The End of the Cold War and Its Legacy: the USA, International Security and the International Order After 1989

1. Kostadin Grozev, 2 June 2003, Mykolaiv 1 �The End of the Cold War and Its Legacy: the USA, International Security and the International Order After 1989� American Studies Summer Institute �American Studies in Ukraine � Exploring Diversity�, 1-8 June 2003

2. Kostadin Grozev, 2 June 2003, Mykolaiv 2

3. Kostadin Grozev, 2 June 2003, Mykolaiv 3 Introduction Order v. Diversity in International Relations (historical background) Changing Concepts of International Security after 1989 Cold War Legacy � super-powers� confrontation between 2 actors (blocks), predominance of military strategy, armaments etc National (military) security v. soft-security (non-military) concerns

4. Kostadin Grozev, 2 June 2003, Mykolaiv 4 Defining Security in the 21st Century How did the end of the Cold War and September 11 change our perception of security? What are the most pressing security threats the U.S./Europe face today and what are possible solutions in dealing with these threats? Are any of these threats unique to only one transatlantic partner or are they shared? How can bio and cyber terrorism, (il)legal (im)migration, disease, ethnic and cultural factors, and issues of technology transfer be incorporated in our understanding of security? What are their security implications?

5. Kostadin Grozev, 2 June 2003, Mykolaiv 5 Topics of Discussion Economic Globalization and International Security The Changing Nature of Conflict The Need of Leadership and the Role of the United States Is there a �Common House Europe�?

6. Kostadin Grozev, 2 June 2003, Mykolaiv 6 Global Economy Globalization exists, no matter what we think of it! Early 1990�s � triumph of market economy. Idea that it makes wars obsolete. Thus global security coming Arguments against: States primary actors in IR (UN no mechanism for global security); increase in transnational crime and weapons sales; global regional inequalities; new threats due to domestication of foreign policy Iraq 1990/1991, Asian crisis 1998

7. Kostadin Grozev, 2 June 2003, Mykolaiv 7 Changing Nature of Conflicts Inter-state conflicts expected to prevail in the next decades Most conflicts � identity-driven (issues of ethnicity, break-up of federalism, religious violence) Chaos, barbarity, complexity Traditional methods of intervention (diplomatic pressure, sanctions) fail Violence - not a means but an end aim Lack of legal criteria for international intervention (right of human right intervention) on part of UN, NATO,OECD Revolution in Military Affairs as an impetus to unilateral actions (e.g.USA) Cases of Kosovo 1999 and Iraq 2003

8. Kostadin Grozev, 2 June 2003, Mykolaiv 8 The US and the Need for World Leader(s)? Did the US Win the Cold War? How and to What Extent? Victory of Values such as Liberalism and Democracy US � the only military superpower US � prime factor in coalition-building Uni-lateralism v. Multi-lateralism US domestication of foreign policy with the absence of a foreign adversary US and the role of non-state actors in IR War on Terrorism

9. Kostadin Grozev, 2 June 2003, Mykolaiv 9 From �The National Security Strategy of the USA�, 2002 �Today,the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence. In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage.We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty. In a world that is safe, people will be able to make their own lives better.We will defend the peace by fighting terrorists and tyrants.We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. We will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent.�

10. Kostadin Grozev, 2 June 2003, Mykolaiv 10 The National Security Strategy of the USA, 2002 �Defending our Nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal Government. Today, that task has changed dramatically. Enemies in the past needed great armies and great industrial capabilities to endanger America. Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank. Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies against us�.

11. Kostadin Grozev, 2 June 2003, Mykolaiv 11 Is There a �Common House Europe�? �Common House Europe� (Gorbachev) � A Failed Concept? Backbones of European Security � OECD, EAPC, EU, NATO NATO � only institution, able to manage conflict, enforce peace, provide order (Bosnia v.Kosovo) Partnership for Peace NATO�s enlargement � does it promote a common European Security Identity? Russia � a strategic partner or rival in the new security architecture of Europe?

12. Kostadin Grozev, 2 June 2003, Mykolaiv 12 NATO and International Security Should NATO�s mission expand outside the European continent and if so, why? Should NATO cover more geographic space (pertaining to the debate on enlargement)? NATO expansion may incorporate countries with potential new threats (disease, crime, etc.) Does it make sense to take such risks at the present time? Is NATO obsolete? Or, are there still enough shared elements (culture, ways of life) between the U.S. and Europe that justify an expanded role? Are there other international organizations (UN) that might handle present day security threats more effectively?

13. Kostadin Grozev, 2 June 2003, Mykolaiv 13 What Comes Next? �Though the former superpower is an IR actor of regional character with a vast decrease in military power and profound economic and political problems, long term stability on the European continent can only be achieved with a clear strategy towards Moscow� Kurt Spillman, �Towards the 21st Century: Trends in Post-Cold War International Security Policy�, Bern, 1999, p. 324

14. Kostadin Grozev, 2 June 2003, Mykolaiv 14 Think Over Follow-up When is unilateralism appropriate? Should the U.S. continue to play the role of world policeman? Is there a need for a new overarching security arrangement (maybe a NATO-Russia Council)? Does the U.S. (do other nations) require a mandate from the UN to defend itself? How is legitimacy achieved when a nation acts without some form of international authorization? How does one tighten security (improve security provisions) without infringing upon basic human rights? Is there a need for changes in international organizations, deployment, communications, information processing?