To understand the dynamics of the 21st century, in which a multipolar world is emerging, it seems to make sense to look back on the Cold War between the USA and the USSR. However, we usually neglect the crucial years following the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, the lowering of the hammer and sickle on 25/12/91.
What this book offers is a very detailed and in-depth analysis of the way world leaders (from Bush to Kohl to Gorbachev to Deng) attempted to forge a "new world order", in Bush Sr's words, from the remains of the Cold War. Through the chronological uncovering of primary sources such as diary entries and notes from aides, Spohr weaves a narrative of personal diplomacy, albeit one that is a bit too US-centric. Indeed, other than being a review of the formative years of the new world order, Post Wall, Post Square (PWPS) also reads like a major reappraisal of Bush Sr's underrated term.
Fortunately, PWPS does not stray into a narrow American perspective -- while Bush seems to pick up the initiative towards the end of the Cold War (1991), the first few years of his term was characterised by deliberate passivity; arguably, leaders like Kohl and Gorbachev played a more crucial role in shaping post-post-war Europe from 1989 to 1991.
A major pitfall of PWPS is that the chronological retelling of the post-Cold War years seems unanchored at times. A more thematic approach would have complemented the chronological approach as the reader then would not have to draw conclusions (which may not be the author's) on their own.
I really really really loved the conlusion/epilogue!
1) Putin's nationalist rhetoric being a reasonable 0utcome of Yeltsin's failure to integrate Russia into the Western world by 1992/3.
2) Xi's nationalist rhetoric being a continuation of the modern Chinese state's re-assertion of its regional hegemony after a century of humiliation at the hands of Western powers; the shady historical relationship between the West and China in recent memory also further deepens the gulf between the two value-systems and world orders.
3) Market economics may not necessarily result in liberal democracy, as the PRC has shown.
4) As an extension from point 3, how far can we expect the future convergence of world orders? Is capitalism the only thing we can all agree on? Is liberal democracy not universal? And will this conflict between democracy and authoritarianism (and its variants) necessarily put the world on a more dangerous footing?
5) The end of the Cold War ushered in a way more unstable world. In Bush Sr's words, "unpredictability is our greatest enemy"; whereas the latter half of the 20th century was predictable in that the USA could shape its foreign policy against the USSR, the 21st century seems to present a myriad of challenges from various corners of the globe (Russia, China, Middle East, North Korea...).
6) The way Bush navigated the end of the Cold War and the formation of his new world order really pushed me to appreciate the importance of diplomacy, as opposed to aggressive rhetoric or military posturing (which the USA and PRC are falling back on). Maintaining diplomatic channels based on the mutual respect of sovereignty and more importantly, the recognition of similarities rather than irreconcilable differences, can certainly limit the chances of unwanted conflict and the expand the realm of possibilities for collaboration and cooperation. After all, every country under rational leadership would aspire to the same things -- better living conditions, sovereignty, prosperity, peace...
7) Am i still a proponent of American unipolarity? Is it even feasible considering the geopolitical (isolated between the Pacific and the Atlantic) and political (the American populace's oscillation between isolationism and globalism) realities of the USA?
8) ok i guess i believe in the global dominance of 'Western' values (which should not be labelled 'Western' in the first place) but also the importance of multilateralism
also, i really admire/respect Bush Sr