Many analysts may say the world is in a new Cold War, but it isn’t, writes Odd Arne Westad in his new book, The Coming Storm: Power, Conflict and Warnings from History.
Westad, a renowned historian of the Cold War at Yale University, argues that the period leading up to World War I is a much more accurate and troubling parallel. The Cold War was an ideological contest between two camps led by the US and the Soviet Union, whereas today we live in a more multipolar world like that of the late 19th century and without sharp ideological divides.
The Cold War did pass through some dangerous periods. But, overall, it was a far more stable and predictable time than the world of today. Moreover, the Cold War was brought to an end essentially by negotiation. Today, there seems to be little appetite for compromise in the rivalrous relationships involving the US, China, Russia and Iran.
Westad sees many similarities between the late 19th century and the world of today. Whereas China is now challenging US global dominance, the late 19th century saw the unification and rise of Germany, which contested the dominance of Britain.
World War I followed a period of intensifying economic globalisation. However, in Britain, hitherto the dominant world power, there was a sense that the system was not delivering towards the end of the 19th century, much as in the US today.
After being the leading proponent of free trade in the 19th century, Britain began withdrawing from the international system it had created and resorted to tariffs and protectionism – again, like the US today. British statesman Joseph Chamberlain, though he never became prime minister, was the driving force for breaking away from the free trade system – and played a similar role to Donald Trump today.
Britain had its Edwardian gilded elite, which drove inequality, in a similar vein to America’s own gilded elite today. The early 20th century was also characterised by rapid technological change, which improved the lot of humankind, but new technologies would also be turned to very destructive purposes: poison gas, aerial bombardment and stronger warships.
The early 20th century followed a 19th century that had suffered little from great power conflict, certainly much less than earlier centuries had. But politics then saw a shift towards both the extreme left and right, and a cult of violence. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, is a well-known event. But Westad argues that more heads of state were assassinated through terrorist action between 1900 and 1914 than at any other time in human history.
These factors did not push the world to war. But they did make it more difficult to step back as tensions rose following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
Westad does recognise that there are differences between the current period and before World War I. Today, we know how events ended in 1914, which should be enough to inoculate us from future war. In contrast to 1914, we have the United Nations and other international organisations, which are well placed to help manage political differences in a multipolar world, although the current US administration has little interest in multilateral organisations. Also, today we have weapons of mass destruction, which should act as deterrents to conflict, although recent threats to use them are a worrying sign.
Westad has a very simple but challenging message: the need for great power compromise around issues that are of real significance. And while he examines a number of hotspots, he recognises that Taiwan is the most likely site for war between the US and China, which could easily turn into an absolute disaster. These tensions will likely be there for a very long time and must be well managed – something which is not happening now.
At the same time, Westad argues that US and Chinese administrations thinking rationally about Taiwan is imaginable. This could entail the US declaring that under no circumstances would it support Taiwanese independence, and China declaring it would not use force against the island, unless it did declare its independence. Westad’s hope for peace is inspired by the bold thinking that led President Richard Nixon to visit Chairman Mao Zedong and thereby defrost US–China relations.
In sum, Westad’s book offers a chilling warning of how things can go awry when international systems start to accelerate towards conflict – and the immense costs of war whose consequences can shape the world for generations.
