By Xhabir Deralla
At the end of the first quarter of this extremely challenging year, we see most of the forecasts are coming true. Recession, crisis, climate changes, boosting NATO defense and ammunition production capacities and budgets, China’s power plays, and continuation of the Russian brutal war of attrition in Ukraine.
I expected more from the essay The Global Zeitnwende (How to Avoid a New Cold War in a Multipolar Era) by the German Chancellor, Mr. Olaf Scholz in the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs. While it realistically depicts the world’s reality of today, the essay is overly optimistic. I’m not against that. On the contrary, I believe that there is room for optimism that Ukraine – with the help of the free world – will be victorious in its fight for freedom.
However, Mr. Scholz goes further. The most powerful decision maker in the most powerful country in Europe makes a not-so-successful attempt to justify merely everything that is wrong with the international relations of today. To do so, Mr. Scholz relies on the US National Security Strategy.
“Eventually, in a multipolar world, dialogue and cooperation must extend beyond the democratic comfort zone. The United States’ new National Security Strategy rightly acknowledges the need to engage with “countries that do not embrace democratic institutions but nevertheless depend upon and support a rules-based international system.” The world’s democracies will need to work with these countries to defend and uphold a global order that binds power to rules and that confronts revisionist acts such as Russia’s war of aggression. This effort will take pragmatism and a degree of humility”, Mr. Scholz wrote.
Let’s look at this possibility. A corrupt, nationalist politician reasoning would be the following:
“I’m a corrupt, nationalist politician who is about to win elections in my country. Should I be worried about the international community after I start prosecuting opposition leaders and independent intellectuals and journalists?”
If this character reads the essay of Mr. Scholz, not so much. Instead, this kind of politician may reason:
“Well, as long as I support the international order and make sure some liberties are preserved, including the free flow of capital, and as long as I support mainstream international actions, at least declaratively, no doubt – I will be – in the game.”
This would be the further thinking of a corrupt and authoritarian politician, a logical conclusion based on the boundaries set by the international system envisioned by Mr. Scholz.
And it doesn’t seem to stop there. An aspiring authoritarian could also make the following plans:
“Moreover, I will create “independent” experts, opinion makers and civil society that will feed the ambassadors of the most powerful countries with “critical” voices of my numerous flaws, while reminding them that I am also the one to “make things happen” (overriding democratic will if necessary) and to get “the job done.” All the while, I will ensure that the money that flows from embassies and international donors will be used to strengthen my protégées, my networks, while those who criticize me will see their resources reduced, along with their ability to engage in their work safely.”
This would be, more or less, the plan of the authoritarian ruler.
Looking at the experience of some European countries, including those of the Western Balkans region, these are the conditions in which vast corruption schemes are created and practiced, and democratic institutions cannibalized — through election fraud, intimidation, structural violence, and discriminatory policies. Such governments tend to develop devious ways of outplaying both their own population and alliances with democratic countries. Hence, the countries that refused or are reluctant to pose sanctions against Russia, are notorious or growing autocracies.
Putin’s strongmen and extremely rich supporters (known as oligarchs) have been deeply intertwined with Russian political and financial systems for decades now, working consistently to influence politicians and media, and to foster the creation of far-right movements. We hear the names “Lukoil” and “Gazprom,“ which indeed are gargantuan, yet they are still only a small portion of the massive, complex and powerful machinery of Putin’s regime, which is based on lies, corruption, crimes and violence.
If Mr. Scholz’s understanding of the world’s Zeitenwende can be taken as an invitation to act decisively against the evils of the war against democracy, we may hope for real progress in the coming decades, regardless of the devastating prospects that the Cold War 2.0 brings along.
In Sholz’s famous Zeitenwende speech on February 27, 2022 (three days into the Russian invasion), he argued that “We are living through a watershed era (Zeitenwende). And that means that the world afterwards will no longer be the same as the world before. The issue at the heart of this is whether power is allowed to prevail over the law. Whether we permit Putin to turn back the clock to the nineteenth century and the age of the great powers”, Mr. Scholz said in Berlin.
Indeed, these are precisely the questions of our day.
But if the intention is to only mildly modify foreign policies in a way that rewards states that follow certain international rules, while disregarding those that protect their own citizenry and delicate democratic institutions, this will mean Putin and his local allies are able to continue undermining democratic society in states such as those in the Western Balkans.
There are already many distressing questions about democracy in the world. From our vantage point, we can see that Putin is going to lose the war, and will eventually be deposed. Perhaps, after this, his successors will deliver him to the International Criminal Court to stand trial for war crimes and genocide. However, the question is – will Putinism nevertheless still win? Will Orbanism win, even after it has presented a central anxiety of the EU? In circumstances of the New Cold War, that will not be too difficult, I would suggest.
As civil society actors, we are prepared to do our part, working every day to bring people into the democratic fold, and to raise awareness of anything that blocks their way. But leaders such as Mr. Scholz hold immense power – power that we see operating every day – to shape and expand the paths to democracy that people may reasonably expect to take. In the course of a day, it may only be one person who is affected by the opening or closing of a pathway to democracy, and on another day, it may only be two or three.
But the existence of such pathways is nevertheless crucial, and quite often does come down to what actions aspiring autocrats believe they can take, and how far they can push their alliances with powerful states and institutions. In the end, we know that it is not only a matter of one life, two lives, or three, but of the ripple effect that expands outward from every life in our interconnected world. А ripple effect that can strengthen or undermine democracy on a local level, of course, but that can also, before we know it, have lasting effects on the world.
Putin is waging unscrupulous, inhumane and brutal war against Ukraine. But he is also waging war against Western democracies, reawakening the contest for the Western Balkans in the process. The fact that he has not pulled the trigger against the whole world does not mean he does not want to. The only reason is that he cannot do that.
Moreover, making regional and international coalitions inclusive does not necessarily mean that anti-democratic governments should and will be tolerated. This is clearly outlined in the United States National Security Strategy, which Mr. Scholz quotes only partially, probably to serve his thesis in the second half of his essay.
The strategy reads that “to make our coalitions as inclusive as possible, we will also work with any country that supports a rules-based order while we continue to press all partners to respect and advance democracy and human rights” (Page 16).
According to this policy, one can see, it is crucial to not only integrate and support those states that respect the international order externally, in their interactions with powerful states, but also those states that respect their own populations, promoting democratic dialogue, human rights, and freedom for all within their borders.
“These democratic allies and partners are also essential to supporting democracy and human rights around the world. Actions to bolster democracy and defend human rights are critical to the United States because not only doing so is consistent with our values, but also because respect for democracy and support for human rights promotes global peace, security, and prosperity. Global threats to accountable and transparent governance also threaten our own democratic system. We will continually update our range of tools to advance democracy and counter authoritarianism. The Presidential Initiative for Democratic Renewal qualitatively increases our ability to combat defining challenges of the 2020s, like grand corruption, digital repression, and attacks on elections and independent media”, the Strategy reads further (Page 17).
However, Mr. Scholz provides quite clear and realistic visions of the world in the conclusion of the essay, writing that “…we cannot turn back the clock, we can still turn back the tide of aggression and imperialism.”
“Today’s complex, multipolar world renders this task more challenging”, Mr. Scholz writes, “To carry it out, Germany and its partners in the EU, the United States, the G-7, and NATO must protect our open societies, stand up for our democratic values, and strengthen our alliances and partnerships.”
Such words give me hope that the German Chancellor remains a defender of democracy and that his policies will remain in line with the German strategic orientation to support democratic processes in countries around the world.
Nevertheless, he remains ambiguous to the very end, reflecting his not-always-decisive political stances in critical moments, such as the one with the call to send Leo 2s to boost Ukraine’s defense capacity and the fight for freedom.
“But we must also avoid the temptation to once again divide the world into blocs”, Mr. Scholz writes in the same paragraph, quoted above.
I hope it is only a manner of speaking, and he does not forget who started the fire and who threatens the world with nukes and destruction. The times of diplomatic leniency and dialogue for the sake of the dialogue (i.e. postponement of solutions) are gone. Putin showed the world – in its bloodiest way – what it means when the West chooses to politely turn a blind eye before the looming aggression. There’s no room for dialogue, when the ideology of the other side means “death to the West and its democracy.” Dialogue for characters like Putin means weakness.
Mr. Scholz and other political leaders might consider revising the way of thinking and acting that may imply acceptance of the possibility to “working with not-so-democratic governments” – a policy that encourages and legitimizes autocracy. Especially because the US foreign policy is far more complex than it is described in Mr. Scholz’s essay.
And yes – we all do live through the Zeitenwende.
Edited by: Heather Roberson Gaston
All rights reserved.
Heather Roberson Gaston is a human rights expert; Balkans expert; author of the graphic novel Macedonia: What Does it Take to Stop a War; based in Charlottesville, Virginia and New York City. Xhabir Deralla is a political analyst; President of CIVIL, and Editor-in-Chief of CIVIL's media platform, based in Skopje, North Macedonia.
