B. Translate the texts.C. Comment on: . 'Trend is not destiny', - Rene Dubos (French author, 1975) • 'We stand on the brink of shaping a new world of extraordinary hope and opportunity.... The new world we seek will not emerge of its own. We must shape the transformation that is underway in a time of great fluidity.' — Warren Christopher (U.S. Secretary of State. 1993). D. Give your arguments 'for* or 'a gainst ' the authors' E. Write an essay on: 'the global predicament'. TEXTS: 'FIFTEEN QUESTIONS FOR THE DAWN OF THE MILLENNIUM' The convergence of multiple world political trends in the twilight of the twentieth century points toward a new, transformed world order but one whose character has not yet developed sharp definition and vivid coloration. Thus U.S. President George Bush, commenting in late 1991 on the post-Cold War world, justifiably cautioned that 'the enemy is uncertainty. The enemy is unpredictability'. What is certain is that the pace of change will challenge the wisdom of old beHefs and orthodox visions of the world. Because turmoil and turbulence govern contemporary international affairs, they require our asking unconventional questions about conventional ideas. In this final Unit fifteen questions are posed about the future based on the analyses of contemporary world politics. How these questions are answered will significantly shape world politics during this century. 1. Are Nation-States Obsolete? The changing environment of world politics undermines the traditional preeminence of the territorial nation-state, the primary actor in world politics for more than three centuries. One of the hallmarks of human history in the late twentieth century was the increasing internationalization of the world: in production, trade, finance, technology, threats to security, communications, research, education, and culture. One major consequence of this is that the mutual penetration of economic, political, and social forces among the nations of the world is increasingly salient; and it may be the case that the governments of nation-states are progressively losing degrees of direct control over the global forces that affect them. Can the nation-state cope with the challenges it now faces? 'A myth' is what John F. Kennedy called 'the untouchability of national sovereignty'. Henry Kissinger, a former U.S. secretary of state, labeled the nation-state 'inadequate' and the emergence of a global community an 'imperative'. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. presidential adviser, similarly asserted that 'we are witnessing the end of the supremacy of the nation-state on the international scene' and noted that although 'this process is far from consummated... the trend seems irreversible'. These views question the nation-state's capacity to handle global challenges. The nineteenth-century French sociologist Auguste Comte argued that societies create institutions to address problems and meet human needs, and that institutions disappear when they can no longer perform these Junctions. Today, the nation-state's managerial capabilities everywhere, irrespective of form of government, fail to inspire confidence. As a recent report concluded: 'The sovereignty of states is eroding. A wide variety of forces has made it increasingly more difficult for any state to wield power over its people and address issues it once considered its sole prerogative Among these forces are the communications revolution, the rise о transnational corporations, increasing migration, economic integration, and the global nature of economic and environmental problems. The increasing lack of control, an inability to solve pressing problems, and the fact that few states' boundaries or intere: coincide with the nationalities within have exaceihated mistrust political leaders and institutions in many states. Governments perceived as not representing the interests of, not delivering securi to, and not providing for the well-being of their constituents. As result, peoples are looking elsewhere for representation of their vie and provision of their needs, further eroding the authority of states. (The Stanley Foundation, 1993). Other forces infuse the nation-state with vigor and encourage persistence, however. 'Obviously in some respects the nation-state flourishing and in others it is dying', observes French politic scientist Pierre Hassner (1968), adding, 'it can no longer fulfill so of the most important traditional functions, yet it constantly 'assum new ones which it alone seems able to fulfill'. Thus, at the core contemporary international politics lies a paradox: 'At a time whfi the nation-state has appeared to be functionally obsolete, it has bee reaffirmed by the same process which would call for its transcend dence' (Morse, 1976). 2. Is Interdependence a Cure or a Curse? Global interdependence lies at the heart of the internationalization of domestic politics. It poses a singular threat to the nation-state. Interdependence expands the range of global issues while making I heir management more difficult, as mutual vulnerabilities reduce states' autonomy and curtail their control of their own destinies. From one perspective, global interdependence may draw the world's diverse components together in pursuit of mutual survival and welfare. Awareness of the common destiny of all, alongside the inability of sovereign states to address many shared problems through unilateral national action, may energize efforts to put aside national competition. Conflict will recede, according to this reasoning, as few suites can afford to disentangle themselves from the interdependent lies that bind them together in the common fate on which their welfare depends. From this perspective, then, we should welcome the continued tightening of interstate linkages, for they strengthen the scams that bind together the fragile tapestry of international relations. From another, more pessimistic perspective, interdependence will not lead to transnational collaboration, regardless of how compelling ilie need or how rewarding the benefits may be. Instead, contact and mutual dependence will breed conflict. The absence of a community и!' nations remains, and nostalgia for the more autonomous nation-Male abounds. Intertwined economies will not necessarily prevent rehitions to sour or the hammer of trade sanctions to fall. Under mnditions of fierce competition and resurgent nationalism, the innptation to seek isolation from foreign economic dependence by creating barriers to trade and other transactions may be irresistible. So. too, may be the temptation to use force. Thus, the tightening web of global interdependence foretells both opportunity and danger. If, on balance, the advantages of interdependence outweigh the disadvantages, then leaders must liiimcss the means for accelerating its development. Conversely, if vlnbal interdependence undermines national and international welfare •iiul security, they must try to contain and perhaps reverse its effects. ' What Is the 'National Interest'? What goals should nation-states pursue? In earlier times, the.ni.swcr was easy: The state should promote the internal welfare of its in/cns, provide for the common defense, and preserve the nation's,ilncs and way of life.
Leaders pursue the same goals today, but increasingly their domestic and foreign policy options are limited. We live in an age of tradeoffs, as many problems can be resolved only at the risk of exacerbating others. Under such conditions, the quest for narrow self-advantage often carries prohibitively high costs. The historic tendency to define the national interest chauvinistically - my country, right or wrong - can be counterproductive domestically as well as internationally, as no country can long afford to pursue the quest for power in ways that reduce the security and welfare of its competitors. Those who questioned orthodox definitions of the national interest in the past seldom found support, but this is changing. As the eminent anthropologist Margait Mead mused, 'Substantially we all share the same atmosphere today, and we can only save ourselves by saving other people also. There is no longer a contradiction between patriotism and concern for the world". Former U.S. Secretary of Stat? Cyrus Vance voiced a similar idea, observing that 'more than ever cooperative endeavors among nations are a matter not only о idealism but of direct self-interest'. H, Carr (1939), a pioneering political realist, was convinced of th realism of idealism, maintaining that opposition to the gene; interests of humankind does not serve one's self-interest. Nor is served by a failure to recognize that the plight of others can ultimate threaten oneself - a view underscored by Martin Luther King Jr who urged that 'injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere', 4. Is Technological Innovation a Blessing or a Burden? Technological innovations, like interdependence, offer solutions some problems but cause others. As noted economist Wassily Leon' warned in 1987, 'Technology is now, for better or worse, principal driving force behind the ongoing rapid economic, soc' and political change. Like any irrepressible force, the new technol can bestow on us undreamed of benefits but also inflict irrepar damage'. It can create new ways of preventing disease but also ways of destroying others in war. Discoveries in microelectron' information processing, transportation, energy, agricultu communications, medicine, and biotechnology profoundly affect lives and shape our future. New technologies propel growth and alter behavior patterns. St there appears to be a fundamental lag between the current rate, technological change and the rate of adjustment to these cha among decision-makers. The technological catalyst of change promote progress only if it is properly and constructively man and if the interconnectedness of technological innovation and economic, political, and military imperatives is recognized. 5. Of What Value Is Military Power? Military might in the past enabled states to project power, exercise influence, and dominate others. Today the'destructiveness of nuclear weapons and sophisticated conventional and unconventional weapons makes their use risky. Moreover, their threatened use is less convincing than ever. Yet, continuing proliferation raises new questions alongside old ones. Security is a psychological phenomenon, but does the acquisition of more weapons augment it? Or are preparations for war and defense responsible for the security ililemma that aH countries face? To be sure, most leaders agree with the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who argued that 'a people without walls is a people without choice'. Hence most assume that preparing for war is necessary for peace. Yet, as Henry Kissinger explained, 'the paradox of contemporary military strength is that the capacity to destroy is difficult to translate into a plausible threat even against countries with no capacity for retaliation'. Today, the threat of force often lacks credibility. Military power has become impotent by its very strength. Weapons may deter resort to force, but if military might no longer exacts compliance from others, then weapons have lost their role as a basis, or substitute, for diplomacy. And if military power is impotent, why pay the price of vigilance? Since no amount of military might can guarantee a state invulnerability, preparations for war can be assessed only in terms of other consequences. Thresholds may exist beyond which the addition of greater destructive power is meaningless, and excessive preparations for war may leave a country heavily fortified with little left to defend, as U.S. President 1 iscnhower warned in 1961. U Thant, former secretary general of the i nited Nations, echoed this point when he noted that 'the massive Minis devoted to armaments... serve to feed the escalating arms race, in increase insecurity, and to multiply the risks to human survival'. The end of the Cold War has further eroded justifications for the [uusLiit of military power. The urge for military preparedness will nonetheless continue in a multipolar world. Hence the relative costs ami benefits of preparations for war must be weighed against the kinds of threats to national security that still arise. n Will Geo-economics Supercede Geopolitics? Throughout most of recorded history, countries have competed ■ч1 h each other militarily for position and prominence in the global
•■УК hierarchy of power. World politics, accordingly, has largely been a record of countries preparing, waging, and recovering from wars with each other (Morgenthau, 1985). Military might was equated with prestige, and military conquest was regarded as a means to hegemonic rule. Perhaps now, however, the relationship of economics to national security and national structure has changed rather profoundly. Successful trading states in the competitive global marketplace are the world's leaders. They lead in the prosperity they provide for their citizens and in their capacity to give them the living standards that make for a full and complete life. Economically dynamic states lead in their ability to defend themselves and to exert military and diplomatic pressure along with their economic might. Successful trading states command international respect and envy; they enjoy that position and prominence that traditionally was associated with large standing armies. With commercial clout also comes political influence. To some, the next battlefield in world politics will center on economic issues. National destinies will be determined by commercial competition, not military conquest. To the extent that so-called geo-economics (Luttwah, 1993) continues to grow in importance and impact relative to conventional geopolitics, the foreign policies of countries - and how they organize their foreign affairs bureaucracies for the management of economic relations - will be required to change. Whether these transformations will produce a more secure and prosperous world remains to be seen. Trade partners may understand that their best interests lie in trading - not squables - with each other. As wealth is converted into political muscle nationalistic pride can give rise to competition and self-assertiveness. Economic interdependence and tight commercial relationships can collapse in trade disputes and political rivalry, especially in periods of recession, Yet, regardless of the direction that geo-economics eventually takes, the shift of priorities to the economic dimensions of international relations is certain to influence and reorder where individual states will rank in the pyramid of twenty-first-century power. 7. Is War Obsolete? As noted, ideas and institutions wither away when they cease to serve their intended purpose, as the examples of slavery, dueling, and colonialism illustrate. Is war subject to this same phenomenon? Since World War II, legal prohibitions against the use of military force have expanded, and war and interventions have been largely confined to battles among and in developing countries. The period since 1945 has been the longest span of great-power peace since the seventeenth century, thus raising expectations that the major powes have 'retreated from doomsday' (Mueller, 1989). Hence the obsolescence of major war may be on the horizon, even if the emergence of trade wars is a distinct possibility. Whether the seemingly unthinkable use of today's most destructive weapons has truly made war unthinkable is, of course, debatable. Instead, war may eventually disappear in another, far more frightening way - because resort to weapons of mass distruction will obliterate humankind. Thus the puzzle is when and by what means war will become obsolete. As Martin Luther King Jr. put it, 'The choice is either nonviolence or nonexistence'. 8. Can Culture Conflict Be Controlled? Throughout the world's history, when distinct cultures have come into contact, the collisions have sparked communication. At times, this has produced a healthy respect for diversity, as the members of each cultural tradition have learned from each other, to their mutual benefit. But on many other occasions, familiarity has bred contempt. Especially when followers embraced the ethnocentric view that their own group's values are inherently superior, animosity and disrespect for differences have been characteristic. Often clash and warfare followed. Today the ideological contest between communism and capitalism has disappeared, and ancient cultural cleavages and hatreds have reappeared. Tribalism, religious fanaticism, and hypemational ethnicity are again on the move. Ethnic conflict and secessionist revolts are prevalent, and they are now the world's greatest killers. Mypernationalist beliefs rationalize large-scale violence and the subjugation of other nationalities. With ethnocultural contact and clashes have come 'ethnic cleansing' efforts to destroy unprotected subgroups and even genocide. Hypernationalistic movements respect neither liberty nor life. Minorities are at risk throughout the globe. They have been denied basic human rights, and prejudice has made them the victims of iiggression, repression, and persecution. Minorities have had to flee as refugees across borders in order to survive. In 1993 one of eveiy 125 humans on the planet, the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees estimated, had to escape his or her homeland in search of asylum and sanctuary. Armies are not prepared or trained to defend those victims. (Often, they are trained to victimize the defenseless minorities.) Likewise, international organizations are not empowered, in the absence of widespread multilateral cooperation, to stop the carnage.
The fact that the weak, the poor, the exploited have no power contributes to their victimization. Because most states are multiethnic societies, the predictable consequence of ethnonationalism is the disintegration of existing states into smaller and smaller units. The process of national self* determination is not likely to occur often through the ballot, as liberals advocated. Today liberals are beginning to recoil, because at the same tim* that economic interdependence is emptying sovereignty of substance, demands for sovereignty are multiplying - leading to a proliferation of conflicts and the risk of endless challenges to existing borders in futile quest for the perfect 'pure' nation state. Meanwhile, migration-old and new have made it almost impossible to avoid the presence o, minorities on the soil of any conceivable unit (unless it succeeds iii closing off its borders completely and in expelling all sue minorities - another recipe for disorder and tragedy). Of great concern therefore is whether the international communit' has the modicum of moral outrage necessary to put an end, tlirou concerted action, to the ethnic and cultural conflict that now rag out of control. Will a humanitarian concern for the plight of ethni minorities crystallize in collaborative responses? Or will the victims cultural clash perish in a sea of indifference? 9. The End of Empire? Much of world history is written in terms of dreams of wort conquest, the quest of rulers for world domination, and the efforts others to prevent it. Some leaders continue to think and act as thou they believe others still actively plan territorial conquest. But the p five decades have witnessed the great powers' race to relinquish th overseas empires, not expand them. Even the Soviet Union, the 1 world empire of any size, has now disintegrated - by choice, not coercion from abroad. Why has the quest for empire seemingly ended? A plausib explanation is that empire did not benefit the imperial powe materially. Political scientist William Langer, writing in the ea 1960s, when the decolonization process was at its peak, argu similarly: It is highly unlikely that the modern world will revert to t imperialism of the past. History has shown that the nameless fe which in the late nineteenth century led to the most violent outbu ! of expansionism were largely unwarranted. The Scandinavian stat and Germany since Versailles have demonstrated that econom prosperity and social well-being are not dependent on the exploitatio of other peoples, while better distribution of wealth in the advan nutitries has reduced if not obviated whatever need there may have ч-en to seek abroad a safety-valve for the pressures building up at ноте, Even in the field of defense, the old need for overseas bases or 'or the control of adjacent territories is rapidly being outrun. (1962) If imperialism, empire building, and territorial acquisition are no.otigcr in a state's self-interest, why should it continue to prepare for military defense against the imagined expansionist aims of others? HI What Price Preeminence? The quest for world conquest has waned, but national competition tor status in the global peeking order continues. Prestige, respect, and Ai-;ilth remain the core values of many states and the central goals for ■.\liich they strive. To become or remain first in the international i:i'iia means competing for the political and economic means to bend oiliers to one's will. The potential long-term results of this competition are disquieting. I'lic problems of primacy are numerous, the disadvantages of nlvantage many. With global leadership comes the burden of irsponsibility and the necessity of setting the pace and maintaining «orld order. Moreover, dominant countries are often the targets of <>iher states resentment, envy, hostility, fear, and blame. The quest for military superiority may lose much of its rationale in ilu- aftermath of the Cold War. Today, the increasingly high costs of military preeminence have quieted its appeal in many national i.ipitals. Military spending reduces industrial growth, weakens I'toiiomic competitiveness, and, ultimately, undermines states' ability in pursue and preserve dominance: It has been a common dilemma facing previous «number-one» iniintries that even as their relative economic strength is ebbing, the Kiowing foreign challenges to their position have compelled them to.illoeate more and more of their resources into the military sector, Much in turn squeezes out productive investment and, over time, leads to the downward spiral of slower growth, heavier taxes, deepening domestic splits over spending priorities and a weakening ■,ip;icity to bear the burdens of defense. (Kennedy, 1987) Many will not take this message seriously, however, as the one iMedicament that nearly every country finds worse than being jMivminent is being subject to another's dictates. Thus the pursuit of prominence continues. / / Is «Realism» Still Realistic and Relevant? Since the eve of the Second World War, by far the most prevalent ■ii.'orctical perspective for viewing world affairs has been through the
lens of political realism. Leaders and scholars alike have organized their thoughts and images almost exclusively in terms of this dominant paradigm. This reliance on realism to explain and predict international developments was understandable. Realism found a fertile ground in which to nourish during the conftict-ridden fifty-year period between 1939 and 1989, The lust for power, appetite for imperial expansion and struggle for hegemony, a pervasive arms race, and obsession with military security were in strong evidence. Realism accounted for these phenomena better than did any other theoretical perspective. But now, in the wake of the Cold War conflict, a window has opened to expose quite different dimensions of world politics heretofore largely neglected. The global agenda has shifted as new issues and problems have risen to prominence. Joseph S. Nye Jr., a U.S. political scientist, who worked in the Clinton administration, writes, 'The problem... today is not new challengers for hegemony; it is the new challenge of transnational interdependence'. 'Welfare, not warfare, will shape the rules and global threats like ozone holes and pollution will dictate the agenda' (Joffe, 1990). To a number of theorists, the broadened and transformed post-Cold War global agenda goes beyond what realism can realistically be expected to address. To their mind, 'realist preoccupations operate as a gigantic distraction from the deeper challenges associated with the political, economic, and social restructuring' that has occurred in international affairs (Falk, 1992), and 'international relations have parts which realist theory cannot reach' (Scholte, 1993). 'The approach of classical realism', political scientist Robert Jervis (1992) predicts, 'will not be an adequate guide for the future of international polities'. Other critics are disturbed by the inability of realism and neorealism to anticipate the democratic revolutions that accompanied the Cold War's end, the voluntary retreat of the Soviet Union, and(global change and cooperation generally. 'The wisdom that calls itself 'realism', scolds political scientist Stanley Hoffmann (in Friedman? 1993), 'is utter nonsense today'. Realism was predictivcly weak. Moreover, critics charge that realism is scientifically inaccurate and fails 'to provide an adequate understanding of the dynamics of peace and war which are at the heart of the paradigm (on the topics that realism claims to provide the best answers)... An entirely new5 theoretical approach may be needed, that will put both existing findings and unresolved questions into a perspective that makes sense of both.' (Vasquez, 1993). If these critics of realism's receding accuracy and relevance are correct, then the question 'is realism finished9' (Zakaria, 1992—1993) will be asked increasingly in the future. Pressure will mount for a new theoretical paradigm to replace orthodox realism and neorealism. What a new theory will or should look like is not presently obvious, as challengers to realism theories are divergent in their prescriptions. Yet many agree with the general view that it is time for л new, more rigorous idealist alternative to realism and that 'there are good reasons for examining aspects of the liberal international legacy once again' (Fukuyama, 1992) by giving Woodrow Wilson's liberal vision the fair test it has never received. Perhaps a reconstructed theory that fuses the best properties of realism and the new (neo) liberal theories that are emerging will provide the intellectual framework needed to understand world politics in the twenty-first century. 12. Is The World Preparing for the Wrong War? To preserve peace, one must prepare for war. That remains the classical formula for national security. But would states not be wiser in prepare to conquer the conditions that undermine prosperity, freedom, and welfare? 'War for survival is the destiny of all species', observes philosopher Martin J. Siegel. 'In our case, we are courting suicide by waging war against one another. The world powers should declare war against their common enemy — the catastrophic and Mirvjval-of-the-fittest forces that destroyed most of the species of life ihat. came before us'. Not all world leaders succumb to the single-mindedness of preparing to wage the wrong war. Voices that challenge the prevailing penchant are increasingly heard. Presidenl Miguel de la Madrid of Mexico in 1983 noted that 'scarce resources are being used' to sustain the arms race, thereby hindering the economic development of nations and international cooperation. Similarly, President Francois Mitterrand of France warned in the same year that 'together we must urgently find the solutions to the real problems at hand - especially unemployment and underdevelopment. This it the battlefield where the outlines of the years 2000 and on will be drawn'. And India's I'tirne Minister Indira Gandhi predicted that 'either nuclear war will annihilate the human race and destroy the earth, thus disposing of.my future, or men and women all over must raise their voices for peace and for an urgent attempt to combine the insights of different l ivilizations with contemporary knowledge. We can survive in peace.nid goodwill only by viewing the human race as one, and by looking.it global problems in their totality'.
Each of these rhetorical positions doubtless reflected the problems and self-interests the leaders faced at home and abroad, but they nonetheless reveal a minority view — point. The war of people against people goes on. Humankind may consequently plummet, not because it lacks opportunities, but because of its collective inability to see and to seize them, 'Perhaps we will destroy ourselves. Perhaps the common enemy within us will be too strong for us to recognize and overcome', the eminent astronomer Carl Sagan lamented. 'But', he continued, 4 have hope... Is it possible that we humans are at last coming to our senses and beginning to work together on behalf of the species and the planet?' 13. What Is Human Weil-Being in an Ecologically Fragile Planet? The once popular 'limits to growth' proposition has been replaced by the maxim of sustainability, which emphasizes 'the growth of limits'. Thus 'sustainable development' means learning to live off the earth's interest, without encroaching on its capital. Gross national product is the common measure of economic well- A rise in a state's economic output has different consequences fbf people currently living in poor societies compared with those in rich1 societies.' For the inhabitants of most Third World countries, growth in GNP may mean more food, better housing, better education, and an increased standard of living. Because the affluent people living tti the First World already have these basic amenities, additional increments to their income usually lead to the satisfaction dT comparatively trivial needs. The impact on the global commons of population growth and the continued striving for economic growth is critical nonetheless. 'Th incremental person in poor countries contributes negligibly t production, but makes few demands on world resources', explain! economist Herman Daly. By contrast, 'the incremental person in the rich country contributes to his country's GNP, and to feed his higtf standard of living contributes greatly to depletion of the world'! resources and pollution of its spaces'. In both cases, then, continued population growth is detrimental — for poor societies, because it inhibits increases in per-capita income and welfare, and for ricft societies, because it further burdens the earth's delicate ecological system. Unbridled exploitation and consumption, unhinged from responsibility to others, are ultimately self-destructive. As Mikhail Gorbachev warned, we must halt 'humanity's aggression against nature'. An alternative to perpetual growth for the world's rich countries is a steady-state economy that seeks a constant stock of capital and population combined with as modest a rate of production and consumption of goods as possible. Because most advanced industrial countries have already approached zero population growth, or a steady state, realizing zero economic growth would require profoundly filtered attitudes toward production and consumption. It would also require an alteration in attitudes toward cultural norms regarding leisure and satisfaction. Citizens would have to maximize the durability of goods and recycle more products. And they would have to restrain the profit motive that justifies the need for growth and the craving for unnecessary material goods. Similarly, policymakers would have to devise means of managing conflict other than by doling out increments of an ever-expanding pie - for in a steady-state economy i he pie would no longer grow. These ideas challenge the very foundations of Western civilization. Sustainable development is a more realistic prospect, but even it will he hard to realize. Minimally, it requires rethinking the meaning of human welfare. Economic welfare remains critical to human welfare, hut the first question to ask is whether growth in the economy as measured by GNP actually contributes to the total well-being of people. Sustainable economic welfare, like sustainable development, inquires sensitivity not only to economic growth but also to natural lesource depletion, environmental damage, and the value of leisure,md liberty (UNDP, 1993). But is there an alternative? Can growth in л finite world proceed infinitely? How long can finite energy sources sustain uncontrollable consumption before automobiles sputter to a мор, industries grind to a halt, and lights go out? How many pollutants can the atmosphere absorb before irreparable environmental damage is done? And how many people can a delicately balanced ecosystem support? N. The End Of History? To many observers, the history of world affairs is the struggle between tyranny and liberty. The contest has taken various forms ■.nice antiquity: between kings and sovereign peoples; authoritarianism mil republicanism; despotism and democracy; ideological principle uiki pragmatic governance. Labels are misleading and sometimes l.ingerous, but they form the vocabulary of diplomacy and inform
theoretical discourse about governance and statecraft. History, in this image, is a battle for the hearts and minds of civilization, an ideological contest for the allegiance of humankind to a particular form of political, social, and economic organization. Since the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 brought socialism to power in Russia and made Marxism a force in international affairs, the fight for allegiance in the twentieth century was dominated by the contests between communism, fascism, and democratic capitalism. With the defeat of fascism in World War H and the collapse of the international communist movement a generation later, it has become fashionable to argue that we have witnessed the end of a historic contest of epic proportions - and hence 'the end of history': 'The twentieth century saw the developed world descend into a paroxysm of ideological violence, as liberalism contended first with the remnants of absolutism, then bolshevism and fascism, and finally an updated Marxism that threatened to lead to the ukimate apocalypse of nuclear war. But the century that began full of self-confidence in the ultimate triumph of Western liberal democracy seemed at its close to be returning full circle to where it started; not to an 'end of ideology' of a convergence between capitalism and socialism, as earlier predicted, but to the unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism. (Fukuyama) The abrupt repudiation of communism in Moscow and Eastern Contrariwise, a less reassuring possibility is that history has not 'ended' and that neither the battle between totalitarian and democratic governance nor the inclination of states to struggle among themselves for power is over. Instead, with the end of the ideological dimension to the Cold War, we may be witnessing not history's end but a watershed that, like previous turning points in history, signal! history's resumption: the return to the ageless search for barrier» against the resurgence of tyranny, nationalism, and war. Especially щ followers of realpolitik, the most salient feature of world politics - the, relentless competitive struggle for power - is permanent. The end of the Cold War does not assure us that the international community has moved beyond tyranny or interstate competition and war. As former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev noted in May 1992, 'In the major centers of world politics, the choice, it would seem, has today been made in favor of peace, cooperation, interaction and overall security'. However, he warned, 'A major international effort will be needed to render irreversible the shift in favor of a democratic world - and democratic for the whole of humanity, not just half of it'. 15. A Reordered Global Agenda? The paradox of contemporary world politics is that a world liberated from the paralysing grip of the Cold War must now face a series of challenges every bit as threatening and as potentially intractable. Global interdependence without the rigidity of the Cold War bipolarity has simultaneously enlarged the responsibilities and expanded the issues to be confronted. As former U.S. President Bill Clinton summarized the globe's circumstances, 'Profound and powerful forces are shaking and remaking our world. And the urgent question of our time is whether we can make change our friend and not our enemy'. Alongside the resurgence of nationalism, ethnic conflict, and separatist revolt, the sea changes in recent years have spawned a diffusion of new kinds of threats to world order: acid rain, AIDS, drug trafficking, ozone depletion, global warming, energy and food insecurity, desertification and deforestation, chronic debt, and neomercantilism and trade protectionism, among others. The potential impact of these new threats is potent because 1'iiierging trends suggest that, alongside the continuing threat of arms.Hid ethnic and regional conflict, nonmilitary dangers will multiply. Accordingly, the distinction between high politics and low politics may disappear. Mn the post-Cold War world low politics is becoming high politics' (Moran). Previously established patterns and relationships have been obliterated. Something revolutionary, not simply new, lias unfolded. abandon v abandonment n abandoned a abolish v abolition n abolished a abuse v abuse n abusive a accomodate v accomodation n accomodating a accomplish v accomplishment n accomplished a account v account n accountability n accumulate v accumulation n accumulator n accumulative a acquire v acquirement n adjust v adjustment n adjustable a adjusting a TOPICAL VOCABULARY - оставлять, покидать, отказываться, бросать ■ оставление, отказ от, заброшенность - заброшенный, распущенный - отменить, упразднить - отмена, уничтожение - отмененный, упраздненный
-злоупотреблять, неправильно употреблять, бранить, оскорблять -злоупотребление, неправильное употребление, оскорбление -бранный, оскорбительный -размещать, предоставлять жилье, вмещать, оказывать услугу -жилье, ссуда, приспособление, соглашение, удобство
- покладистый, сговорчивый, уживчивый - выполнять, исполнять, завершать - выполнение, завершение, достижение - завершенный, законченный, совершившийся, профессиональный - считать, рассматривать, анализировать - счет, расчет, анализ, доклад, причина - ответственность, подотчетность
- накапливать, скопляться - накопление, скопление - собиратель - накопившийся
- приобретать, получать, овладевать (навыком) - приобретение, овладение - приспосабливать, устраивать - приспособление - регулируемый - регулирующий advance v advance n advanced a advocate v advocate n Lord Advocate affect v ffection n affected a affectionate a allocate v allocation n ally v ally П alliance n allied a appeal v appeal n apply v applicant n application n applicable a applied a apportion v.ipportionment n arise v
—двигать(ся) вперед, продвигать(ся), наступать, делать успехи —продвижение, наступление, успех, прогресс —выдвинутый вперед, продвинутый, успевающий, передовой —отстаивать, поддерживать —защитник, сторонник, адвокат —Генеральный прокурор —воздействовать, влиять, волновать, затрагивать, поражать (о болезни), любить —привязанность, любовь, волнение, болезнь —задетый, пораженный, поврежденный, искуственный, показной, притворный —любящий, нежный
—распределять, назначать —распределение, назначение —соединять, объединяться в союз —союзник — союз —присоединившийся, союзнический —апеллировать, взывать —призыв, обращение, просьба —обращаться, применять, относиться —претендент —просьба, заявление, применение —применяемый —прикладной —распределять, делить соразмерно —пропорциональное распределение — возникать, появляться, происходить, протекать
assert v assertion n assertive a assume v assumption n assumptive a attach v attachment n breed v breed n breeding n challenge v challenge n challenger n challenging a classify v classification n classifier n classifiable a coincide v coincidence n coincident a commit v commitment n committed a compete v competition n competitor n competitive a compose v composition n утверждать, заявлять, отстаивать утверждение, заявление утвердительный, настойчивый допускать, предполагать, брать на себя ответственность, принимать вид предположение, допущение предполагаемый, допускаемый присоединять, связывать, прикреплять привязанность, преданность порождать, вызывать порода, поколение разведение, воспитанность бросить вызов вызов претендент трудный, но интересный классифицировать классификация классификатор поддающийся классификации совпадать, соответствовать совпадение, соответствие, случайно совпадение обстоятельств совпадающий, соответствующий
поручать, вверять, совершать (ошибку), заключить в тюрьму, передать суду ■■"' обязательство, заключение под стражу,' предание суду, совершение преступлений взявший на себя обязательство соревноваться, состязаться, конкуриров состязание, соревнование, конкуренции соперник соревнующийся составлять, сочинять, компоновать, успокаивать произведение, композиция, составление, склад ума
—спокойный, сдержанный —сложный, составной
—означать, показывать, указывать —обозначение, знак, значение —указывающий, означающий deny v denial n denied a determine v determination n determined a determinative a determinate a diffuse v diffusion n diffuse a diffusive a distinguish v distinguishing a distinguished a distinguishable a distort v distortion n diversify v diversity n diverse a dominate v domination n dominance n dominant a embody v embodiment n emerge v emergence n emergency n emergent a отрицать, отказываться отказ отвергнутый определять, устанавливать, решать(ся), назначать (дату) решимость, определение решительный, твердый определяющий, решающий окончательный распространять, рассеивать, разбрасывать распространение, рассеивание разбросанный, рассеянный, многословный распространяющийся, рассеивающийся отличать, различать отличительный выдающийся различимый, отличимый искажать, извращать искажение, извращение разнообразить * разнообразие '• > ■ разнообразный < господствовать, властвовать, иметь влияние, преобладать господство, преобладание, власть господство, преобладание господствующий, преобладающий воплощать (в себе), олицетворять, заключать в себе, содержать воплощение, олицетворение, объединение, включение возникнуть, появиться возникновение крайняя необходимость, чрезвычайное положение возникающий выделять, придавать особое значение ударение, акцент выразительный, эмфатический многозначительно выносить, терпеть прочность, выносливость длительный принуждать, заставлять, навязывать, проводить в жизнь принуждение, давление учредить, установить установление, введение, учреждение, истеблишмент установленный, укоренившийся, официальный оценивать оценка оценка, оценивание доказывать, свидетельствовать очевидность, доказательство, свидетельство, свидетельские показания явный, очевидный оценивать оценка осуществлять (власть), упражняться, тренироваться, соблюдать (осторожность) осуществление, упражнение, тренировка, проявление простираться, расширять(ся), распространять (влияние), продлить (срок) протяженность, распространение, продление протяжение, степень протянутый, растянутый, длительный, продленный facilitate v facility n facilities n frustrate v frustration n frustrating a frustratingly (adv) fulfil v fulfilment n gain v gain n gainful a generate v generation n generator n generative a govern v government n governor n governing a governable a guarantee v guarantee n guarantor n heighten v height n identify v identity n identification n identical a
—облегчать, продвигать —легкость, покладистость, способность —возможности, благоприятные условия —расстраивать, разрушать (планы) —расстройство, крушение (надежд) —разрушающий, разочаровывающий —разрушительно, обескураживающе —исполнять, выполнять, осуществлять —исполнение, выполнение, осуществление —зарабатывать, добывать, получать, одерживать (победу), выигрывать, извлекать (пользу), набирать (скорость) —увеличение, прирост, прибыль, выигрыш, нажива —стоящий, выгодный, прибыльный —порождать, производить —зарождение, возникновение, поколение —производитель, источник
—производящий, порождающий —управлять, править —управление, государство, власти —правитель, губернатор —правящий —послушный, управляемый —гарантировать, ручаться, обеспечивать —гарантия, ручательство, залог —гарант —повышать, усиливать —высота, вершина, высшая степень —устанавливать тождество, опознавать, распознавать —тождественность, подлинность —отождествление, опознание —одинаковый, тождественный implement v implementation n imply v implication n initiate v initiative n initiation n initiative a innovate v innovation n innovator n innovative a insist v insistence n insistent a integrate v integrity n integrative a intervene v intervention n interventionist n invest v investment n investor n involve v involvement n judge v judge n judgement n judgematic a justify v justification n justifiable a
- выполнять, осуществлять, проводить в жизнь - выполнение, осуществление - означать, подразумевать - скрытый смысл - начинать, быть инициатором - инициатива - основание, установление, введение - начальный - вводить новшество, производить изменения - нововведение, новшество, новаторство - новатор - новаторский - настаивать - настойчивость, требование - настойчивый - составлять целое, соединять - полнота, целостность, честность, прямота - объединенный - вмешиваться
- вмешательство, интервенция - интервент - инвестировать, вкладывать (деньги) - инвестирование, капиталовложение - вкладчик - вовлекать, впутывать, участвовать - вовлечение, участие - судить, вести следствие, полагать, считать - судья, арбитр, эксперт - приговор, решение суда, суждение - здравомыслящий - оправдывать, подтверждать, подкреплять - оправдание, подтверждение - могущий быть оправданным
legitimate v legitimation n legitimacy n legitimate a link v link n linking a maintain v maintainance n mediate v mediation n mediator n mediate a negotiate v negotiation n negotiator n obligate v obligation n obligatory a occur v occurence n oppose v opposition n opposite a overthrow v overthrow n overthrown a
—издавать законы —законодательство —законодатель —законодательная власть —законодательный —узаконивать, —узаконивание —законность, узаконенность —законный, узаконенный —соединять, связывать —звено,связь —соединительный
—поддерживать, утверждать, сохранять, '• отстаивать, продолжать " —поддержка, утверждение, содержание, средства к существованию —быть посредником —посредничество —посредник —промежуточный
—вести переговоры —переговоры —посредник, ведущий переговоры —обязывать —обязательство —обязательный, принуждающий —случаться, происходить, приходить на —случай, происшествие противиться, возражать сопротивление, противостояние, оппозиция противоположный { —свергать, побеждать, расстраивать планы( —свержение, расстройство планов., —свергнутый, побежденный participate v participant n participation n larticipator n lerceive v perception n perceptivity n perceivable a perceptive a icrpetuate v perpetuity n icrpetual a inssess v -possession n possessive a iressurize v pressure n no mote v )iomotion n nomoted a >rosper v >rosperity n irosperous a novide v novider n irovi ded/providing COllj) mrsue v nirsuer n uirsuit n
- участвовать - участник - участие - участник - осознавать, понимать, ощущать, чувствовать - восприятие, познание, понимание - восприимчивость - заметный, ощутимый - воспринимающий - увековечивать - вечность - вечный, постоянный, пожизненный - владеть, обладать - владение - собственнический - оказывать давление - давление - помогать, способствовать, продвигать (по службе) - содействие, продвижение (по службе) - получивший повышение - преуспевать, процветать - процветание - процветающий, зажиточный - обеспечивать, предусматривать, принимать меры - поставщик - при условии - преследовать, проводить (политику), следовать(плану) ~ преследующий - преследование, погоня
legislate v legislation n legislator n legislature n legislative a legitimate v legitimation n legitimacy n legitimate a link v link n linking a maintain v maintainance n mediate v mediation n mediator n mediate a negotiate v negotiation n negotiator n obligate v obligation n obligatory a occur v occurence n oppose v opposition n opposite a overthrow v overthrow n overthrown a издавать законы законодательство законодатель законодательная власть законодательный узаконивать, узаконивание законность, узаконенность законный, узаконенный соединять, связывать звено,связь соединительный поддерживать, утверждать, сохранять, отстаивать, продолжать поддержка, утверждение, содержание, средства к существованию быть посредником посредничество посредник промежуточный вести переговоры переговоры посредник, ведущий переговоры обязывать обязательство обязательный, принуждающий случаться, происходить, приходить на случай, происшествие противиться, возражать сопротивление, противостояние, оппозиция противоположный свергать, побеждать, расстраивать план itirticipate v larticipant n laiticipation n larticipator n icrceive v perception n lerceptivity n icrceivable a icrceptive a icrpetuate v icrpetuity n wipetuat a possess v possession n losscssive a TCssurize v iressure n nomote v >iomotion n tiomoted a >i'osper v >iosperity n nosperous a irovide v n'ovider n ч ovided/providing conj) uiisue v uirsuer n luirsuit n участвовать участник участие участник осознавать, понимать, ощущать, чувствовать восприятие, познание, понимание восприимчивость заметный, ощутимый воспринимающий увековечивать вечность вечный, постоянный, пожизненный владеть, обладать владение собственнический оказывать давление давление помогать, способствовать, продвигать (по службе) содействие, продвижение (по службе) получивший повышение преуспевать, процветать процветание процветающий, зажиточный обеспечивать, предусматривать, принимать меры поставщик при условии преследовать, проводить (политику), следовать (плану) преследующий преследование, погоня
reconcile v reconcilement n reconciliation n reconcilable a recruit v recruitment n recruit n reduce v reduction n reflect v reflection n reflective a reject v rejection n rejected a relate v relations n related a rely v reliance n reliant a reliable a reliability n represent v representation n representative n representative a repress v repression n repressive a repute v reputed a
—примирить, уладить спор —примирение, улаживание, соглашен (мнений) —примирение —примиримый, совместимый —вербовать, набирать (в армию), пополнять свои ряды —набор новобранцев, пополнение р —новобранец, новый член (общества) —уменьшать, сокращать, ослаблять —уменьшение, сокращение, снижение —отражать, размышлять —отражение, размышление —отражающий —отвергать, отклонять —отказ, отклонение —отклоненный —быть связанным, иметь отношение, касаться чего-либо —отношения —связанный, имеющий отношение —полагаться, доверять —доверие, уверенность —уверенный —надежный, достоверный —надежность, достоверность —представлять —представление, представительство —представитель —показательный, типичный
—подавлять, угнетать —подавление, угнетение —репрессивный —репутация, общее мнение —известный, пользующийся хорошей ' репутацией
inhle v ■nhlance n ■iibling a сопротивляться, противостоять, удержаться
ibniit v
покоряться, подчиняться; представлять (на рассмотрение) покорность, подчинение submissive a succeed v succession n successor n supplement v supplement n supplementary a supply v supply n survive v survival n survivor n suspend v suspense n threaten v threat n threatening a threatful a tolerate v toleration n tolerable a tolerant a transform v transformation n transformer n transformed a
- покорный, смиренный - следовать за, сменять, преуспевать ~ последовательность, преемственность, порядок наследования - преемник, наследник - дополнять, пополнять - дополнение, приложение - дополнительный - снабжать, поставлять - снабжение, поставка, предложение (экон,) - выжить, пережить - выживание - уцелевший
■временно прекращать, откладывать, отстранять ■напряженность, приостановление ■грозить, угрожать ■угроза ■угрожающий грозный терпеть, переносить терпимость терпимый, сносный терпимый к ч-л изменить, преобразовать преобразование, превращение преобразователь измененный trustless а trustworthy а vary v variety n variable a varied a various a ненадежный заслуживающий доверия меняться, отличаться, изменять(ся) разнообразие, множество изменчивый, переменный различный, отличный разнообразный, разный, разносторонк ии. &
|
legislate v legislation n legislator n legislature n legislative a
