|
|
|
|
CIAO DATE: 04/01
International Affairs:
A Russian Journal
International Relations in the 21st Century
Grigorii Khozin *
Having crossed the threshold into the twenty-first century the world community is seeking more stable and predictable international relations freed from bloodshed and the burden of excessive arms race. The UN and other respected international organizations, prime ministers, academics and public at large are actively discussing possible strategies, practical steps, international norms and institutions in a hope of bringing order to Earth and translating into reality ambitious projects of the past aimed at universal peace, progress, harmony with nature, cultural wealth and variety, and all-round development of individuals.
Viewed in the context of the theory of international relations and political sciences these projects (mushrooming everywhere as a new history of civilization is entering a new century and a new millennium) are purely idealistic. Their authors have obviously outstripped historical development. They rely on the power of human Reason in an attempt to create (in their mind's eye) a society and a system of international relations free from the most obvious blunders, failures and deliberate adventurism. In a not totally ungrounded hope that their dreams may come true in the foreseeable future the idealists are busy creating development strategies and projects of reforms to bring the world closer to the civilization of the future. It is expected to introduce prosperity, harmony, peace and creativity into the lives of men.
The idealists have an inflexible opposition represented by realistically minded politicians and academics. Their rigid adherence to the use of force in politics was formulated by Henry Morgenthau in his classical Politics Among Nations that appeared in 1948. They are convinced that force alone, the force of arms in the first place, together with the most-favored nation regime for a small group of states at the expense of the "rest of mankind" may ensure the "world order" they prefer.
The conflict is a leitmotif of all discussions about the future of the world: the conceptions, strategies and blueprints of reforms boil down to a choice between the use of force still practiced in politics to settle differences and resolve conflicts in favor of one side ("zero-sum game") and attempts at self-perfection. The former has outlived itself; it has already damaged beyond repair the interests of states and the biosphere. The latter calls for a serious critical contemplation of political, economic, military and social blunders and failures. It calls for a deep-cutting analysis of the past and future to be able to bring justice to Earth worth of Homo Sapiens.
The humanities, natural and technical sciences that accomplished spectacular breakthroughs in the latter half of the twentieth century have extended and specified the scientific picture of the world; they are improving public consciousness and adjust individual philosophies to the real world. The change of scientific paradigms and shifts in public consciousness have affected the methods and results of forecasting in international relations. They are modifying the system of factors of decision-making in foreign policies and realization of such decisions; they have urged states to revise their foreign political priorities and put on the agenda new urgent problems, the global problems, in the first place.
One is tempted to ask: What will international relations be in the twenty-first century? The answer depends on whether, and to which extent, the state leaders, heads of international organizations, owners of influential national and transnational corporations, and the public are ready to critically assess the past and to accept the idea of different principles, norms and criteria applied in future to international relations, national and world economies. It is not enough to admit that this state of affairs cannot go on. It is necessary to be prepared to abandon part of one's preferential political status and economic prosperity for the sake of a more constructive and favorable system of international relations. Naturally, other states, governmental and non-governmental organizations and transnational corporations are expected to follow suite.
New determining trends and factors of the twenty-first century
Under any historical conditions the nature of forecasts and the content of strategies based on them are determined by the opposition between traditions and novelties, realism and idealism combined with latest scientific discoveries and critically analyzed political mistakes of near and distant past. Today, people have to ponder over a wide range of novel scientific conceptions, political doctrines and philosophical categories that are increasingly influencing international relations. Everyone in the word is facing this problem irrespective of whether they are involved in national or global politics or are common people concerned over the future of their children and their families. The national interests of any state are better ensured and its activity on the world scene yields better results if those responsible for foreign political actions treat their task seriously.
Today, there is an obvious "rift," a turning point from the past to the future which is of critical importance for the present and future of civilization. The world leaders will be able to negotiate it if they consciously change their attitude to the past and adopt a constructive program to ensure survival in complete harmony with nature that would be easily grasped both by professional politicians and laymen. No matter how perfect, a system of scientific knowledge cannot lead mankind out of the present situation: this is why it is sensitive and critical at the same time. No serious political and public figure can afford an illusion that national and international programs and projects designed to take the edge off the global, regional and national problems can be shelved. Procrastination will endanger the present and future generations.
It should be noted that by the end of the twentieth century scientific knowledge reached a stage of fuller maturity and even perfection. A paradigm of post-nonclassical science appeared amid cardinal worldwide political and economic changes of the post-Cold War period marked by an increased share of interdisciplinary research activity aimed at man and society, and complex research programs involving natural, technical and social sciences. It is trying to break free from traditional philosophy of Western technogenic civilization that accepts man's unlimited intrusion into biosphere and space, ignores negative ecological effects of his economic and military activity, and entertains the idea that sometime in future man-made environment will replace the natural one.
The post-nonclassical paradigm has considerably extended the sphere of outside processes and phenomena that calls for comprehension and of man's spiritual and moral landmarks. Political, social, and economic activity is thus oriented towards remedying the errors of the past that have become obvious, it calls for a more profound integration and cooperation, stronger security and survival.
An increased attention to the humanitarian aspects of practical application of scientific knowledge and technical potentials calls to life methods, procedures and mechanisms of independent social and humanitarian assessment of political doctrines, economic, scientific and technical programs which makes it possible to forecast, in greater detail, their possible negative effects. Independent experts and public figures involved in such assessments will help cut to the minimum possible irreparable damage to nature and society such projects may incur.
The entire range of scientific knowledge is thus brought closer to the process of political decision-making and realization of such decisions. If we believe that scientific recommendations are correct, if we are convinced that we should respond to the objective causes of crises rather than to crises themselves then we should agree that what the world community needs is a paradigm of political action. By this I mean a system of assessments of political, social, and economic situations based on the post-nonclassical scientific paradigm. It uses terms and formulas easily grasped by politicians and the public to outline practical tasks on the national, regional, and global levels. The paradigm of political action should arm states, parties, social movements, business, and cultural and religious figures with an instrument of reaching sustainable development through their concerted efforts.
The majority of those involved in the states' foreign policies, regional and global planning and drafting of strategies have agreed that globalization will emerge as the most significant trend of world development. This means a closer and broader cooperation of states and international organizations. They will close ranks in assessing the situation and seeking solutions to the problems that are growing more acute and are directly affecting the interests of states and mankind as a whole. Universal security and the biosphere's survival depend on their efforts. Continued existence of world civilization is increasingly dependent–in the context of globalization of international relations–on the content of what is called the states' national interests, foreign political aims and tasks, and major development trends in the key regions and the world.
Globalization of international relations is treated as a priority at bilateral and multilateral meetings and summits. The G8 Cologne Communique, 1999 provided the following description of globalization: "Globalization, a complex process involving rapid and increasing flows of ideas, capital, and technologies, goods and services around the world, has already brought profound change to our societies. It has cast us together as never before. Greater openness and dynamism have contributed to the widespread improvement of living standards and a significant reduction of poverty. Integration has helped to create jobs by stimulating efficiency, opportunity and growth. The information revolution and greater exposure to each other's cultures and values has strengthened the democratic impulse and the fight for human rights and fundamental freedoms while inspiring creativity and innovation. At the same time, however, globalization has been accompanied by a great risk of dislocation and financial uncertainty for some workers, families and communities across the world." 1
It was only at the turn of the twenty-first century that globalization has been viewed as the dominant trend of world development yet the processes described as interdependence were evident in the post-World War II period. It was interdependence that brought together states in their shared desire to address many of the old and new problems created by political, military, social and economic factors as well as adverse ecological, mineral and raw material, energy, demographic and food production conditions in individual states and large regions. The states-parties of international relations were forced to recognize their interdependence: all of them and the world as a whole became exposed to the threats created by large-scale problems. They were called global problems of the contemporary period.
They are, in fact, a cluster of contradictions evident at the present stage that have become very acute–any further deterioration carries a hazard of crises dangerous for the future of civilization and even life on Earth. Born by imperfect scientific knowledge of the past and short-sighted utilitarian policies dominated by egoistically interpreted "national interests" the global problems started long ago. This one-sided approach did not allow the politicians to note many of the important factors and trends that imparted to the historical process its complex and multidimensional nature. It embraces politics, economy, technical progress, spiritual development of countries and nations as well as evolution of all forms of life on earth as a single organism, which can normally function and develop under definite conditions.
Early in the twenty-first century the system of global problems embraces the following problems of top importance directly related to the vital interests of states and the world community:
These major problems can be regarded in dialectical interconnection with civilization's development, the world historical process and other political, social, and economic trends. This will help us identify the features and criteria to class this or that problem among the global ones.
The first of them is the transnational or even planetary scale of such problems' manifestations or impacts. The second is the problems' obvious acuteness. There are certain features that can be described as crisis ones. They endanger the world's social and political processes, threaten to undermine the natural foundations of human society and violate evolution. The very fact that global problems appear and grow larger stems from varied, formerly isolated, technical, economic, social, political, and natural processes that become intertwined and mutually dependent in many respects. They are reflected in philosophy, moral and ethical ideas, which guide the states and international organizations in their efforts to grasp global problems and cope with them. Finally, dynamism is another criterion of global problems: called to life by numerous natural, technological, economic, social, political and other factors they are constantly changing under specific historical and geographical conditions and travel along the scale of priorities. From this it follows that in the twenty-first century the global problems will loom high in international relations. This will affect the foreign political doctrines of states, national and international institutes, the decision-making procedures in the field of foreign policy and international law.
Universal security is another important factor of a nearly universal nature. States and the world community will have to take it into account and this will radically change the relationships among those involved in international relations. It is intimately connected with the changed nature of security in the post-Cold War era. This calls for a revision of the system of the relevant national and international institutions and of the relevant decision-making procedures.
"The situation in the world can be described as a dynamic transformation of the entire system of international relations. Economic, political, scientific and technological, ecological and information factors are coming to the fore. Russia will also take part in formulating the ideology of the multi-polar world." 2 This is how the Conception of the National Security of the Russian Federation treats the subject and this is one of the numerous evidences that scientists, political and military leaders of many countries have revised the content of national and international security and the instruments of its realization.
There is any number of political scientists, sociologists and specialists in international relations who while recognizing the integral nature of universal security are holding forth about the means, methods, international norms and mechanisms which will be able to ensure multi-component security of the entire world community. Sometimes they use the term "world security" to describe it. American authors who side with this approach have written: "The world security concept is inspired by recognition of a range of new perils that transcend national borders and exceed the actual capabilities of nation-states. It is informed theoretically by a range of theories that emphasize the growth of global interdependence and a possibility of international cooperation." 3
It is believed that world, or universal security can be best served by a code of conduct of sorts elaborated and observed by all states. It should meet the interests of the world community as a whole and exclude a possibility of serving national interests of states and international organizations by encroaching on the interests of other participants in international relations. If mankind wants to survive for a long time governments and the public should work out identical approaches to the principles of universal security. This is especially true of the states with great military potentials and perfect space technologies.
The international security conceptions call for restraint in relations between states, for averting domestic and international conflicts, for a careful assessment of possible effects of planned actions, for more harmonious relationships with the biosphere. The conception presupposes that new constructive philosophical and political principles, moral and ethical values, and religious norms suggested by people from different states and varied cultures should be taken into account.
Today, in the early twenty-first century the universal security conceptions contain at least seven key components: political, economic, military, humanitarian, ecological, information and anti-terrorist. There are various approaches to the components and their classification. Some of them specify in greater detail the threats to the state and society which the system of national and international security is expected to defuse. No matter what the principles according to which the components are identified and classified are, their number and their share in the system of priorities of universal security will change under the impact of scientific progress, accumulated experience of international cooperation and integration. Greater confidence in the relations between states will play its role. The components and their number will also change in reply to aggressive actions of states or to new threats to mankind in the sphere in which people and nature are expected to cooperate.
There is another factor the significance of which for the states' foreign policies and the entire system of international relations will consistently increase. Here I have in mind the sustainable development conception adopted in the 1992 by the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro.
In the past domination over nature was mankind's primary concern. Today, having learned how to transform the biosphere and influence development of many forms of life it feels that time has come to find agreement inside itself, to alter those political and social patterns that undermine civilization's natural basis and threatens mankind's continued existence.
The Stockholm UN Conference of the Human Environment 4 held in 1972 was the first attempt to assess the global ecological situation, systematize its causes and decide how to address a wide range of complex problems existing in the sphere of man-nature interaction. The conference proved the turning point after which the academic community and the public concentrated on the problems of preservation and rational use of the resources of biosphere and ensuring sustainability.
The report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) entitled "Our Common Future" offers a profound analysis of the sustainable development concept. It says that sustainable development in physical terms is possible only within a tough system of social and political norms. "Hence sustainable development requires that societies meet human needs both by increasing productive potential and by ensuring equitable opportunities for all." 5 The report has also pointed out that by limiting harmful effects on certain specific components of the environment (air, water, soil, etc.) society can preserve the biosphere integral: "In essence, sustainable development is a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of the technological development and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human need and aspiration." 6
There are three important objectives stated in the sustainable development conceptions:
(1) gradual improvement of the means of production and social productive forces with an aim of irreversible decrease of irreparable damage of the biosphere; to proceed from producing goods and services at the expense of nature to ensuring social requirements by introducing forms and methods of economic activity that would not undermine the natural foundations of mankind's existence;
2) each plan and program of political and socioeconomic development at all levels should assess possible damage to the biosphere, money should be allocated to compensate for such damage;
3) the interests of the future generations should be taken into account by all means: they have an inalienable right to use the planet's exhaustible resources; those living today should exercise reasonable restraint both in using the natural resources in their economic activity and incurring damage to the biosphere for the sake of the future generations.
In June 1992 a UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro adopted Agenda for the 21st Century, a program of the world community's transition to sustainable development. The document of an advisory nature has been described as a "universal project" for the governments, the UN organizations and agencies for socioeconomic development, NGOs, private businesses acting together in all spheres where they come into contact with the biosphere. It offered a system of ecological norms and foreign political principles for the future. The governments and international organizations are free to adopt (in part or in full) any of its points or may totally disregard this important document. On the whole, on the world scale, we are witnessing an irreversible trend towards realization of national programs of sustainable development. What is more, there is a trend towards closer international cooperation and coordination of this activity within regions and worldwide. This is a qualitatively new stage in the evolution of political doctrines of states, which have come to embrace ecological tasks of varying nature and scope. Their realization will call for a revision of a number of fundamental principles of foreign and domestic policies.
The trend towards a state's sustainable development in ecological and other spheres, towards international relations freed from conflicting situations and towards stabilization of the already existing conflicts will contribute to a revision of the states' foreign political priorities. This trend will also contribute to newly created global strategies designed to preserve the natural primary elements of life on earth and the world community's activity by switching to concerted measures to protect the biosphere. One has to point out that the sustainable development conception is further removed from the basic political categories than the global factors discussed above. It many respects this conception goes against the traditional interpretation of the "national interest": the latter divides, rather than unites, those involved in international relations striving to secure their aims through force and infringing in the process on the vital interests of other nations and states. What is more, the leaders of world economy and technology that have already ensured for themselves favorable political and economic conditions worldwide are interpreting sustainable development in line with the worst traditions of the past. They still believe that only those states that show due respect for the "Western mode of life and thought" and are prepared to trail meekly behind the world community's "recognized leaders" are allowed to build a democratic society deviating from the "commonly accepted standards," overcome their backwardness and develop national economy and the social sphere. 7
The above post-Cold War factors and trends have one thing in common, a qualitatively new feature of state policies. Today, states and nations show a sincere desire to build up a viable and harmonious civilization. The starting point of all foreign political doctrines and the hierarchy of priorities has shifted. In the past ambitious monarchs and heads of state were self-centered politically, concentrating in their state's national interests. They were prepared to go to all lengths to ensure them. They never recoiled from the use of force or even adventurist course of action totally disregarding possible consequences for their neighbors and the biosphere. They limited their vision with their own states and the neighbors that were doomed to be their satellites. Events elsewhere provided the background for their own efforts and strategies.
In the twenty-first century none of the states can be denied the right to realize their national interests the content of which will be constantly revised. Yet one feels that in this millennium all the participants in international relations will gradually come to a conviction that stability, integration, efficient cooperation are too precious to be disregarded. This will help them to preserve integrity, viability and productive nature of the world political system, global economic infrastructure and the biosphere. International relations of the future will have to abide by the harsh logic of the need to do everything possible (and sometimes impossible) to protect the biosphere while pursuing their foreign political aims. In fact, the biosphere and its evolution have become one of the key components of the world political process. Academician Nikita Moiseyev warned in his last article: "A single ill-advised gesture may wipe Homo Sapiens as a biological species away from the planet's surface. A global ecological catastrophe may steal up to us quite unexpectedly and in a sudden way. The situation may go out of hand." 8 From this it follows that in the twenty-first century international relations should rule out egoism and an adventurous nature of certain states and political groups so that to preserve the vital fabric of international politics and protect the very phenomenon of life.
Priorities and geometry of world politics in the twenty-first century
The world community has left behind the realities and problems of the Cold War period stamped with arms race, an ideological confrontation between socialism and capitalism. Today it is seeking ways towards safer and more constructive cooperation among those involved in the political process, to bring their national interests closer together and to drop the most violent means of their realization. Today, experts and politicians mainly agree that the bi-polar world is the thing of the past. It is equally obvious, however, that the international relations in the process of switching to the multi-polar model will for a long time remain under the influence of the stereotypes, conceptions, norms and procedures of the bi-polar world. Nobody doubts that the United States and Russia will remain the key subjects of international relations in any "world geometry" not necessarily as "poles" or "power centers." In the twenty-first century all participants in international relations will work towards stable peace–this will be their absolute priority.
Absence of wars and armed conflicts should not become the beginning and end of peaceful international relations of the future: the American academic and diplomat James Goodby has classified the states of the world in his Europe Undivided. He says that unstable peace predominated during the Cold War period. It protected the world community against catastrophic results and chaos if the US and the USSR exchange large-scale nuclear strikes. This peace is too vulnerable and fraught with tragedies to serve a pattern for us in the twenty-first century. There is little doubt that a new generation of politicians and diplomats will find instructive the experience of the times when political leaders from hostile military and political groups, past masters of brinkmanship, treaded cautiously in crises and sought closer positions on many political, military, social and economic problems.
We have inherited from the past another category of peace which is conditional peace. It is described as a less acute and less tense conflicting situation in which deterrence was used as an instrument of averting foreign political conflicts fraught with crises and armed clashes. It will survive in the twenty-first century because due to their histories, political systems and cultures, their cultural heritage and the specifics of mass consciousness the states will hardly improve, promptly and irreversibly, their mutual relationships.
In future the subjects of bilateral and multi-lateral relations, including those united into political, military, and economic blocs and groups will find stable peace best suited to their interests. It will not allow any of the parties in international relations to use force or the threat of such use as an instrument of conflict settlement. J. Goodby has emphasized that on the threshold of the twenty-first century stable peace already became a reality for the members of the Western democratic model. They share political values and procedures and for many years have been members of European and Euro-Atlantic political, military, and economic blocs and alliances. 9 The majority of experts agree that in the foreseeable future international relations will be subjected to a wide range of pressures from varied factors and conditions. Henry Kissinger, prominent theoretician and practician of the Cold War era, has written: "International system of the twenty-first century will contain at least six major powers: the United States, Europe, China, Japan, Russia and, possibly, India as well as multiplicity of medium-sized and smaller countries." 10 His scheme contains at least three (Russia, China, India) poles the policy of which will be independent from that of the United States and their allies in many respects.
Another prominent American political scientist believes that today "global policy has become multi-polar and multi-civilizational." Samuel Huntington says that the end of the Cold War sent up the hopes for a more integral, "relatively more harmonious world". He has to admit, however, that these hopes proved unfounded: "The world became different in the early 1990s but not necessarily peaceful. Change was inevitable; progress was not." 11 He thinks that all sorts of religions deeply rooted in mankind's past and also cultural values of nations are ill suited for coexistence: "The major contemporary civilizations are thus as follows: Chinese, Japanese, Hindu, Islamic, Orthodox, Western, Latin American, African (possibly)." 12 He sees in this fact a source of future contradictions on the international arena and a real prerequisite for new centers of power and influence to appear in the world.
Many American and West European academics follow in Huntington's footsteps. They too are holding forth about a higher worldwide profile of many states representing non-Western societies, cultures and religions: Japanese, Chinese, Hindu, Muslim, African, Latin American, and Christian Orthodox. They are convinced that this state of affairs has created a dangerous trend towards isolating Western civilization which, until quite recently, was successfully coping with its role of the "leader of progress" for the entire world community. It also claimed the role of an only architect of a "preferential world order" acceptable for all.
Experts of the US National Defense University visualize international relations of the future as a set of circles circumscribed around the "developed democracies"–"core partners–successful democracies that can join the United States in shouldering the burden of the core's security and expansion. This group has less than one-fifth of the world's population but four-fifth of its economic capacity." 13
The next concentric circle, close to the "community of responsible democracies" is made of the "transitory states" of Eastern Europe, Latin America and Southeast Asia. The "rogue states" are close to the transitory states. They "reject the ideas and given the chance would attack the interests of the United States and core partners." Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Libya, Serbia and, probably, some other states and liberation movements are classed as "rogue states." Under certain circumstances they may move openly, with the use of force, against the values and political interests of the core states.
The failed states are the farthest from the core states. They have failed to establish a sort of an order on their territories and meet their citizens' basic needs. Refugees are leaving them in great numbers, their flow destabilizing the social and political situation within large regions. American researchers have placed Somalia, Ruanda, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Zaire and some other countries in Central Africa and elsewhere within the group. It takes no wisdom to guess that the American researchers have outlined an American-centrist model of the world in which the United States and their clients, successful democracies, will impose their norms and rules of conduct on the rest of the world.
The Conception of the Twenty-first Century World shows the way towards stable and secure international relations
At the Cologne G8 summit in June 1999 first President of Russia Boris Yeltsin formulated an idea of a Conception of the Twenty-first Century World. Foreign Minister of Russia Igor Ivanov speaking at the 54th session of the UN General Assembly on 21 September, 1999 and in French Senate on 27 October, 1999 pointed to the deep-cutting changes in the life of mankind brought about by the coming post-industrial society. In his definitive article published in Nezavisimaia gazeta on 30 December, 1999 President Putin, then prime minister of Russia, has written that Russia's future in the twenty-first century lies in an "organic combination of universal humanitarian values and purely Russian time-tested values." The latest official documents of the Russian Federation contain a wide range of principles and propositions that can serve a foundation of an international discussion mankind need very much about a system of norms and rules of conduct. Working documents of the Foreign Ministry of Russia have outlined practical approaches to this idea.
The Conception of the World in the Twenty-first Century is a set of principles the states should govern themselves internationally. They will help establish a world without violence, a world of universal security, promote transition of states and regions to sustainable development, to a harmonious civilization that would embrace states, nations, cultures, and religions. This conception is expected to become an efficient instrument of building a just, multi-polar, stable and democratic world order.
It will provide a reference point for all sorts of international initiatives aimed at creating a new culture of the world based on the universal axiological system and the behavior pattern for all those involved in international relations. The new culture rejects wars and armed conflicts as a rational solution, it orientates the world community on a system of international relations in which each state would be equally secure and each human being enjoy equal rights and freedoms. The document will be a product of creative efforts of governments, political parties and public movements, academic and cultural communities, and religious figures. Individual states and the world community as a whole are confronted with challenges, risks and threats a careful analysis of which will require concerted efforts and broad cooperation of all forces concerned with the future. This will provide a firm foundation for principles of a "collective potential" to rebuff the threats and challenges. A practical application of such potential will call for an efficient mechanism to regulate the states' and international organizations' joint efforts.
The Foreign Policy Conception of the Russian Federation identifies "an impact on the world processes to achieve a stable, just, and democratic world order based on commonly recognized international legal norms, including, first and foremost, the aims and principles of the UN Charter, and equal partnerships among the states" 14 as one of the foreign political priorities.
In one form or another heads of state and government touched upon the subject at the Millennium Summit and the UN General Assembly. Academics and experts, governmental and non-governmental organizations active in various spheres have also discussed the idea. The very fact that the initiative came from Russia and that its Foreign Ministry is actively specifying the document's details and propositions while discussing it with its foreign political partners testifies that Russia is working towards the planet's future worthy of the loftiest ideals of peace and progress.
Endnotes
Note *: Grigorii Khozin is professor at the Department of Foreign Policy and International Relations at the Diplomatic Academyof the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Doctor of Sciences (History). Back
Note 1: G8 Cologne Communique, 1999, Point 2. Back
Note 2: Nezavisimoe voennoe obozrenie, 2000, No. 1. Back
Note 3: Michael Klare, Daniel Thomas, World Security, Challenges for a New Century, New York, 1994, p. 3. Back
Note 4: United Nations Conference of the Human Environment. An Action Plan for the Human Environment. A/CONF. 48/5, 9 February, 1972, p. 15. Back
Note 5: Our Common Future. The World Commission on Environment and Development, London, 1987, p. 44. Back
Note 6: Ibidem, p. 46. Back
Note 7: "Otritsatel'noe otnoshenie rossiiskikh uchenykh k kontseptsiaim ustoichivogo razvitia," Nezavisimaia gazeta, 2 June, 2000, p. 8. Back
Note 8: Nezavisimaia gazeta, 23 August, 2000, p. 8. Back
Note 9: James E. Goodby, Europe Divided. The New Logic of US-Russian Relations, 1998, pp. 4-5. Back
Note 10: Henry A. Kissinger, Diplomacy, New York, 1994, pp. 23-24. Back
Note 11: Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York, 1996, p. 31. Back
Note 12: Ibidem, pp. 45-47. Back
Note 13: Strategic Assessment 1998. Engaging Power for Peace, National Defense University. Institute for National Strategic Studies, Washington, 1998, pp. 3-4, 11-16. Back
Note 14: Nezavisimaia gazeta, 11 July, 2000. Back