After World War II, there was a great debate in political/academic circles between idealists and realists concerning the future of United States foreign policy. The so-called idealists, firm believers in the importance of multilateral organizations like the United Nations, argued that cooperation would move the world closer to peace. On the other hand, so-called realists argued that defending the national interest by increasing military strength would lead to an absence of war by creating important deterrents. The argument was between cooperation versus co-existence.
Neither of these positions seems to me to describe the current state of relations between the United States and the Russian Federation. Rather, the arguments put forth by the German born philosopher Hans Jonas in “The Importance of Responsibility: In Search of Ethics for the Technological Age” seem more appropriate to our current situation.
Jonas’s position is that because of technological advancements there are areas in which cooperation is absolutely necessary, not because of idealistic or altruistic reasons, but simply because technology, or complex interdependence, demands cooperation.
Two current examples are most relevant. The United States and the Russian Federation are both beset by terrorist threats. The recent case of the Boston bombings shows that the intelligence officers of both countries must efficiently share information in order to reduce risks to both sides. Here, cooperation is absolutely necessary to limit the possibilities of terrorist attacks with the loss of innocent lives. Without cooperation and sharing information, both countries are worse off. As reported in the New York Review of Books, “The head of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD), which oversees domestic crime-fighting, Vladimir Kolokoltsev, traveled to Washington, where he met with US Attorney General Eric Holder, Head of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, and FBI chief Robert Mueller. All three US officials, according to public reports of the meetings, supported more cooperation with Russia in the area of security and law enforcement. Mueller even promised to share FBI files with the Russians, saying that ‘such resources could be useful to Russian law enforcement agencies in view of the Sochi Olympics.’” Terrorism, like several other transnational issues such as environment, transportation and energy, cannot be solved by countries alone. Cooperation is not an ideal in such cases, but the only pragmatic means to solve the problems.
What about Syria? In this second example, it is obvious that it is in the national interests of both the United States and the Russian Federation to have peace in Syria. The continuing fighting in Syria threatens not only that country, but also threatens to spill over into a sectarian war in the entire Middle East. That is to neither country’s advantage. So while the Russian Federation may favor one side in the particular conflict and the United States another, continuing fighting with external forces from the entire region becoming involved risks large scale destabilization. This is what is driving Mr. Lavrov and Mr. Kerry in their efforts to have a successful conference in Geneva in the near future.
So while the idealist-realist debate, like all binary debates, seemed to posit a clear distinction between two alternatives, evolving technology, as Jonas pointed out, has led to more sophisticated forms of pragmatic cooperation based on neither idealism nor realism, but based on simple pragmatism. The upcoming meeting in California between President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping to discuss cybersecurity as well as North Korean nuclear development is another example of this pragmatic cooperation. Although the leaders may fundamentally disagree on issues such as human rights and Taiwan, they will try to cooperate pragmatically on those issues which are in both national interests.
Is cooperation an ideal? Maybe. But, in today’s world, it has also become a pragmatic necessity.