A cold war run by hot heads

A dose of realism rather than emotion is much to be preferred in international relations. Picture: AFP

There is a note of collective hysteria in the decision this week by several Western countries, including Australia, to expel a selection of Russian diplomats. The generally overwrought attitude in recent times to Russia, and to a lesser extent China, has been likened to the days of the Cold War. But it is actually more irrational than the climate of fear generated in much of the West about those two nations in the 1950s and 60s.

It is not necessary to like or admire the present regimes in Russia and China, authoritarian as they obviously are (Russia somewhat less so than China). But it would be useful to inject a note of realism into relations with those regimes at the international level.

At the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the US contemplated the possibility of mutually assured nuclear destruction and came dangerously close to this outcome in the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. In retrospect it is reasonably clear Moscow did not want to extend its dominion beyond its eastern European satellites, but that was not accepted by many in the West at the time.

Meanwhile China was considered a threatening presence in Asia, partly because of its support for North Vietnam and partly because of its exclusion from many international institutions on account of non-recognition by the US. Again in retrospect it is clear Hanoi was not acting as a proxy for China but very much had its own agenda.

Today, in the absence of any military threat posed by Russia or China, concerns in the West appear to be based on Russian and Chinese insistence on a traditional sphere of influence and supposed attempts to interfere in the domestic politics of other countries.

Taking the first of these concerns, there is little point in complaining about the influence great powers wish to exert in neighbouring regions. It is hardly surprising that China has an interest in navigation in the South China Sea, although this does not appear to pose a serious problem for vessels of other countries.

Similarly, Russia has an obvious interest in the government of Ukraine and was naturally offended when a regime friendly to Moscow was ousted through an effective coup in 2014, with considerable moral support from the West.

In relation to interference in domestic politics, there has been some rather sensational coverage of donations to political parties by individuals associated with the Chinese regime, and Chinese investment in certain sectors of the Australian economy, particularly real estate. Although large political donations from domestic as well as foreign sources could be seen as a problem, the federal government has proposed legislation to limit donations by non-residents.

As for the question of Chinese investment, free-trade theory, to which Australia is supposedly committed, would suggest that foreign investment and business enterprises can be regulated in Australia in the same way as domestic commercial entities.

Allegations of Russian interference in the politics of other countries began with the leaking of emails from the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 US presidential election campaign. Evidence for this allegation may eventually be found but so far none has been produced. The same is true for any so-called “collusion” between Russian officials and the Trump campaign. The word collusion has a sinister connotation but it is hard to see any problem with contacts between foreign diplomats or bureaucrats and presidential campaign staff. Presumably all foreign officials would see this as part of their job.

To date the only charges against US citizens arising from Robert Mueller’s lengthy and exhaustive investigation relate to lying to investigators about business dealings unrelated to the campaign. There have been charges against what are described as Russian trolls who are said to have placed fictitious items on Facebook, as no doubt did many American residents in a similarly futile attempt to influence the election result.

This leaves, of course, the attempted murder in England of Sergei Skripal and his daughter. It may be that this can be sheeted home to agents of the Russian administration, although this is not been possible to date. Skripal sold his country’s secrets to foreigners and in this murky world there would be various groups with an interest in removing him. If agents of the Russian state were involved, diplomatic measures against Russia would be justified — but there is so far no verdict on this question.

All of this, however, suggests that the recent fevered reaction to Russia and China in various parts of the West is worthy of sober reflection. Neither poses a military or political threat — and China is one of Australia’s chief trading partners.

A dose of realism rather than emotion is much to be preferred in international relations.

Michael Sexton is the author of several books on Australian history and politics.