WORDS AND WORD COMBINATIONS. a nuclear buildupнаращивание ядерных воору­ жений

a nuclear buildup наращивание ядерных воору­
жений

to come into existence возникнуть, появиться

what is more более того

eventually в конце концов

in many ways во многих отношениях

to give way to something уступить чему-либо, сдаться

and vice versa и наоборот

as opposed to something в отличие от

to keep under control контролировать

Work in pairs. Do you think the following statements are true. orJalse^:

The super power era had been marked by East-West rivalry that

led to a nuclear build-up and threatened to destroy the planet.

The post Cold-War world order appeared to pass its first series

of major tests with ease.

A bipolar world has given way to a unipolar world with the USA

playing the role of the «world's police force».

The USA is a disinterested world power.

The very idea of a new world order might be a piece of

historical engineering aimed at safeguarding US interests.

It's doubtless that the USA has the economic resources to

sustain its global role.

The existence of an external threat promotes internal cohesion.

♦ Discuss/check your considerations with the rest of the class

SCAN reading:look through the text to find answers to the true/false statements.

 

TEXT 1: A NEW WORLD ORDER

The birth of the post-Cold-War world was accompanied by a wave of optimism and idealism. The superpower era had been marked by East-West rivalry that extended across the globe and led to a nuclear buildup that threatened to destroy the planet. As communism collapsed in eastern Europe, and Soviet power was in retreat both domestically and internationally, 'one world' speaking with 'one voice' appeared to have come into existence. The 'new world order' was going to be based not on ideological conflict and a balance of terror, but on a common recognition of international norms and standards of morality. Central to this emerging world order was the recognition of the need to settle disputes peacefully, to resist aggression and expansionism, to control and reduce military arsenals, and to ensure the just treatment of domestic populations through respect for human rights. What is more, the post-Cold-War world order appeared to pass its first series of major tests with ease.

Iraq's annexation of Kuwait in August 1990 led to the construction of a broad western and Islamic alliance which, through the Gulf War of 1991, brought about the expulsion of Iraqi forces. The disintegration of Yugoslavia in 1991 saw the first use of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) (renamed the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in December 1994) as a mechanism for tackling international crises, leading to hopes that it would eventually replace both the Warsaw Pact and NATO.

In many ways, the linchpin of the hoped-for new world order was the USA. A bipolar world order had given way to a unipolar one, with the USA, the only power with the military capacity and political authority to intervene effectively, playing the role of the 'world's police force'.

There are several reasons, however, for questioning this image of USA-sponsored international fraternity and world peace. In the first place, there are those who challenge the idea that the USA is a disinterested world power, and doubt that there is anything 'new' about the new world order. For example, the anti-Iraq coalition of 1990—91 perhaps only reflected the fact that US and broader western concerns about oil supplies coincided with regional anxieties amongst Islamic powers such as Syria and Saudi Arabia about a 'Greater Iraq'. In other words, rhetoric about international law and national sovereignty merely camouflaged power politics and the pursuit of national interest. The very idea of a new world order might, indeed,

be a piece of historical engineering aimed at safeguarding US interests and maintaining the USA's mastery of the global economy.

There are also doubts about the capacity of the USA to play the role of the world's police force, even if this were thought to be desirable. In the first place, preponderant nuclear power does not always translate into effective military capacity. At a deeper level, however, it is questionable whether the USA has the economic resources to sustain its global role, particularly in a context of relative decline highlighted by the economic resurgence of Japan and Germany. One manifestation of this has been an upsurge in isolationism. How long will Americans be prepared to pay the price of the USA being 'number one'? In the same way as after the First World War, the idea of the USA disengaging itself from international affairs ('leaving the world to sort itself out') has come to have a potent appeal in the USA, and this may grow still stronger.

Further stresses within the new world order have been generated by the releasing of tensions and conflicts that the Cold War had helped to keep under control. The existence of an external threat (be it international communism or capitalist encirclement) promotes internal cohesion and gives societies a sense of purpose and identity. To some extent, for instance, the West defined itself through antagonism towards the East, and vice versa. There is evidence that, in many states, the collapse of the external threat has helped to unleash centrifugal pressures, usually in the form of racial, ethnic and regional tensions.

As opposed to the world being policed and orderly, the emerging international scene seems to be typified by lawlessness and inaction; it appears to resemble more a new world disorder. This may, indeed, be the natural condition of a multipolar world order. Whereas bipolarism is stmctured, albeit by mutual hostility, multipolarism creates more fluid and less predictable conditions in which major actors are unclear about their roles and responsibilities. Thus the USA, a German-led Europe, Russia, Japan and South East Asian 'tigers', China and possibly the Islamic world are all engaged in redefining themselves as international actors freed from the straight-jacket that superpower rivalry imposed. However, the very instability of post-Cold-War politics illustrates its transitionary character. The USA-USSR superpower period may have passed, but a new and stable world order has yet to come into existence. The central question is whether this order will come about through cooperation, engineered by international bodies such as the UN and the EU, or whether it will be imposed through economic domination and military force.