists’ arguments; Cohen and
Mearsheimer hardly had sufficient time to overcome the audience’s conditioning.
Yet a part of the public present completely changed its mind following the
debate. Some people entered the hall with the conviction that NATO was
indispensable and Russia aggressive, but ended up leaving with the belief that
NATO is now obsolete and that Russia is not the aggressor here.
What then
emerges from this whole debate is the obvious conclusion that Mearsheimer and
Cohen are two formidable minds unafraid to confront, dismantle and destroy the
received wisdom. Being informed is a fundamental part of our lives today.
Without being properly informed we are not properly equipped to vote and elect
our representatives. We are thus unable to properly shape and determine the
course of events in our putative democracies.
This debate has shown how disconnected the US
imperialist world is from the real world, and especially how much damage this
neocon-neoliberal way of thinking has actually done, ironically succeeding in
producing results opposite to those sought, only serving to accelerate the end
of America’s domination over the world. As information spreads and reaches more
and more people, there will be an increasing understanding of the disastrous
actions of the Euro-American establishment. Cohen and Mearsheimer are acting in
service of their country, warning that the direction in which the United States
is headed will only have deleterious consequences for the country’s role in the
world.