The Millennial Generation came of age after the Cold War ended in 1991. The demise of the Soviet Union concluded more than four decades of two countries undermining one another’s geopolitical objectives, often by turning nations and rival groups within nations against one another the world-over. But, as Millennials entered adulthood, our experiences were not colored by an adversarial relationship between two rival countries actively promoting feelings of international mistrust. Instead, our generation was allowed to come of age during a period of relative peace compared to the Cold War and the World Wars on the first half of the 20th century.
In this essay, we argue that although the Cold War is over, mistrust still exists among global leaders as a byproduct of that rivalry. This mistrust, however, has not been carried over into the next generation of global leaders. The period of relative peace after the fall of the Berlin Wall fostered conditions for wider engagement, so when new methods of interacting over the Internet became widespread, there was less of an “us” and “them” mentality. Technological progress in communications technology was, and still is, only part of the interconnectivity that is a defining and often cited characteristic of our generation. The other crucial part is our generation’s lack of mistrust of one another. This, in turn, has lowered barriers for global, cross-cultural interaction that will one day manifest itself in increased global cooperation.
However, there has been plenty of needless violence and conflict since the end of the Cold War. By most definitions a Third World War took place in central Africa—referred to as the Great War of Africa—that began in the late 1990s and involved more than nine countries. There has also been an increase in what is known as intrastate conflict—armed conflict that does not take place between countries but rather occurs within a single country, sometimes between rival ethnic or religious groups. There are many Millennials whose lives have been defined by war and violence. But our generation, as a whole, does not harbor an inherent distrust of one another.
Accordingly, we argue that in the decades to come there will be increased willingness to use international organizations and treaties to formally solve global problems. For example, consider the state of climate change negotiations. For almost 20 years the world has attempted to work out a formal, legally binding solution to address what some argue is the world’s most pressing problem. Yet, the closest the world has come to a solution is the Kyoto Protocol, negotiated through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1997. But reaching consensus on ambitious and lofty text in a treaty is only part of the process of international cooperation. This treaty has, for the most part, not lived up to its ambition or the hopes many had for it. It has failed. Why?
The Kyoto Protocol’s failure is the result of a lack of mutual participation by major economies. This includes the United States and other major economies party to the treaty that are unwilling to meet Kyoto’s legally binding greenhouse gas emission targets. There are many economic and political reasons why the Kyoto Protocol has failed, which are well-documented. But we see the lack of global participation as largely the result of global mistrust leftover from the Cold War. Without mutual participation and trust on the part of every country—especially the world’s largest economies—there was little hope for the agreement to succeed.
When Kyoto was negotiated the Soviet Union no longer existed. Even by 1997 the decade had seen an unprecedented amount of cooperation regarding internationally-sanctioned humanitarian and peacemaking interventions. The Kyoto Protocol itself is a milestone in international treaty negotiations, but the years following proved implementation of the treaty an insurmountable task. Decades of mistrust erected a mental wall of suspicion that many were (and still are) unable to break down when the one in Berlin fell. With time, this will change.
The Millennial Generation is young; we are not programmed with the same mistrust as our predecessors. By some definitions of the generation’s age brackets, the oldest of our cohort are in their early 30s. That is, very few—if any—Millennials are in positions of high-level decision making either at a national or international level. But one day we will be.
The international order, as we know it is, is also very young. It has changed rapidly and significantly since its major institutions were established. These institutions were set up to prevent the conditions that the victors agreed were the main reasons for the outbreak of World War II. They too are also young, but they are also expansive and flourishing. For example, the United Nations has grown from its original 51 members in 1945 to its current membership of 193 countries. The organization’s mandate has not changed since its founding, but the world it operates in certainly has.
There was significant global change to keep up with in the latter half of the 20th century. However, this rapid progress took place in a world characterized by rivalry and suspicion. Although the rivalry fueling the suspicion and mistrust ended in 1991, the conditions for real and effective global cooperation still do not exist. Many leaders have carried their Cold War mistrust into the 21st century. International climate change negotiations are evidence of this.
As the post-World War II world matures and a new generation of leaders takes its place at the decision-making tables, we are going to see an increased willingness to cooperate on global issues, including climate change. Globally, there is no “them” for the Millennial Generation. Only “us”.
R.P Thead recently acted as project lead and editor for Millennials Speak: Essays on the 21st Century, a crowdsourced and crowdfunded essay collection written by twenty writers from five continents. He released his first novel, The Sovereign Soil, last fall. He can be found on Twitter at @RP_Thead. Javiera Alarcon received her MA in International Relations & Comparative Politics with a specialization in Latin American politics from the University of Maryland. She volunteers at e-collaborate.org, and formerly interned at the Inter-American Dialogue’s Partnership for Educational Revitalization in the Americas (PREAL). She can be found on Twitter at @Javiera_Alarcon.
This article was originally published in the Diplomatic Courier's September/October 2013 print edition.
a global affairs media network
In One Another We Trust: The Millennial Generation and the End of the Cold War
September 10, 2013
The Millennial Generation came of age after the Cold War ended in 1991. The demise of the Soviet Union concluded more than four decades of two countries undermining one another’s geopolitical objectives, often by turning nations and rival groups within nations against one another the world-over. But, as Millennials entered adulthood, our experiences were not colored by an adversarial relationship between two rival countries actively promoting feelings of international mistrust. Instead, our generation was allowed to come of age during a period of relative peace compared to the Cold War and the World Wars on the first half of the 20th century.
In this essay, we argue that although the Cold War is over, mistrust still exists among global leaders as a byproduct of that rivalry. This mistrust, however, has not been carried over into the next generation of global leaders. The period of relative peace after the fall of the Berlin Wall fostered conditions for wider engagement, so when new methods of interacting over the Internet became widespread, there was less of an “us” and “them” mentality. Technological progress in communications technology was, and still is, only part of the interconnectivity that is a defining and often cited characteristic of our generation. The other crucial part is our generation’s lack of mistrust of one another. This, in turn, has lowered barriers for global, cross-cultural interaction that will one day manifest itself in increased global cooperation.
However, there has been plenty of needless violence and conflict since the end of the Cold War. By most definitions a Third World War took place in central Africa—referred to as the Great War of Africa—that began in the late 1990s and involved more than nine countries. There has also been an increase in what is known as intrastate conflict—armed conflict that does not take place between countries but rather occurs within a single country, sometimes between rival ethnic or religious groups. There are many Millennials whose lives have been defined by war and violence. But our generation, as a whole, does not harbor an inherent distrust of one another.
Accordingly, we argue that in the decades to come there will be increased willingness to use international organizations and treaties to formally solve global problems. For example, consider the state of climate change negotiations. For almost 20 years the world has attempted to work out a formal, legally binding solution to address what some argue is the world’s most pressing problem. Yet, the closest the world has come to a solution is the Kyoto Protocol, negotiated through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1997. But reaching consensus on ambitious and lofty text in a treaty is only part of the process of international cooperation. This treaty has, for the most part, not lived up to its ambition or the hopes many had for it. It has failed. Why?
The Kyoto Protocol’s failure is the result of a lack of mutual participation by major economies. This includes the United States and other major economies party to the treaty that are unwilling to meet Kyoto’s legally binding greenhouse gas emission targets. There are many economic and political reasons why the Kyoto Protocol has failed, which are well-documented. But we see the lack of global participation as largely the result of global mistrust leftover from the Cold War. Without mutual participation and trust on the part of every country—especially the world’s largest economies—there was little hope for the agreement to succeed.
When Kyoto was negotiated the Soviet Union no longer existed. Even by 1997 the decade had seen an unprecedented amount of cooperation regarding internationally-sanctioned humanitarian and peacemaking interventions. The Kyoto Protocol itself is a milestone in international treaty negotiations, but the years following proved implementation of the treaty an insurmountable task. Decades of mistrust erected a mental wall of suspicion that many were (and still are) unable to break down when the one in Berlin fell. With time, this will change.
The Millennial Generation is young; we are not programmed with the same mistrust as our predecessors. By some definitions of the generation’s age brackets, the oldest of our cohort are in their early 30s. That is, very few—if any—Millennials are in positions of high-level decision making either at a national or international level. But one day we will be.
The international order, as we know it is, is also very young. It has changed rapidly and significantly since its major institutions were established. These institutions were set up to prevent the conditions that the victors agreed were the main reasons for the outbreak of World War II. They too are also young, but they are also expansive and flourishing. For example, the United Nations has grown from its original 51 members in 1945 to its current membership of 193 countries. The organization’s mandate has not changed since its founding, but the world it operates in certainly has.
There was significant global change to keep up with in the latter half of the 20th century. However, this rapid progress took place in a world characterized by rivalry and suspicion. Although the rivalry fueling the suspicion and mistrust ended in 1991, the conditions for real and effective global cooperation still do not exist. Many leaders have carried their Cold War mistrust into the 21st century. International climate change negotiations are evidence of this.
As the post-World War II world matures and a new generation of leaders takes its place at the decision-making tables, we are going to see an increased willingness to cooperate on global issues, including climate change. Globally, there is no “them” for the Millennial Generation. Only “us”.
R.P Thead recently acted as project lead and editor for Millennials Speak: Essays on the 21st Century, a crowdsourced and crowdfunded essay collection written by twenty writers from five continents. He released his first novel, The Sovereign Soil, last fall. He can be found on Twitter at @RP_Thead. Javiera Alarcon received her MA in International Relations & Comparative Politics with a specialization in Latin American politics from the University of Maryland. She volunteers at e-collaborate.org, and formerly interned at the Inter-American Dialogue’s Partnership for Educational Revitalization in the Americas (PREAL). She can be found on Twitter at @Javiera_Alarcon.
This article was originally published in the Diplomatic Courier's September/October 2013 print edition.
