Search

Begin New Search Topic Cold War

481. The Emergence of the New Nordic Co-operation

Author:
Tom Schumacher
Publication Date:
06-2000
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies
Abstract:
Nordic Co-operation is an outstanding example of how radically many international institutions changed their functions, working structures and not at least their motives of existence since 1989. It is significant that this regional institution is now aiming to influence developments in third countries and consequently plays its own role in the reconstruction of Europe after the end of the Cold War. This article investigates the motives behind this transformation. After reviewing theoretical and empirical research on institutional adaptation done by other scholars of International Relations, the dimensions of change in Nordic Co-operation will be shown by contrasting its motives, institutions and tasks in the decades before and after 1989. One interesting and quite relevant factor seems to be a certain dynamic of development which is a result of reciprocal interaction with other international institutions in Northern Europe. This aspect will be a special focus of this paper.
Topic:
Security, Civil Society, and Cold War
Political Geography:
Europe

482. Independent Task Force Report: U.S. Policy Toward Northeastern Europe

Author:
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Council on Foreign Relations, and F. Stephen Larrabee
Publication Date:
04-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
The Independent Task Force on U.S. Policy Toward Northeastern Europe sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations was formed to examine the policy challenges confronting the United States in northeastern Europe and recommend measures to advance U.S. interests in the region. The Task Force felt that northeastern Europe deserves special attention for several reasons. First, during the Cold War, northeastern Europe was a strategic backwater and received relatively little attention in U.S. policy. However, since the end of the Cold War, the region has become an important focal point of U.S. policy. The Clinton administration has given northeastern Europe high priority and viewed the region as a laboratory for promoting closer regional cooperation and reknitting Europe—both eastern and western—into a more cohesive economic and political unit. As Secretary of State Madeleine Albright noted in her speech in Vilnius, Lithuania, in July 1997, “Our challenge is to build a fully integrated Europe that includes every European democracy willing to meet its responsibilities. That goal embraces the Baltic nations.” Thus, to some extent, northeastern Europe can be seen as a test case for the Clinton administration's general approach toward post-Cold War Europe. Second, northeastern Europe is also a test case for the administration's policy toward Russia. One of the key elements of the administration's policy has been its effort to reach out to Russia and to include Russia in regional cooperation arrangements in northeastern Europe. This effort has been designed to integrate Russia gradually into a broader European framework as well as to defuse Russian concerns about the integration of the Baltic states into Euro-Atlantic institutions, especially NATO. This policy is seen by the administration as a litmus test of its effort to overcome the old zero-sum Cold War paradigm and demonstrate that greater regional cooperation can bring benefits to all, including Russia. Thus, how well this policy succeeds will have broader implications for the administration's policy toward Russia as a whole. Third, three critical areas of U.S. policy interest—the Baltics, the Nordics, and Russia—intersect in northeastern Europe. Instability in the region would affect all three interests. Moreover, the Baltic region is the one region in Europe where a U.S.-Russian confrontation is still conceivable. Thus, the United States has a strong stake in defusing the potential for conflict in the region and promoting its stable economic and political development. Fourth, the United States faces a number of critical challenges in the region. One of the most important is managing the security aspirations of the Baltic states. The Baltic states are tied to Europe historically and culturally. They share Western values and aspirations. Having thrown off the shackles of communism and Soviet domination, the Baltic states, like their counterparts in Central Europe, want to join Europe and Euro-Atlantic institutions. How the United States seeks to accommodate their security aspirations will be a major test of the U.S. commitment to creating a “Europe whole and free” and its ability to overcome the zero-sum logic of the Cold War. Fifth, the policy challenges in northeastern Europe—particularly those in the Baltic subregion—directly touch on Russia's security interests and have important implications for U.S.-Russian relations. Top Russian officials have reiterated on numerous occasions that Baltic membership in NATO could have serious repercussions for Russia's relations with NATO and the newly established Russia-NATO Council in particular. Although such statements should not necessarily be taken at face value, they highlight the sensitivity of the Baltic issue among the Russian policy elite and ensure that it will remain a highly contentious issue in U.S. relations with Russia. Sixth, the issue of security in northeastern Europe directly affects U.S. relations with the Nordic states, especially Sweden and Finland: the Baltic states are in the Nordic states' strategic backyard. Thus, how the Baltic issue is handled has direct implications for Nordic security—and especially for relations of the Nordic states with Russia. Neither Sweden nor Finland wants to see the Baltic or Nordic region become a gray zone or flash point. At the same time, neither wants to assume the primary responsibility for the security of the Baltic states, which would overburden the capability of either nation. Finally, security issues in northeastern Europe pose important dilemmas for U.S. policy toward NATO. The Baltic issue is the trickiest and most sensitive part of the enlargement puzzle. The Clinton administration has committed itself to helping the Baltic states gain membership in NATO. But many senators have reservations about further enlargement, especially to the Baltic states. So do many of America's NATO allies. Thus, gaining support for Baltic membership could be difficult and will require the administration to build a consensus for its policy both in the U.S. Senate and within the alliance.
Topic:
Cold War and Communism
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, and Eastern Europe

483. The Future of Transatlantic Relations

Author:
Ted Galen Carpenter, Mark Falcoff, Adrian Karatnycky, Gary C. Hufbauer, Robert D. Blackwill, Leslie H. Gelb, Allen R. Adler, Mario L. Baeza, Philip Peters, Bernard W. Aronson, Jeffrey L. Bewkes, Rodolfo O. De La Garza, Daniel W. Fisk, Craig Fuller, M. Farooq Kathwari, Franklin W. Knight, Susan Kaufman Purcell, Peter W. Rodman, Riordan Roett, William D. Rogers, and Alexander F. Watson
Publication Date:
01-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
This report addresses the current state and the future prospects for the transatlantic relationship. The broad challenge the U.S.-European partnership faces in the period ahead is threefold: to persuade others around the world in post-Cold War conditions to abide by internationally accepted norms and patterns of behavior and the rules of the international institutions that embody them; to deal skillfully with the emerging new power centers, of which China and India are the most prominent; and to meet the current serious threats to Western interests, especially in the Middle East, when these threats often seem to ordinary citizens more remote, abstract, and complex than during the Cold War. This daunting effort will clearly require transatlantic policies that involve a delicate and flexible combination of incentives and disincentives applied to these other countries in a highly discriminating manner in widely differing circumstances. Designing and sustaining such policies will be no easy task for Western governments with compelling domestic preoccupations in the full glare of the media spotlight.
Topic:
Security, Cold War, and International Political Economy
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, and Middle East

484. Cooption and Repression in the Soviet Union

Author:
Dmitriy Gershenson and Herschel I. Grossman
Publication Date:
12-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Independent Institute
Abstract:
The Soviet ruling elite, the nomenklatura, used both cooption and political repression to encourage loyalty to the communist regime. Loyalty was critical both in defusing internal opposition to the rule of the nomenklatura and in either deterring or defeating foreign enemies of the Soviet Union. The cost of coopting people into the communist party was a decrease in the standard of living of members of the nomenklatura, whereas the cost of political repression was the danger that members of the nomenklatura would themselves be victimized. We assume that the nomenklatura determined the extent of cooption and the intensity of political repression by equating perceived marginal benefits and marginal costs.
Topic:
Cold War and Government
Political Geography:
Russia and China

485. Is Readiness Overrated? Implications for a Tiered Readiness Force Structure

Author:
James L. George
Publication Date:
04-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
Readiness, the capability to respond quickly to a conflict with the appropriate force, is considered one of the most important elements in defense planning. From one-third to well over one-half of the defense budget goes toward maintaining readiness. Few people questioned the need for readiness, especially after the attack by North Korea against South Korea in 1950 and during the Cold War, when the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact was poised to quickly thrust into Western Europe without much warning.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, and Cold War
Political Geography:
United States, South Korea, North Korea, and Western Europe

486. Tilting at Windmills: Post-Cold War Military Threats to U.S. Security

Author:
Ivan Eland
Publication Date:
02-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
Serious military threats to U.S. security have diminished dramatically since the end of the Cold War. The threat from conventional Russian military forces has all but disintegrated and would take many years to reconstitute. China would take 20 to 30 years to transform its bloated and obsolete military into a major threat to U.S. vital interests. The militaries in both nations should be watched, but they may never develop into credible threats.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Cold War, Nuclear Weapons, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
United States

487. U.S. Foreign Policy: Long Cycles — What Might They Mean for World Long Cycles?

Author:
Jack E. Holmes, Kevin Joldersma, and Aaron Keck
Publication Date:
03-1998
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Studies Association
Abstract:
The author has studied U.S. foreign policy long cycles for two decades and has an extensive database covering 1776-1990. A good deal of attention has been paid to U.S. foreign policy in the post-1945 setting where the U.S. is a world superpower. Now that the U.S. has been freed from the immediate demands of the Cold War, it is important to study American policy over the long run, especially the period before 1945. This paper uses conclusions from the author's previous work to raise issues which have implications for the study of world long cycles. Particular attention is given to consensus (societal/governmental) variables since the U.S. is one of the few countries with a long history under the same written constitution. The American experience indicates that the U.S. is inclined toward independent action as sometimes dictated by domestic considerations. While it is clear that the U.S. will act as a superpower in part due to the nature of the international system, it is important to consider some uniquely American features which also have an important impact on policy. The author's work includes two books on long-term American foreign policy trends. The first one, The Mood/Interest Theory of American Foreign Policy, was published in 1985. It presented a general theory regarding how and why introvert and extrovert foreign policy moods alternate every two decades. This theory, as well as the dates of the cycles, is based on the work of Frank L. Klingberg (1952). Klingberg elaborates on his cycles in later works (1983 and 1996). Since the 1985 work contained a good deal of theory, it was thought that a more empirical study of these trends would be in order. Toward this end, the author created over 150 variables which have been given annual values for at least 150 years. These variables were based on the work of other authors and compilations of data. The resulting work, Ambivalent America, which has been the basis for several convention papers and is nearing completion as a book, raises a second set of conclusions which supplement those of the first book. At the same time, several authors have investigated world long cycles and raised a number of important issues. Most of these authors emphasize the period since the start of major European influence on the world while others go back prior to that period. With the exceptions of works by Klingberg and this author, however, similar attention has not been given to American trends. Pollins and Schweller (1997) do explore some issues relating to interactions of American and world cycles. The author believes that a conceptual comparison of American long cycles with world long cycles will raise some important issues, and that is the purpose of this paper.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, and Cold War
Political Geography:
United States

488. European Integration and Franco-German Relations: Erbfeindschaft or Engrenage?

Author:
Imtiaz Hussain
Publication Date:
01-1998
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas
Abstract:
Given the historical depth of Franco-German enmity, or erbfeindschaft, how have integrative efforts in West Europe been shaped by this rivalry? Three sets of tensions are identified in addressing that question: the theoretical tussle to explain West European integration; the explosive historical relationship between the two countries; and their cooperative, complementary relationship in European Community policy-making. For analytical purposes, two hypotheses connect these sources of tension in the multifaceted, complicated subject mater of Franco-German relations. These are that when the Cold War was in full fury, both countries found cooperation a gar superior strategy than discord; and when the Cold War ended, disagreements increased without eliminating cooperation. Both are tested through a comparative study of agricultural and monetary policies of the Community, and prefaced by a rapid historical riffle of the ups and downs in that bilateral relationship. The conclusion is drawn that the Community interlocked the two countries in such a way as to make disengagement costly in spite of increasing divergences, and that this engranage was possible because of the Cold War context.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Cold War, and International Organization
Political Geography:
Europe and Germany

489. European Integration and Franco-German Relations: Erbreindschaft or Engrenage?

Author:
Imtiaz Hussain
Publication Date:
01-1998
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas
Abstract:
Given the historical depth of Franco-German enmity, or erbfeindschaft, how have integrative efforts in West Europe been shaped by this rivalry? Three sets of tensions are identified in addressing that question: the theoretical tussle to explain West European integration; the explosive historical relationship between the two countries; and their cooperative, complementary relationship in European Community policy-making. For analytical purposes, two hypotheses connect these sources of tension in the multifaceted, complicated subject matter of Franco-German relations. These are that when the Cold War was in full fury, both countries found cooperation a far superior strategy than discord; and when the Cold War ended, disagreements increased without eliminating cooperation . Both are tested through a comparative study of agricultural and monetary policies of the Community, and prefaced by a rapid historical riffle of the ups and downs in that bilateral relationship. The conclusion is drawn that the Community interlocked the two countries in such a way as to make disengagement costly in spite of increasing divergences, and that this engrenage was possible because of the Cold War context.
Topic:
International Relations, Cold War, and International Cooperation
Political Geography:
Europe, Germany, and Maryland

490. U.S. Trade Negotiations: Lessons Learned, Lessons Applied

Author:
Mickey Kantor
Publication Date:
11-1997
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
The challenges of the era of interdependence will constitute the greatest foreign policy test of the 21st century. The war over globalization and interdependence is at an end. Only the battles are yet to be fought. Those who cower behind walls of fear and fail to accept responsibility do so at their own peril, and will not turn containment into engagement, or mutual assured destruction into mutual assured prosperity. The approach of the new millennium finds us at the intersection of three epochal events: in politics, the end of the Cold War; in economics, the emergence of a global economy; and in technology, the rise of the Information Age. The intersection of economics, strategic issues, and political concerns is creating the glue which will bind together an updated U.S. foreign policy. Vast opportunities lie before us, and more than a few pitfalls. We face fewer serious military threats but an increasing number of competitors. The rise of competition, the need to create new opportunities, and the confluence of major economic and political changes create a need to intensely focus on U.S. priorities and goals. Despite this urgency, we have yet to fully articulate a foreign policy that matches the era in which we now live, especially the appropriate role of international economics. We need to direct our focus toward the lessons we have learned over the past five years. Seekers of universal truths or simple catch phrases should prepare in advance for disappointment. U.S. leadership in both the public and private sectors must accept the challenges represented by these enormous changes. Our willingness to take responsibility, clearly define our goals, and recognize our limitations but pursue U.S. leadership at every opportunity will dictate the success or failure of promoting a stronger United States and a less dangerous world. The goals and objectives are clear: U.S. leadership must pursue peace, stability, economic progress, basic human rights, and sustainable development. In order to address these goals we need to create foreign-policy tools and institutions that are pragmatic, practical, and resilient reflecting the speed with which events, opportunities, and challenges now confront us as a nation. There is no question that global economics has fundamentally changed the nature of foreign policy. Today, economics and foreign policy are no longer separable, and economic security and national security have become synonymous. We live in an interdependent, globalized world. No longer are we self-contained, nor is it in our interest to be so. We can no longer take for granted our global economic dominance and turn our back on foreign markets. It is self-defeating in the short run and impossible in the long run to ignore the problems which occur across the border or across the world, and we cannot overlook our responsibility as the world's remaining superpower. Driven by technological change, freed of Cold War conflicts and connected by economic and strategic interests, the era of interdependence demands negotiation, engagement, and leadership. Interdependence dictates that our foreign policy and economic future are increasingly connected to international trade. Interdependence dictates that terrorism, weapons proliferation, environmental concerns, the drug trade, and economic opportunity are now cross-border issues. These issues profoundly affect the everyday lives of people around the globe. Cross-border issues directly influence policies, laws, and regulations of the countries in question, raising issues such as the rule of and respect for law, regulation and deregulation, privatization, and other concerns heretofore thought to be strictly internal. This new era requires a redefinition of global leadership. Being the only remaining superpower does not simply mean that we are the strongest military power, nor does it mean only that we are the most economically competitive nation on earth. Both of those statements are true, of course. But holding the position of the world's only remaining superpower in the era of interdependence means that we have the opportunity to take advantage of the vast economic potential which is being created around the globe to the benefit of all Americans, and we have a corresponding obligation to rally other nations to pursue common long-term interests, such as strategic and political stability, economic progress, and sustainable development. There are other examples which support the notion of new multidimensional international relations. Brazil has dramatically increased its international standing and influence using its potential economic strategic position. During the Cold War and prior to the dramatic growth of economic power and industrialization, Brazil's strategic position would have been defined and dictated by its ability or inability to have an influence over strategic and political issues especially those concerning East-West relations. But today, and in the foreseeable future, not only do countries increase their influence based on economic potential and achievement, but economic considerations and relationships tend to bring entities together which in other circumstances could not or would not cooperate. The recent Middle East Economic Conferences and the participation of China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) are obvious examples.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Cold War, Diplomacy, and Political Economy
Political Geography:
United States, China, America, Taiwan, Asia, Brazil, and Democratic Republic of the Congo