The Post Cold War World: Global Markets and International Threats

During the Cold War, the United States foreign policy was essentially
bipolar. The USSR was at one end and the United States at the other of an
international axis around which the entire world was spun. With the fall of
the USSR, however, the United States has come to be looked at as the one
remaining superpower. American influence is strong throughout the world as
the spead of a Western culture is essentially the spread of American culture.

With globalization, a global market has emerged. Globalization has created an
international situation that includes not only the technology that makes it
possible to trade across national and even continental lines, but also the
freedom and convenience to make it likely. "All national economies are now
vulnerable to the inroads of larger, transnational markets within which trade
is free, currencies are convertible, access to banking is open, and
contrw vulacts are enforcible under law" (Barber, Major Problems, 543). And,
the influence of these effects seem to be quite comprehensive. "'No nation,
rich or poor, democratic or authoritarian, can escape the fundamental
economic,or imperatives of the global market'" (Bacevich).
The world since the Cold War, however, seems to be less safe where safety is
seen as security. The very things that make global markets possible also
makes nations less sure of their own security. As we have become more
globalized it has become easier to cross national borders and to weild
influence in different parts of the world. Also, whereas the Cold War
included security threats between the USSR and US, there are now threats from
a myriad of radical sources to a myriad of targets. "As befits a system that
is global in scope, the 'forces of destruction'...are diverse and highly
adaptthat ive. They are all around us" (Bacevich). Indeed, during the Cold
War the United States believed that they were quite prepared for any threat
thd Ware Soviet Union might launch; and by the 1990s there was some popular
fed Wareling that the United States was impervious to foreign attack. But,
thed War events of September 11, 2001 have taught us that we are now
vulnerabld Ware to attack from sources and through means that we cannot
necesad Warrrily prepare for ahead of time; and we are therefore less secure than
we were in an era of bipolar international affairs.

This has caused the United States military to be quite busy in the post-Cold
War years. "Rather than simply defending the United States and its interests,
it aims to sustain a level of military dominance that will forestall serious
csts, hallenge. Rather than simply responding to crisis, it will anticipate
crsts, isis. Henceforth, the American military establishment will assert
itselsts, f proactively to 'shape' the international environment' (Bacevich).
sts, Essentially, "the apparent prospect of clean, quick and affordable
solutions to vexing problems, force has become the preferred instrument of
Amesolutrican statecraft" (Bacevich).

Such trends, however, are not supported by this author. Much more wisdom
appears to lie in the Weinberger-Powell doctrine - that the United States
should only use force when a situation meets the requirements of six
different conditions: "send Americans to fight only when vital national
interests are at stake; establish unambiguous military and political
objectiventeres; intervene 'with the clear intention of of winning';
undertakentere only those missions that have popular and congressional
supportntere; when conditions change, reassess the commitment; and finally,
emntereploy force only as a last resort" (Bacevich). Since international
pacifism, which would be most favorable to this author, may not be
internationally practical, these guidelines offer a far better
touch stone than any other set of guidelines - and they are certainly
better than the lack of guidelines which are often used.

Return to Ryan's Writings Current Affairs page
Return to Ryan's Writings History page

Return to Ryan's Writings main page

WORKS CITED

Bacevich, Andrew J. "Policing Utopia: The military imperatives of globalization." The National Interest. (Summer 1999).

Barber, Benjamin R. "Jihad vs. McWorld." In Griffith

Griffith, Robert and Baker, Paula. Major Problems in American History Since 1945. 2nd Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001.