Click here to support CAE
   
 
16beavergroup.org ARTicles 16beavergroup.org About Mondays ARTicles Journalisms Events


Rene -- Joschka Fischer -- Winners and losers of 1989 -- 11.10.09

Printer-friendly verion

Winners and losers of 1989
Twenty years on Europe and the US have squandered their victory, Russia is mired in depression and China has new power

Joschka Fischer

Those who witnessed that night 20 years ago in Berlin, or elsewhere in Germany, will never forget what happened – the night the Berlin wall came down.

History in the making is all too often tragic. Only rarely is it capable of irony. But 9 November 1989 was one of those rare moments when irony reigned, because East Germany's bureaucratic socialism died as it had lived – with a bureaucratic snafu.

The speaker of the Politburo, Günter Schabowski, had simply misunderstood that body's decision and, by releasing to the public incorrect information about the lifting of travel restrictions, triggered the fall of the wall. Groucho Marx could not have bettered Schabowski that night. It was Germany's happiest hour.

Twenty years later, many revolutionary consequences of that night lie behind us. The Soviet Union and its empire quietly disappeared, and with them the cold war international order. Germany was reunited; eastern Europe and the states on the Soviet periphery won their independence; South Africa's apartheid regime fell apart; numerous civil wars in Asia, Africa and Latin America ended; Israelis and Palestinians came closer to peace than at any time since; and a disintegrating Yugoslavia degenerated into war and ethnic cleansing. In Afghanistan, war continued under different circumstances, with serious ramifications for the region and, indeed, the world.

As the victorious heir to the collapsed cold-war order, the United States stood alone, undisputed, at the peak of its global power. But, within two decades – following the war in Iraq and financial and economic crisis – the US had squandered that special status.

Arrogance of power and blindness about reality were the two main causes for the decline of the sole remaining superpower. While most of the blame lies with George W Bush, numerous negative trends had preceded him. He merely took them to the extreme.

After 11 September 2001, the US had a second big chance to use its unique power to reorganise the world. After that terrible crime, countries – including those in the Arab world – were ready to embrace far-reaching steps. At that moment, peace between Palestinians and Israelis could have been achieved, and thus a new beginning made in the Middle East.

Even a radical about-face in US energy policy, with the introduction of energy taxes, would have been possible under the banner of national security. The challenge posed by global climate change could have been addressed more effectively that way. But that opportunity, too, was thrown away.

Europe – and, within it, Germany – were among the big winners of 9 November 1989. The continent reunited in liberty: Germany on 3 October 1990; Europe with the great European Union enlargement of 1 May 2004. The introduction of a common European currency was successful; political integration by means of a constitutional treaty a failure. Since then, the EU has been stagnating, both internally and externally. Europe has made only insufficient use of its opportunities since 1989 – and could dramatically lose influence in the emerging power structure of the 21st century.

In Germany, which largely owes its reunification to its firm roots in the EU and Nato, Europe-weariness is palpable. The generation ruling in Berlin today increasingly thinks in national rather than European terms. This was never more obvious than in the deciding days and weeks of the global financial crisis.

Russia, the big loser of 1989, remains two decades later mired in a mix of social and economic depression, and political regression and illusion. Life expectancy continues to decline; investment in infrastructure, research, and education are stunted; the economy is barely able to compete internationally; and the social divide between poor and rich is deepening.

Economically, Russia has turned into a commodity exporter, dependant on the imponderables of the global energy market, while simultaneously dreaming that it can use energy as a tool to revise the post-Soviet order in its neighbourhood.

Russia's elites still largely think in the power categories of the 19th and 20th centuries. This constitutes the illusionary and historically regressive element of current Russian policy. Moscow's desire to reclaim its role as a powerful global player is understandable and legitimate. But if it turns toward the past in looking for its future, and if it believes it can dispense with investments in the future in favour of shameless personal self-enrichment, it will continue to lose ground.

That day in November 1989 marked not only the end of the cold war-era, but also the beginning of a new wave of globalisation. The real winners of this new world order are the large emerging countries, first and foremost China and India, which increasingly set the pace of global economic and political development.

The G8 has been dismissed by history as a club of western industrial nations; its place has been taken by the G20, which conceals the underlying formula of power distribution within the new world order: the G2 (China and the US). All these changes reflect a dramatic transfer of power from west to east, from Europe and America to Asia, which within the next two decades is likely to bring to an end 400 years of Eurocentrism.

The past two decades also have seen the world begin to reach its ecological limits. The majority of humanity has sought since 9 November 1989 to achieve western living standards at all costs, overstretching our planet's climate and ecosystems.

The years since the Berlin wall came down have been rich in dramatic change, but the real era of upheaval lies ahead. Global warming is only the tip of the iceberg towards which we are moving, knowingly, with eyes wide open. What matters now is that states act globally and in unison. Twenty years after Berlin, Copenhagen is calling.

Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute of Human Sciences, 2009






Email this article to a friend:
Friend's email (required):
*Separate multiple emails with commas.



Your email address (required):



Message (optional):



 
Post or contact
Subscribe

Search
Archives
April 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003


Recent
Slavoj Zizek: “Neoliberalism is in Crisis”

Rene -- A revolution against neoliberalism?

Independent -- The US bank and the secret plan to destroy WikiLeaks

Counterpunch -- The Libyan Labyrinth

Rene -- In search of an African revolution

Democracy Now -- Chomsky -- “Democracy Uprising” in the U.S.A.?

Counterpunch -- How Democracy Could be Hijacked

LRB -- After Egypt

Dan -- Nettime -- Wisconsin report

Nettime -- Decentralizing the Internet So Big Brother Can’t Find You