John Lewis Gaddis, " Toward
the Post-Cold World", Foreign Affairs, Vol 70, No. 2, Spring 1991, pp.
102-122.
The Main Point
:
Gaddis points out how the
post-Cold War world is balanced between two trends: integration and
fragmentation. Integration is a side effect of cold war whereas fragmentation
has always been around. Gaddis argue that those two powers need to be balanced
by each other in order to produce stability.
Summary
:
During the Cold War, the
world was divided between the forces of democracy and those of totalitarianism.
The end of the Cold War means the end of the world driven by those two opposite
forces and the emergence of new balances of power. According to Gaddis, the
forces of integration and fragmentation balance the post-Cold War
world.
First, integration manifests
itself in a variety of ways:
- Integration through the
communications revolution: the spread of
knowledge constitutes a new domino theory;
-
Integration through
economic inter-dependences: "Individual nations depend, for their
own prosperity, upon the prosperity of others to a far greater extent than in
the past. [...] Transnational actors like multinational corporations, economic cartels can have a
powerful influence on what happens to national states";
- Integration through
security: the idea is to create a collective approach to security where
nations can rely on international strength for their own safety
(United-Nations);
- Integration through
ideas: the combination of easy communications, prosperity and security
constitutes the means for the spread of ideas;
- Integration through
peace: the maximization of the flow of ideas, commodities, capital and
people, according to liberal political philosophers, progressively undermine the
causes of war between liberal democracies.
Second, there are three
major sources of fragmentation:
-
Nationalism: the Cold War discouraged nationalism
(the common need to contain the Soviet Union or on the other side to protect
from capitalism discouraged nationalism, especially within Europe) but the end
of Cold War renew those movements in Eastern Europe as well as in Western
Europe;
-
Protectionism: economic manifestation of
fragmentation;
- Within the American society: "It would be difficult to underestimate the disintegrative effects of the drug crisis in this country, or of the breakdown of our system for elementary and secondary education, or of the emergence of what appears to be a permanent social and economic "underclass". [...] When the leading light old American conservatism has to call for a return to a sense of collective interest, then the forces of fragmentation have proceeded very far indeed."
Therefore, the problems the
post-Cold War world are and will be confronted to are the results of the competition processes
between integration and fragmentation. But what is not clear is which of the two
powers is the more likely to win over the other and which one is the more likely
to meet with American interests?
At a first glance, the forces of integration seem more benign, but Gaddis explain that as we look closer to the problem the answer is not clear. The forces of integration, indeed, brought the Cold War to an end but the American society is based on diversity, balance of power and not integrating power.
"Despite classical liberal assumptions, we would be unwise in assuming that an ever-increasing flow of people, commodities and technology across international borders will necessarily, at least ecologically, make the world a safer place."
The end of Cold War also brought new threats, in a more diffuse way. Conflicts have emerged all over the world and many countries (especially in eastern Europe) are subject to political instability. United-States, after Cold War, and as new threats rose, took the role of international peacemaker and are paying for that choice in various ways:
"As a result, a kind of division of labor has developed within the international community, in which the Unites-States contributes the troops and the weaponry needed to sustain the balance of power, while its allies finance the budgetary, energy and trade deficits Americans incur through their unwillingness to make even minimal sacrifice in living standards."
If we consider the most
extreme alternative, a fully integrated world or a fully fragmented world, we
realize how neither of them is to be chosen over the other one. The former would
put an end to national sovereignty and identity and the latter would lead the
world to anarchy. Therefore, Gaddis suggest balancing the forces of
integration and fragmentation against each other. He especially see five field
where there is a need to restore equilibrium:
-
The Soviet Union and Eastern
Europe:
Western countries need to
care more about the eastern issue. Eastern European countries need help for
reconstruction and reintegration in the international framework. They need to
restore self-confidence.
-
New security and economic
structure for Europe:
The United States were an
integrationist during Cold War for Europe. With the end of Cold War, Europe
needs to find a new integrative structure. It also needs to consider its
extension to Eastern Europe.
-
Deterring
aggression:
During Cold War, the great
powers did not really fight; Cold War put an end to major conflicts between
powerful countries. As the Cold War end, there is a need for a collective
international action to deter aggression and put the framework of international
law. This would also solve the problem of United States as the only
peacemakers.
-
Finding appropriate limits
of independence:
Economic integration produces political fragmentation:
"Are Americans really sure, for example, that they want to integrate their own economy into the world market if the result of doing that is to shut down industries they have historically relied upon for both jobs and national defense? When the effects of integration are to transform once-diversified industrial complexes into strings of fast-food outlets and shopping malls, with the reduction in wages that kind of employment usually brings, one can hardly expect people out in the streets cheering for them, however ingenious the rationalization of our professional economists."
Therefore, United-States
need to come up with better mechanism for balancing powers and make sure
economical progress meet political and social needs.
-
Regaining
solvency:
International security is
vain without national stability, equilibrium. The powers need to be balanced on
a national basis as well as on a global basis.
"The quest for security has overwhelmed concern for the vitality of fundamentals values and institutions. [...] A return to solvency will discipline our conception of national interest; the result might well be less grandiose visions but more sustainable policies."
At last Gaddis makes three
important conclusions. First, the forces of integration are new in the world and
they may not be as deeply roots as we like to think The forces of integration
are not doom to win, fragmentation has been around much longer. Second, the
integration model is not perfect, especially, it needs to be regulated, we
cannot leave everything to the invisible hand. Third, as we reject the extremes
solutions we are left with finding our way in the middle
ground.
"We need to
maintain a healthy skepticism about integration: we also need to balance that
skepticism with a keen sense of how unhealthy fragmentationist forces can be if
allowed free rein."