World & I Online Magazine  
World & I School | World & I Homeschool | World & I College | World & I Library
 Username:   Password:     Subscribe   Register               About Us | Contact Us | FAQs
18-Year Archive Peoples of the World Book Review Worldwide Folktales Fathers of Faith
Search  
Sort by: Results Listed:
Date Range:    Advanced Search

Online Magazine
 
  Current Issue
Editorial
Current Issue
The Arts
Life
Natural Science
Culture
Book World
Modern Thought
  Resources
18-Year Archive
American Waves
Book Reviews
Ceremonies/Festivities
Eye on the High Court
Fathers of Faith
Footsteps of Lincoln
Millennial Moments
Peoples of the World
Profiles in Character
Teacher's Guide
Traveling the Globe
Worldwide Folktales
Writers and Writing

The Illusion of Peace


Article # : 11012 

Section : CURRENT ISSUES
Issue Date : 6 / 1986  2,742 Words
Author : Eugene V. Rostow
Professor Rostow, formerly under secretary of state for political affairs and director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, is now distinguished visiting research professor of law and diplomacy at the National Defense University.

       In our May issue, THE WORLD & I published an article in this section titled "Proposal for Peace" by Dr. Morton A. Kaplan, in which he proposed a three-phase withdrawal of U.S. and Soviet conventional forces and nuclear weapons from the European continent. Dr. Eugene V. Rostow has written a rebuttal to Dr. Kaplan's piece.
       
        Professor Kaplan is an eminent and usually a realistic scholar. But in his paper, he succumbed to a familiar and insidious academic temptation--the appeal of escaping from the intractable problems of the real world into the delights of constructing a utopia. His article recalls Keynes' comment on a complex monetary plan that a writer of the 1930s had proposed as a magic cure for the Great Depression. "If the governments and central banks were ready to recognize the problem they face," Keynes said, "they could find a much simpler way to deal with it."
       
        Importance of Eurasia
       
        Kaplan's major premise is absolutely sound. The most important national security interest of the United States, he says, is to prevent any one power from dominating the vast landmass of Eurasia, a reservoir of raw materials, skilled labor, technological resources, capital, and entrepreneurship far greater than that of the United States alone. As Sir Halford John Mackinder pointed out two generations ago, the dominance of Eurasia by a single power would automatically make that nation the arbiter of global destiny. The islands of the world, like Britain, Japan, and the United States, could not oppose the weight of its power and would have to submit to its overlordship.
       
        Our security interest in the balance of world power is not peculiar to the United States. It is shared by most other nations of the world and in particular by the larger states--our NATO allies, Japan, and China--which together with the United States and Canada, have more than enough power to achieve and maintain the balance against a Soviet thrust for mastery. Once the Soviet Union recovers from its doomed obsession with hegemony, it will realize that its security too depends upon a stable and well-managed system of balanced power.
       
        The American educational system has not trained our people to speak and write in the vocabulary of geopolitics. We discuss international affairs in a special language that combines power politics and moral enthusiasm.
       
        But the international behavior of the
... Read Full Article


Look for this article in Ask.com

Copyright © 2004 The World & I. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy