|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Neutralism and World Order
| Article
# : |
12376 |
|
|
Section : |
MODERN THOUGHT
|
| Issue
Date : |
1 / 1987 |
9,143 Words |
| Author
: |
David Gress
David Gress is professor of classics at Aarhus University,
Denmark, and fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute
in Philadelphia. He is the author of works on European history
and contemporary international relations, among them A History
of West Germany 1945-1991 (with Dennis Bark, 1993) and From
Plato to NATO: The Idea of the West and Its Opponents (1998).
His most recent book is The Flickering Lamp: History,
Education, and American Culture in the New Century. |
The problem we are concerned with here is the nature and implications of a political view according to which "there is not much to choose between West and East, that there is constant - if slow - change for the better in the Soviet Union, and that, in any case, Russia has a very strong army and should not be given offense. This view lies somewhere in the middle between outright pacifism, traditional neutralism, anti-American leftism, and the conventional worldview of those diplomats, politicians, journalists, and academics who regard the Soviet Union's foreign relations as driven primarily by nationalism and great power interests and not by Marxist-Leninist ideology. The same conventional wisdom shares some of the traits of all of these older ideologies or schools of thought, but its own particular mix and flavor are original. We need to ask what this neoneutralist view consists of, why it has become popular and with whom, and what its implications are for those of us who would like to see the West survive its long struggle with the Soviet Union.
The neoneutralists do not usually refer to themselves by that name. The opinions I have drawn together and seek to analyze are held by socialists, liberals, and even some conservatives, very few of whom regard themselves as neutralists, neo or otherwise. Neutralism is not an appealing term in today's Europe, except in Austria, Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland, a fact that testifies to the residual effect of Western Europe's ties to the United Sates. Nevertheless, the neoneutralist position is not fully reducible to the general views of the socialists, liberals, or conservatives in question on East-West relations and the proper foreign policy of Western nations. There is a specific set of attitudes shared by a growing group of Europeans and Americans in looking at world politics. Those holding these attitudes usually (but not always) reject neutralism and, if pressed, will deny that they really think that the United States and the Soviet Union are morally equivalent. They will, therefore, reject my description of their opinions as neoneutralist - that is, as implying an abdication from the East-West struggle, a denial that one has a stake in that struggle, or even that the main threat to peace comes from the United States and that the struggle should therefore be waged against Washington and not against Moscow or its allies.
The neoneutralist position has many variants and comprises many beliefs. At the very least, it has to encompass the following nine points. Some of them are so general that many who are not neoneutralists hold them or take them for granted, but the combination of this specific series of beliefs does define the neoneutralist
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
