The world without the cold war

By Kofi Akordor
By the end of 1990, the Berlin Wall, one of the most significant physical symbols of the Cold War era was torn down and the world heaved a heavy sigh of relief. The Berlin Wall came to represent the monstrosity of the Cold War which separated world into the Western and the Eastern blocs.
The collapse of hastened the disintegration of the Soviet Empire in 1991, which spearheaded the Eastern Bloc against the Western Bloc led by the United States of America and its European allies.
The Third World countries especially those of Africa and Latin America which became the battlegrounds for this ideological conflict received the news of the end of the Cold War with mixed feelings. On one side was this lingering fear that the US, which emerged from that era much intact and even stronger will use bullying tactics to frustrate their development efforts and on the other, the hope that a world without superpower rivalry or ideological conflicts is the best environment to engender growth and prosperity.
There was also that expectation that funds ploughed into clandestine activities during the Cold War could now be deployed into development projects in the poor countries of Asia, Latin America and Africa.
Africa particularly was a victim of the Cold War. Most of its leaders became pawns in the ideological rivalry which engulfed the continent. Pragmatic and nationalist leaders such as Dr Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana and Patrice Lumumba of the then Belgian Congo who were determined to chart an independent and militant path for their countries’ development agenda were perceived as communist agents, branded as such, were discredited and finally eliminated.
Africa’s underdevelopment had a lot to do with the ideological conflict which existed during the Cold War era. Projects initiated outside Western sources were sabotaged one way or the other while the Eastern bloc also continued to play the Good Samaritan role on the continent as long as the Communist ideology prevails. Corrupt and dictatorial leaders found solace with the big powers as long as they were prepared to pander to their whims and caprices. It was, therefore, fashionable for most African politicians to align themselves with either the West or the East to secure patronage. That was why it became possible for leaders such as Mobutu Sese Seko, General Gnasingbe Eyadema, Hosni Mubarak and Paul Biya to remain for long in power while others like Nkrumah, who were not prepared to play ball could not survive the heat of the times.
It is also significant to realise that it was not until the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Empire that the Western world began to show serious attention in democratic reforms in Africa and other places. That showed that Africa’s interest was secondary and did not fit into scheme of things at the time.
Nearly 16 years after the end of the Cold War and after the euphoria of a new world has waned, the question is has the world been better without the Cold War? For Africa, the significant benefits are in the areas of democracy and good governance. Most of the multi-party governments blossoming on the continent were as a result of a new world order which recognized the need for democracy and good governance as a prerequisite for development.
The ideological war was over so the Western powers were interested in Africa not as a battleground to test the supremacy of either of the ideologies. Maybe Africa, as a primary source of cheap raw materials and crude oil which the industrial North seriously needs is expected to play a new role which will be determined by the powerful European Union and the US. Beyond the political reforms much has not changed in the fortunes of Africa since the trade barriers and other unfair practices in business and commerce continue to hinder Africa’s share in world trade.
At the global level, the balance of powers which existed during the Cold War era has given way to a unipolar world, where the US reigns supreme as the most powerful and playmaker in the world. This is what has created a situation whereby instead of reaping the benefits of then absence of the Cold War, the world has become a huge conflict zone with the US the sole determinant of what constitute nationalist activities of acts of terrorism.
From fighting communism in the Cold War era, the US, strongly supported by Britain and other EU countries has embarked on what President George W. Bush describes as war on terrorism. In 2001, after the September 11 attacks on the twin buildings of the World Trade Centre, President Bush found a fine excuse to launch an attack on Afghanistan in a war he claimed he was waging on the Taliban which has been described as a terrorist group.
Emboldened by this blatant show of power, President Bush again defied international opinion including the United Nations and launched a massive attack on Iraq, a sovereign nation in 2003, this time to save the world from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. This was at a time when the UN Weapon Inspectors including experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), have consistently cautioned moderation and pleaded with the world body to allow more time to do a thorough work since at the time President Bush was yearning to go to war, nothing close to weapons of mass destruction have been found in Saddam’s arsenal.
When his attention was drawn to the fact that there was no UN mandate for any attack on Iraq, President’s Bush response was that he does not need any mandate from the UN to defend what he defines as American interests.
The late Pope John Paul II, someone well respected by all did not mince words when he said it would be criminal and in fact, an unforgivable offence for anyone to attack Iraq without concrete evidence. President Bush did not pay heed to that mature counseling.
Today, more than four years’ display of effrontery, President Bush’s soldiers are no longer looking for weapons of mass destruction, since they do not exist in the first place. They are rather looking for a face-saving way of pulling out after turning an otherwise developing country, rich in oil resources into a huge graveyard where the bodies of innocent young men and women are buried in their hundreds everyday.
President Bush was supported in that disregard for public opinion, morality and respect for the rights of human beings to live in their own countries in peace and dignity by Tony Blair, now succeeded by Gordon Brown, who knowing that African leaders have one thing in common – begging -- threatened to boycott a summit of African and EU leaders in Portugal later in the year, if President Robert Gabriel Mugabe attends. Mugabe’s crime; he has reclaimed lands dispossessed of the local people by the Boers and British adventurists who came to this continent as explorers.
This is an African hero who even some people who claimed to be professors of history, international law and politics out of ignorance, despise, due to the deep mental slavery into which they have immersed themselves.
Wars on terrorism and a so-called championing the cause of human rights have become hollow slogans the US and Britain are using to undermine the aspirations of weaker countries all over the globe. While the US, Britain, Australia and some EU member states are busy worrying about what Mugabe is doing to protect land for the indigenous Africans, Darfur has become too much for the world’s sole superpower and its allies whose mighty arsenal could not be ranged against the Janjawe terrorists who have killed more than 200,000 innocent men and women in the Darfur region of Sudan.
The world celebrated the end of the Cold War in anticipation of period of peace and development. That has eluded us all. Now many wished there were two opposing powers of equal strength to balance the equation.
For now, till the US gets the Bill Clinton type of a leader the world will know no peace and those who try fighting for their natural rights could become the terrorists of this world.