Regional instability part of post-Cold War order, George says

STANFORD -- The United States sits in the driver's seat for constructing a
"new world order" but will experience serious difficulty gaining the American
public's support for an ambitious, expensive foreign policy.

That is the message that Stanford University political scientist Alexander
George delivered in a paper presented at the Nobel Institute's Jubilee
Symposium, "Beyond the Cold War: Future Dimensions in International
Relations," held in Oslo on Dec. 6-8 to mark the 90th anniversary of the
Nobel Peace Prize.

Fifteen scholars from around the world and 17 Nobel Peace Prize laureates
were invited by the Norwegian Nobel Committee to take stock of where the
world stands and where it is headed.

George, who is a distinguished fellow at the United States Institute of
Peace in Washington, D.C., was one of three scholars invited to discuss the
role of regional conflicts in international affairs. He joined Nobel
laureates Oscar Arias Sanchez, former president of Costa Rica, and Archbishop
Desmond Tutu of South Africa.

Although the superpowers have been cooperating to liquidate their past
stakes in regional conflicts, regional instability is likely as a result of
the end of the Cold War, George said. The patron-client relationships that
developed between the superpowers and states in most regions of the world
have either been loosened or broken. The former clients are forced to
"rethink their relationships with other nations in the region," George said.
"Those who felt constrained by superpower pressure have new freedom that may
lead them to more daring policy moves in future regional disputes."

"As for Israel, the collapse of the Soviet position in the Middle East
weakens Israel's strategic importance to U.S. policy in the region. Although
America's moral commitment to the security of Israel remains undiminished, it
will not prevent Washington from increasing pressure now on Israel to show
more flexibility on some regional issues."

The United States gained "assets and opportunities" worldwide from its
role in the Gulf crisis, as well as from the collapse of its superpower
rival. Washington has an unusual opportunity to shape the contours of a new
international system, George said.

Some have suggested this new international system could rely on
"collective security" provided through the United Nations. George said that
is unlikely because the United States and other major powers still will have
national interests that won't always coincide with the larger community's.

Also, "since other states have only a very limited power- projection
capability, it would be difficult for the U.N. to mount effective action of
any substantial size without the participation of U.S. military forces to
provide the necessary logistical support," he said.

The United States may be in the strongest position to prescribe the new
world order, but the U.S. president is severely constrained by pressing
domestic priorities and sharp disagreements at home as to how ambitious an
international role America should play.

In addition, "it would be a mistake to assume that the 'Vietnam syndrome'
is no longer present to serve as a major constraint on U.S. military
interventions," George said. "Success in the Gulf War has not dimmed
responsible Washington policymakers' understanding of the ever-present
domestic constraints on interventions abroad and other lessons of the Vietnam
experience. . . .

"Given the diversity of foreign policy perspectives among influential
Americans, it will not be easy for the administration to develop a broad,
stable consensus on behalf of a comprehensive and well-defined role in the
post-Cold War, post-Gulf War era. This does not exclude useful progress
towards a better international system, but the administration's efforts are
likely to take the form of ad hoc measures and building blocks that are not
part of a larger, more ambitious conceptual design."

The building blocks include policies to:

Encourage free markets and trade.

Encourage human rights.

Support peaceful resolution of disputes.

Prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Curb international terrorism.

Promote democracy abroad, based on a general belief that totalitarian
regimes pose a greater threat to peace than democratic states.

George also said that the end of the Cold War has

contributed indirectly to rising incidence of internal state ethnic and
religious conflicts, part of the new regional "disorder."

However, "responses to Kurdish and Shiite difficulties raise the
possibility that, in the future, members of the international community may
assert a new norm demanding the right to intervene for humanitarian purposes
in the internal affairs of a regime engaged in repression of minorities," he
said.

Yet the European Community has not been able to take decisive action in
the Yugoslav case, which "calls attention to the need to give more attention
to strengthening the mediation and peacekeeping capability of regional
organizations."

-kpo-

911217Arc1010.html

This is an archived release.

This release is not available in any other form.
Images mentioned in this release are not available online.
Stanford News Service has an extensive library of images,
some of which may be available to you online.
Direct your request by EMail to newslibrary@stanford.edu.