Unipolar world- a way to organize the power of the entire Earth in one hand. Most often, by these hands we mean a superpower. This system is extremely controversial; it has been debated for a long time. And it all started, of course, with the Cold War.
Bipolar and unipolar world
It was during the Cold War of the 20th century that they started talking about some kind of polarity. The world was recognized bipolar. The world knew two states, and the rest of the world was their playing field. And although many will not agree with me, most often referring to the relative strength of the EU, nevertheless, everyone recognizes that there were two forces, two centers of the world - the West and the East. An eternal struggle that has a much longer history than a century and a half. But it was after Churchill’s famous speech that this struggle rose to a new level. Bipolar world was born.
His position became precarious after the collapse of one of the giants. We started talking about a unipolar world. And naturally, only the United States could now lay claim to the position of ruler. One of the political figures who put forward this theory was M. Thatcher, who spoke directly about this in her book “History of State Administration”. In defense of the theory of unipolarity, arguments were made about the need for a global arbiter, centralized power in the hands of a reasonable and democratic government. Also, at that moment in history, when they started talking about a unipolar system, an important change was taking place in politics for the EU countries: the unification of Germany. In March 1990, a few months after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Thatcher called on France to unite in the face of the "German threat" and also expressed fears that a united Germany would try to become the most powerful country in Europe. It was in the face of Germany's strong power that the rest of the countries, especially Great Britain, needed a counterweight.
M. Thatcher
On the other side, in the East, unipolarity was viewed with skepticism. This especially affected Russia. V. Putin reacted sharply negatively to this “one master” theory, which was logical from the point of view of the losing country. However, more objective sources are against this theory. Their argument and motive is simple, strong and understandable - unlimited power over the world of one superpower will contribute to anti-democratization, suppression of the rights of other countries, and lynching. This was familiar to the world long before the very word “unipolar” and the entire science of political science in the modern sense. The Roman Empire, the Mongolian Empire and the Spanish Empire - the best monopolists in history - could hardly boast of being democratic. Some of them lasted longer, but still tended toward discreteness, separation, and disintegration. Entropy is their lot. Although the territories still cannot but surprise. Just analyze the cards:
Roman Empire in 117 AD e. 
Mongol Empire 
Spanish Empire In response today, supporters of a unipolar strategy talk about the inevitability of world unity into a single network, about globalization and integration, about the growth of the population of the entire planet, about world problems. All this requires centralized power, no longer just at the level of states. Throughout the 20th century, you saw the cohesion and strengthening of the whole world, whether it was the Warsaw Warfare, NATO or the G7, the CIS or the EU - the world was united as never before. But is an arbitrator needed? Does this all speak for unipolarity?
Nevertheless, the other bloc is not lagging behind and offers its own versions of how to behave in modern realities. And one of the common theories suggests that it is worth... returning to the bipolar system.
This point of view was defended by the American political scientist K. Waltz back in the 70s. In his work “The Theory of International Politics” (1979), he saw the significance of bipolarity in that it minimizes uncertainty, since the number of participants in the confrontation in this model is sharply limited.
In the conditions of the modern interpenetrated world, the presence of many centers of power can lead to chaos: since there are many points, there are many interests; hence a lot of collisions. Balance of forces, dynamic equilibrium can only exist when there are two equal bowls on the scales. And the key to the peace of the planet lies in a return to a bipolar world, where one side balances the other
V.B. Tikhomirov even believes that “at the global level, the world social system has always been and remains, to a very certain extent, bipolar, which is manifested in its invariant structure.” According to the scientist, unipolarity generally contradicts the laws of nature. The world is simply doomed to be bipolar, because the poles “must complement each other within the framework of the unity of opposites.”
But many see the second pole not in Russia, but in other, more actively developing countries, such as China. Its prospects have been talked about for a long time, and modern news reports are beginning to resemble the predictions of Tikhomirov and Waltz.
Multipolar world
The strategy is less popular and more difficult to implement in practice due to the fact that it requires the uniform development of many countries and equalization of the economic level.
Here are the main arguments of supporters of a multipolar world
As in all areas, competition is still better than monopoly.
After all, competition forces leading members of the community to strengthen their quality, etc., and participants occupying the second and third echelons still not only follow in the footsteps of one of the leaders, but also defend their interests.
In a monopoly, it’s the other way around: there is one flagship, and all the others are either with it or must be destroyed.
This idea opposes the bipolarity of the world, arguing that the world does not need another Cold War, which leads to the accumulation of weapons, in particular nuclear weapons. This idea seems closest to the ideas of humanism and democracy. And yet, utopian. Meanwhile, the meaning of the famous song is now perceived completely differently:
We're all living in America..
Sources of photographs used:
- http://www.the-dialogue.com
- http://oboi-na-stol.com
all controversial issues. Thus, the USSR provided China with a one-percent loan in the amount of $300 million, transferred the rights to the former Chinese Eastern Railway to the Chinese government free of charge, left the port of Dalniy (Dalian) 25 years before the expiration date of the agreement and withdrew its military forces from the joint Soviet-Chinese base of Port Arthur , transferring all property and structures to the Chinese side. A “great friendship” was proclaimed between the USSR and China forever.
Formation of a bipolar world
After the war, the world was actually redivided, two main poles of attraction emerged, and a bipolar geopolitical model. At a meeting of the Cominform in November 1949, the report of M.A. Suslov stated that on the one hand there is aggressive and bloody imperialism, pursuing a policy of violence against peoples, preparing for war against the USSR, on the other - the progressive USSR
and his allies.
Churchill spoke most definitely about the nature of Soviet foreign policy, calling it “Soviet imperialism” and emphasizing the close connection of the foreign policy aspirations of the Soviet Union with the communist idea. He noted that after the war, “Russian imperialism and the communist doctrine did not see and did not set a limit to their advancement and desire for final domination.” Having adopted Lenin’s idea of a “world revolution,” the pragmatic politician Stalin gradually transformed it into the concept of the steady expansion of the “socialist camp,” spheres of influence in the “Third World” under the slogans of proletarian internationalism, the unity of peace fighters, etc. Along with consistent, realistic actions to expand the Soviet bloc and the zone of influence in the Third World countries, Moscow's post-war ambitions sometimes went beyond sober calculations. Thus, the most odious example, difficult to explain from the point of view of common sense, can be considered Stalin’s demands in the summer-autumn of 1945, which were doomed to failure from the very beginning. These are demands for a change in the regime of the Black Sea Straits, the return of the Kara and Ardahan districts to the USSR, which became Turkish in 1921, the participation of the USSR in the administration of Tangier (Morocco), as well as statements of interest in changing the political regimes in Syria, Lebanon, and a number of Italian colonies in Africa . Forced at the request of Stalin to implement these absurd initiatives in the international arena, V.M. Molotov later recalled: “It was difficult to make such demands at that time [...]. But they scared me hard.”
One way or another, by the beginning of 1949 the “socialist camp” was ideologically united on the basis of subordination and strict discipline. In all countries, programs for building socialism according to the Soviet version were established, and their cooperation was consolidated within the framework of CMEA. Two communist regimes emerged in the Asia-Pacific region. The revolution in China ended victoriously. The influence of the USSR in the Third World countries has increased significantly. The measures taken by the United States and its allies were announced in Churchill’s Fulton speech; only their international legal formalization was required.
NATO
On April 4, 1949, at the initiative of the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed, which determined the international legal basis for the military-political alliance of the pro-American bloc. This union was named North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO(from English North Atlantic Treaty Organization -
NATO). NATO included the USA, Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Canada, Italy, Portugal, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, and in 1952 Turkey and Greece. Within NATO, a unified military command of the participating countries was created, which became the basis of the first military bloc of states in the post-war world. The creation of NATO allows us to talk about the transition of confrontation from the ideological and political sphere to the military, which qualitatively changed the international situation and led to significant worsening international tensions.
German problem
The only sphere of allied relations in 1945-1949. There remained joint governance of Germany, so it was in the German question that the confrontation became most acute. The Soviet Union adhered to the position of the territorial integrity of the German state. This position was caused by two main factors: the threat of revanchist sentiments in the western occupation zones, which had the economically rich Ruhr Basin, and the desire to receive reparation payments in full from the government of a united Germany. As V.M. recalls Molotov, Stalin was almost sure of the victory of the German communists
And did not give up hope of spreading Soviet influence throughout Germany.
IN In the radically changed international situation, politics on the German issue became the main way of confrontation for the West. On January 1, 1947, the process of merging the Allied occupation zones began: during 1947, the British and American zones were united, and in the summer of 1948 the French zone was annexed to them. The reform of the monetary system in June 1948 in West Germany and its inclusion in the scope of economic assistance under the Marshall Plan laid the economic basis for the division of the territory of the German state. The last desperate attempt to put pressure on the former allies was the economic blockade of West Berlin (the Allied occupation sectors of the German capital, which was located entirely in the Soviet zone). In the spring of 1949, the USSR tried to block the delivery of food to West Berlin, but to no avail - the Americans delivered all life support to the population by air. Stalin's proposal to lift the blockade of West Berlin in exchange for abandoning the idea of creating a West German state remained unheeded.
On May 23, 1949, an agreement was signed between the high commissioners of the western occupation zones on the creation of the Federal Republic of Germany with its capital in Bonn, the Constitution was adopted and the government bodies of the Federal Republic of Germany were formed. As a response, the German Democratic Republic (GDR) was created in October 1949 in the Soviet occupation zone.
Rising international tensions
The confrontation between the two systems made open military confrontation quite real. The danger of this trend was aggravated by the nuclear factor. Until 1949, the only power that possessed nuclear weapons was the United States, which turned it
V the main means of pressure on the USSR. In the summer of 1946, the United States submitted to the UN the Baruch Plan, which proposed the establishment of an international system of control over atomic energy. Control all activities(research and production) related to nuclear energy, there should have been a special international organization, the real leadership of which was the United States. If the Baruch Plan was adopted, the possibility arose of consolidating the US monopoly on developments
V field of nuclear energy. The USSR came up with a counter-initiative and submitted for consideration
The UN Convention on the Complete Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, proposing not to use them under any circumstances, to prohibit their production and storage, and to destroy all their stockpiles. The UN Security Council was supposed to monitor compliance with the convention. The Baruch Plan was rejected by the USSR, and the nuclear weapons convention was rejected by the United States. The aggravation of the issue of atomic energy and nuclear weapons in international legal terms marked the beginning of an era "nuclear diplomacy", arms races in the international arena.
When preparing its military-strategic plans, the United States proceeded from its readiness to use nuclear weapons against the USSR. Among these plans, the most famous was the “Dropshot” plan (1949), where the primary targets for the nuclear bombing of cities in the Soviet Union were outlined.
The US monopoly on nuclear weapons put the USSR in a rather difficult position and forced the country's leadership to pursue two main lines . First, official The line was to create Soviet nuclear weapons and eliminate the US nuclear monopoly, regardless of any difficulties. The efforts of the Soviet military-industrial complex were crowned with success. A TASS statement dated September 25, 1949 said that the secret of the atomic bomb was no longer there. Thus, the US nuclear monopoly was eliminated. The confrontation became thermonuclear.
Fight for peace
While not yet possessing nuclear weapons, the USSR stepped up second, propaganda line. Its essence was to demonstrate in every possible way the desire to reach an agreement with the United States on the prohibition and destruction of nuclear weapons. Was this desire sincere? Did the Soviet leadership consider such negotiations real? Most likely not. Another thing is important - this propaganda line responded to the desire of the Soviet people to live in peace, and official propaganda in this case coincided with the movement of peace supporters both in the USSR and abroad.
IN 1947, on the initiative of the USSR, a resolution of the UN General Assembly was adopted
With condemnation of any form of propaganda aimed at creating or increasing a threat to peace. Against the backdrop of widespread international discussion of the threat of world war, in August 1948, on the initiative of prominent scientists and cultural figures, an international peace movement arose, which held its first congress in April 1949 in Paris. Representatives of 72 countries took part in the congress; a Standing Committee of the World Peace Congress was created, headed by the outstanding French physicist F. Joliot-Curie, the International Peace Prizes were established. This social movement absolutely coincided with the official foreign policy line of the Soviet Union, therefore the USSR provided constant assistance to the peace movement. It also took on an organized character within the country, combining with the full power of the Soviet propaganda machine - in August 1949, the first All-Union Conference of Peace Supporters was held in Moscow and the Soviet Peace Committee was created. The entire adult population of the USSR (115.5 million people) signed the Stockholm Appeal, adopted in March 1950 by the session of the Standing Committee of the World Peace Congress. The appeal demanded an unconditional ban on atomic weapons “as a weapon of intimidation and mass destruction of people.” The signatories demanded “the establishment of strict international control over the implementation of this decision,” and the first use of atomic weapons against any country was declared a “crime against humanity.” At the official diplomatic level in June 1950, the USSR announced its readiness to cooperate with the legislative bodies of other countries
passed the Law for the Protection of Peace, according to which propaganda of war was declared the gravest crime against humanity.
Korean War
The apogee of confrontation was the Korean War (June 25, 1950 - July 28, 1953), during which the struggle between the USSR and the USA for influence in Asia turned into open military confrontation, which threatened to develop into a world war. In the Korean War, North Korea (DPRK) fought against pro-American South Korea. On the side of the DPRK, Chinese volunteers took part in the fighting, and from the end of November 1950, several Soviet air divisions on aircraft with Korean markings and air defense formations. The Americans fought on the side of South Korea under the UN flag. The Soviet government provided the DPRK with military and material assistance: it supplied the Korean army with tanks, aircraft, ammunition, and medicine. Several Soviet ground divisions were prepared to be sent to Korea. Military operations took place with varying degrees of success. The greatest role militarily was played by the US landing in the rear of the North Korean army in September 1950 and the massive bombing of the DPRK capital Pyongyang in July 1952. However, neither side was able to achieve a decisive strategic advantage, and on July 28, 1953 in Korea Peace was established, but the country remained divided into two states.
Foreign policy situation and internal situation in the country
The transition from the grueling, most difficult war for the Soviet Union of 1941-1945. almost without interruption to confrontation and the Cold War extremely severe impact on the internal environment. The USSR, along with the USA, became one of the centers of the bipolar world, but the political weight and ambitions of the victorious country were diametrically at odds with its economic capabilities. Conducting global world politics as a counterweight to the United States absorbed everything national economicresources of the Soviet Union. Confrontation in the international arena required more and more new means and was disastrous for a destroyed country with a huge unprofitable and militarized economy. The Cold War maintained a mobilization spirit in society; the country's human and natural resources continued to be sacrificed to the arms race. Ideological blinders did not allow the country's leadership to see the fatal nature of the confrontation; the understanding that there could be no winners in the nuclear race was extremely slow.
2. Bipolar world in the 50-90s of the twentieth century
The fifties were the decade of the Cold War, when the world was essentially in the shadow of two nuclear-armed superpowers. His tests caused irreparable harm to the environment and caused cancer in people, but at that time few people knew about it. Both countries tested intercontinental missiles, although the USSR was slightly behind in this regard. In the mid-50s, a new era began both in relations between the USSR and the USA, and in world history, the essence of which is concentrated in three words: mutually assured destruction. The prevailing fact in Soviet-American relations was that an exchange of nuclear strikes would destroy both warring parties; a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons made war impossible. But, unfortunately, this did not apply to wars between small nations.
Three months after the entry of American troops into Korea, Dwight Eisenhower was appointed Supreme Commander of the North Atlantic Alliance, and on January 20, 1953, he became President of the United States. Having “inherited” the “cold” war in Europe and the “hot” war in Korea, Eisenhower’s priority was to end the Korean War, which was depleting the human and material resources of the warring parties. At this time, Soviet pilots and anti-aircraft gunners covered ground troops and strategic targets, cities of China and Korea from massive American air raids. Peace negotiations began as early as 1951 (in Quesson and Panmunujeong), but were unsuccessful because North Korean and Chinese prisoners of war did not want to return home from UN camps. Having assumed the presidency, Eisenhower presented an ultimatum to Mao Zedong in January 1953: either he immediately ends the war, or the United States transfers hostilities to Chinese territory and uses atomic weapons. On March 5, Stalin died, and on July 27, 1953, an agreement was signed to end the war, but it did not solve the problem of Korean unification, but, on the contrary, aggravated it: despite the protests of Singman Rhee, Korea was divided into two parts on the terms of the South. Moreover, on October 10, the Eisenhower administration signed a security treaty with South Korea, which provided for joint defense in the event of a second attack by the North and economic assistance for the reconstruction of the Republic of Korea. After the death of Joseph Vissarionovich, the Americans saw two prospects for the development of relations with the USSR: either they would be able to get closer, or, if the USSR’s policy “only softened, but would have the same aggressive character,” the crisis would worsen.
In the USSR at this time, in the absence of official successors to the “leader of the peoples,” there was a secret struggle for power, in which, oddly enough, the high military command, which was once carefully controlled by the party elite, played a large role. Malenkov became head of government, and Khrushchev became secretary of the Central Committee. The first result of such a struggle was the arrest of Beria right at a meeting of the Politburo, who was secretly convicted and shot (“Kitchen” of the Politburo remained a secret until the time of Gorbachev). Step by step, the party regained its former supremacy, including by declaring the Stalinist regime to deviate from Leninist norms and by condemning Stalin in Khrushchev's reports. In foreign policy, the Soviet leadership sought to adhere to moderate behavior in order to prevent the widening of the gap between the USSR and the West, to reduce military spending, and it was impossible to make it clear to the world community that the Soviet Union was acting from a position of weakness. He also tried in every possible way to show his interest in ending the Korean War and ending the joint occupation of Austria (peace was signed on May 15, 1955, and USSR troops left Austria), but did not intend to withdraw his troops from Eastern Europe (the brutal suppression of the Berlin riots). Diplomatic relations were restored with Israel, Greece and even Josip Broz Tito.
In the spring of 1954, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France and China took part in the Geneva Conference, at which agreement was reached regarding the war in Indochina. A year later, a meeting of the “Big Four” countries took place there - the USSR, the USA, France, Great Britain, at which, although it was not possible to agree on disarmament or any other problem, friendly relations were established between Eisenhower and Khrushchev.
This gave reason to think that the end of the Cold War was very close. In addition, the travel of Khrushchev and Bulganin (who replaced Malenkov as Prime Minister) to India, Burma and Afghanistan strengthened relations with these countries, since they were provided with economic, and military, assistance to Afghanistan; The USSR became closer to China, Yugoslavia, the countries of Southeast Asia, and the “third world”; military assistance was provided to Egypt.
However, in the same year, after Germany joined NATO, in which the leaders of the USSR saw a direct anti-Soviet orientation, a military-political union appeared - the Warsaw Warfare, which included Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania (refused to participate in 1962), Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia , GDR and USSR. Germany remained one of the hottest spots in the world for a long time. The United States did not want to recognize the GDR, which Soviet leaders considered encouraging those who nurtured the idea of revenge and unification of the German state. Consequently, in August 1961, a wall was erected overnight, isolating West Berlin from the rest of the GDR, leaving Germany completely divided.
The possibility of improving Soviet-American relations was demonstrated by Khrushchev’s visit to the United States from September 15 to 27, 1959, so to speak, “at the highest level.” He and Eisenhower noted that the arms race requires enormous costs and creates great danger, and, therefore, it is necessary to limit armaments. There was no reciprocal visit by the US President due to the incident of the downing of an American U-2 reconnaissance aircraft on May 1, 1960 in the Sverdlovsk region and killed all hopes for peaceful relations.
In November 1960, Democrat John Kennedy won the US presidential election. Under him, military spending was increased, and there was a rupture in diplomatic relations with Cuba, in which, in early 1959, Fidel Castro overthrew Batista and established control over Havana, declaring himself the leader of the country. Then the Cuban Communist Party was legalized, and Castro's communist comrades Che Guevara and Antonio Jimenez joined the government.
In June 1962, a secret agreement was signed in Moscow on the deployment of atomic weapons in Cuba. The Soviet Union decided to provide the small country with comprehensive support: political, economic and military. In July, preparations began for a major operation, code-named “Anadyr,” to deploy a group of troops in extreme proximity to the United States, capable of fighting at a distance of 11 thousand kilometers from bases without supplies. The first combat units arrived in Cuba in early August, then the transfer of nuclear warheads began. The period from October 14 to October 27 became the apogee of the crisis. On the 14th, an American U-2 reconnaissance aircraft discovered launch sites in Cuba for launching medium-range ballistic missiles, to which the United States responded by blockading Cuba and preparing a military invasion (On October 22, Kennedy made this statement on television). The day of October 27 could have ended in a nuclear disaster - a U-2 was shot down over Cuba. On the night of October 29-30, the US President gave the order to bomb Soviet missile launchers and Cuban military bases, and then capture the island.
Faced with the threat of nuclear war, the USSR removed its missiles from Cuba, and Washington promised not to attempt an invasion of the island, to keep its allies from doing so, and to remove its missiles from Turkish territory. The removal of Soviet missiles was carried out without prior coordination of this decision with F. Castro, so the latter’s reaction to Khrushchev’s “capitulation” was volcanic. A. Mikoyan had to conduct unusually difficult negotiations with the American and Cuban sides. As a result, on November 20, 1962, Kennedy announced an end to the blockade of Cuba - the Cuban missile crisis was resolved.
That same year, the split in Sino-Soviet relations ended. For some time, scientific, technical and economic cooperation between these countries increased, after which internal development and foreign policy diverged. From January 1956 to February 1959, the USSR pledged to help China and the construction of large industrial enterprises. In addition, on May 15, 1957, the Soviet Union concluded an agreement with the PRC to provide it with an atomic bomb with technical documentation for organizing the corresponding production.
The conflict arose during the 20th Congress of the CPSU, which set a course for defusing international tension, establishing business cooperation with the West, preventing world war, democratizing social life and refusing to stimulate the world revolution. Beijing was particularly indignant at the forms of exposure of Stalin's personality cult. The Chinese leader noted that one should not be afraid of war, since it is “more beneficial to us and less beneficial to the West,” “a great revolution cannot do without a revolutionary war.” China reacted to the installation of Soviet missiles in Cuba as the implementation of its line, but with the “surrender” Beijing demonstrated its readiness to fight to the last American and to the last Russian.
After the signing in Moscow of the historic treaty of August 5, 1963 between the USSR, the USA and Great Britain banning nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, under water and in outer space, China exploded its first atomic bomb in October 1964 (only 20 years later Beijing joined this treaty, which came into force in 1970). Among other things, the PRC put forward territorial claims to the USSR, which served as fertile ground for increasing tension on the border and armed conflict in the late 60s.
The last diplomatic action led by Khrushchev was a statement in defense of Cuba on August 10, 1964. This happened after the OAS, under pressure from the United States, accused the government of the Island of Freedom of aggression, interference in the affairs of another state and demanded all OAS members to break diplomatic ties with F. Castro.
On November 22, 1963, John F. Kennedy, who was succeeded by Vice President Lyndon Johnson, was shot and killed in Dallas, Texas. During his reign, the main event was the US intervention in the Vietnam War, in which they provided full support to the troops of South Vietnam against the North Vietnamese communists.
This war took a lot of material and human resources from the United States. In the wake of mass protests against the war and domestic political problems, Richard Nixon became the new president, whose main goal was to relieve tension in international relations. He intended to radically change American tactics in the war: now the main blow should have been directed at the Viet Cong supply bases located in Cambodia and Laos, and aviation should have destroyed communications through which weapons from the USSR and China were supplied to the DRV. The war ended with the Paris Peace Treaty of January 27, 1973, which gave South Vietnam the right to decide its own fate and guaranteed the withdrawal of American troops. Two years later, the Communists violated the treaty and resumed the war, which was suppressed by a counterattack by Saigon troops. At the end of the Vietnam War in 1973, Nixon normalized relations with the USSR and China, for which he visited Moscow and Beijing.
The search for compromises with the USSR was expressed in the signing of important agreements by mutual consent. Thus, in January 1967, the Treaty on the Principles of the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space was adopted, in April 1968 - the Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in 1973 - the Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War. Their result is the Soviet-American space experiment in July 1975. The summit meetings were particularly productive in relations between the USA and the USSR.
The first meeting took place in May 1972 in Moscow between President Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev, who replaced Khrushchev as General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee back in 1964. The most important element in strengthening bilateral ties was the expansion of trade and economic relations, as well as a program of cooperation in the field of culture, science and technology. The parties stated that they “do not claim or recognize anyone else’s claims to any special rights or advantages in world affairs.”
Contacts at the highest level became traditional and were designed to stabilize the international situation. As a result of the agreements of 1972-1974, the United States became the second trading partner of the USSR, but high customs duties, discriminatory trade and credit sanctions and military escalation in the international arena by the end of the 70s reduced the trade turnover between the USSR and the USA to almost zero. In 1975, the Helsinki Forum marked the beginning of meetings between leaders of 33 European countries, as well as the United States and Canada, designed to be the basis for strengthening peace, mutual trust and security. Also, the declaration “For new frontiers in international detente, for strengthening security and developing cooperation in Europe” of 1976 and the Moscow Declaration of 1978, adopted by members of the Warsaw Department, helped improve good neighborly relations.
After a scandal in the 1972 election campaign, despite being re-elected to a second term, Richard Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974, and Gerald Ford became president. Two years later he lost to Democrat Jimmy Carter, who took office in 1977. He failed to improve relations with the USSR, since Brezhnev actively supported totalitarian regimes in Africa and started a war in Afghanistan.
On April 27, 1978, Afghan communists staged a military coup, killing head of state Daoud. After this, many Soviet military and civilian advisers arrived in the country, practically subordinating Afghanistan to Moscow. Soon, resistance to the imposed regime resulted in open war between supporters of Moscow and the Mujahideen (Islamic opposition fighters). The entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan at the end of 1979 dramatically changed the world's attitude towards the USSR: many previous agreements remained on paper, and the 1980 Olympics took place in an atmosphere of boycott by many Western countries.
The international situation began to acquire the features of confrontation. Under these conditions, the supporter of tough measures against the USSR, Ronald Reagan, won the American elections, calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” In the United States, plans began to be developed for SDI, a strategic defense initiative that envisages the creation of a nuclear shield in space (“space war plans”). The December 1979 NATO Council session decided to deploy new American medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe from November 1983. Under these conditions, the USSR deployed medium-range missiles in Czechoslovakia and the GDR; in response, NATO began deploying the same missiles in Europe, as well as cruise missiles. In order to prevent a further escalation of tension, the Kremlin offered to make concessions and reduce the presence of atomic weapons in Europe, while at the same time regulating the Afghan issue. The Soviet Union wanted to solve the problem by involving the Pakistani side in the negotiations, which, by relieving tension on the Afghan-Pakistani border, would allow the withdrawal of its troops. However, the incident on September 1, 1983 with the downing of a South Korean passenger airliner led to the collapse of the negotiation process.
The 1985 Geneva summit between Reagan and Gorbachev ended with a non-binding Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Nuclear War; In the same vein, the Statement of the Soviet government of January 15, 1986 with a nuclear disarmament program was drawn up, calling on other countries. In 1986, at the XXVII Congress of the CPSU, the policy in Afghanistan was adjusted: the country's leadership was replaced, a course of reconciliation was proclaimed in order to withdraw its troops from the territory of the neighboring state.
In the same year, a meeting between the heads of the USA and the USSR took place in Reykjavik, marking a new beginning in the foreign policy course of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev suggested that Reagan destroy all medium-range missiles, and the former made greater concessions than the other. Despite this, such a statement had a huge resonance: in 1987, the ATS countries developed a unilateral defensive doctrine to reduce armaments to reasonable limits. At the third meeting between Gorbachev and Reagan in Washington on December 8, 1987, the parties signed an agreement on the elimination of medium- and short-range missiles, which served as the reason for a general decrease in tension and the beginning of disarmament. Already on February 15, 1988, the Soviet Union began to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. In May - June 1989, Gorbachev visited the PRC, as a result of which the USSR decided to change the borders along the fairway of the border rivers. However, the main events of 1989 were changes in Eastern Europe, where the governments of most countries were overthrown. In December 1989, a meeting between Gorbachev and the new US President George W. Bush took place in Malta. During the negotiations, it was planned to reduce offensive weapons by 50%, as well as reduce the number of troops in Europe and chemical weapons. At a meeting with German Chancellor Kohl in Moscow in February 1990, Gorbachev agreed with the possible reunification of Germany, but Germany's withdrawal from NATO was not agreed upon. On October 3, 1990, the GDR ceased to exist.
In 1990, Gorbachev received the Nobel Peace Prize, to which the reaction in the country was ambivalent: on the one hand, the Afghan war ended in 1989, the danger of a new conflict was reduced, but on the other, the USSR was losing its position in the world. The internal political crisis of the Soviet Union in 1990-1991 weakened its foreign policy prestige. The most significant document of this time was the Treaty on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START), signed by representatives of the United States and the USSR in July 1991 in Moscow, providing for the reduction of various types of offensive weapons.
The collapse of the USSR and the formation of the CIS marked the beginning of a new Russian foreign policy. The US victory in the Gulf War significantly strengthened the authority of the new president. Moreover, after the collapse of the international communist system and the collapse of the USSR, the United States became the only superpower in the world.
In the 40s and 50s, a conflict was already brewing in his soul, which would eventually lead Fadeev to suicide. Thus, in the summer of 1947, in connection with the beginning of the Cold War, Soviet propagandists began to actively introduce into the public consciousness the image of an external enemy in the person of the United States, Great Britain, and the West as a whole, and also began to search for people who could embody the image of an internal enemy. 2.4 Second stage...
... (including Hong Kong and Taiwan), India, Indonesia, South Korea, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Poland, Turkey and South Africa. The third goal of the modern US foreign policy strategy (along with ensuring the security and prosperity of the country) is the promotion of democracy in the world. Although the desire for a democratic reorganization of the world in the American image has long been one of...
After the Second World War, an international order emerged that was distinguished by two significant features.
Firstly, this is the already mentioned quite clear division of the world into two socio-political systems, which were in a state of permanent “cold war” with each other, mutual threats and an arms race. The division of the world was reflected in the constant strengthening of the military power of the two superpowers - the USA and the USSR; it was institutionalized in the two military-political (NATO and Warsaw Warsaw) and political-economic (BES and CMEA) alliances opposing each other and passed not only at the “center”, but at the “periphery” of the international system.
Secondly, this is the formation of the United Nations and its specialized agencies and increasingly persistent attempts to regulate international relations and improve international law. The formation of the UN responded to the objective need to create a managed international order and became the beginning of the formation of the international community as a subject of its management. At the same time, due to the limitations of its powers, the UN could not fulfill its assigned role as an instrument for maintaining peace and security, international stability and cooperation between peoples. As a result, the established international order appeared in its basic dimensions as contradictory and unstable, causing increasingly justified concerns of world public opinion.
Based on the analysis of S. Hoffmann, we will consider the main dimensions of the post-war international order.
Thus, the horizontal dimension of the post-war international order is characterized by the following features.
1. Decentralization (but not reduction) of violence. Stability at the central and global levels, supported by mutual intimidation of the superpowers, did not exclude instability at the regional and subregional levels (regional conflicts, local wars between “third countries”, wars with the open participation of one of the superpowers with more or less indirect the support of another of them from the opposite side, etc.).
2. Fragmentation of the global international system and regional subsystems, at the level of which the way out of conflicts depends each time much more on the balance of forces in the region and purely internal factors relating to the participants in the conflicts than on the strategic nuclear balance.
3. The impossibility of direct military clashes between superpowers. However, their place was taken by “crises”, the cause of which is either the actions of one of them in the region, considered as a zone of its vital interests (the Caribbean crisis of 1962), or regional wars between “third countries” in regions considered as strategically important both superpowers (Middle East crisis 1973).
4. The possibility of negotiations between the superpowers and the military blocs led by them in order to overcome the current situation, which appeared as a result of stability at the strategic level, the general interest of the international community in eliminating the threat of a destructive nuclear conflict and a ruinous arms race. At the same time, these negotiations, under the existing international order, could lead to only limited results.
5. The desire of each of the superpowers for unilateral advantages on the periphery of the global balance while simultaneously mutually agreeing to maintain the division of the world into “spheres of influence” for each of them.
As for the vertical dimension of the international order, despite the huge gap that existed between the power of the superpowers and the rest of the world, their pressure on “third countries” had limits, and the global hierarchy did not become larger than before. Firstly, the possibility of counter-pressure on a superpower from its militarily weaker “client”, which existed in any bipolar system, has always remained. Secondly, the collapse of colonial empires occurred and new states emerged, the sovereignty and rights of which are protected by the UN and regional organizations such as the Arab League, OAU, ASEAN, etc. Thirdly, new powers are being formed and rapidly spreading in the international community. ral values of liberal-democratic content, which are based on condemnation of violence, especially in relation to underdeveloped states, a sense of post-imperial guilt (the famous “Vietnamese syndrome” in the USA), etc. Fourthly, the “excessive” pressure of one of the superpowers on “third countries” and interference in their affairs created the threat of increased opposition from the other superpower and negative consequences as a result of the confrontation between both blocs. Finally, fifthly, the above-mentioned fragmentation of the international system left the possibility of claims by certain states (their regimes) to the role of regional quasi-superpowers with relatively wide freedom of maneuver (for example, the Indonesian regime during the reign of Sukarno, the regimes of Syria and Israel in the Middle East , South Africa - in southern Africa, etc.).
The functional dimension of the post-war international order is characterized, first of all, by bringing to the fore the activities of states and governments in the international arena of economic events. The basis for this was profound economic and social changes in the world and the widespread desire of people for increased material well-being and for conditions of human existence worthy of the 20th century. The scientific and technological revolution made a distinctive feature of the period described the activity on the world stage as equal international actors of non-governmental transnational organizations and associations. Finally, due to a number of objective reasons (not the least of which are the aspirations of people to improve their standard of living and the promotion of economic goals to the forefront in the international strategic and diplomatic efforts of states, the achievement of which cannot be ensured by autarky), it is noticeable -but the interdependence of different parts of the world is increasing.
However, at the level of the ideological dimension of the international order of the Cold War period, this interdependence is not adequately reflected. The contrast between “socialist values and ideals” and “capitalist” ones, on the one hand, and the foundations and way of life of the “free world” and the “evil empire”, on the other, reached a state of psychological war between the two social groups by the mid-80s. political systems, between the USSR and the USA And although by using force at the regional and subregional levels, limiting the capabilities of “medium” and “small” states, the superpowers managed to maintain global security and thereby control the international order that emerged after the Second World War , the changes taking place in the sphere of international relations made it increasingly obvious that by the 80s it had turned into a brake on social development, a dangerous obstacle to its path.
The arms race caused by the confrontation between the two systems has become a heavy burden for humanity. Thus, in the mid-80s, about 6% of the world's gross product went into armaments. Military programs entailed enormous consumption of fuel, energy, and rare raw materials. The implementation of these programs suspended or slowed down the use for non-military needs of many scientific discoveries and new technologies (7). According to the Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI), in the mid-80s, more than half of the planet's scientists and technical intelligentsia worked on creating means and methods of destruction rather than creation of material values. Military spending was estimated at $1,000 billion per year, or over 2 million per minute (8). At the same time, about 80 million people in the world lived in absolute poverty, and out of 500 million starving people, 50 million (half of whom were children) died annually from exhaustion (see: ibid., pp. 79-80).
If for the world economy the exorbitant burden of military expenditures became the cause of stagnation and economic imbalance, then its consequences for the “third world” were even more severe. Thus, each US increase in its lending interest rate by one unit, caused by the arms race, added $2 billion to the debt of developing countries. One of the most dangerous consequences and aspects of the problem has been the increase in military spending by Third World countries, which are experiencing an acute shortage of funds for medical care and food supply for the population. Reaching an annual amount of $140 billion by 1980, these expenditures tripled in real prices between 1962-1971 and 1972-1981. In many developing countries, up to 45% of the national budget was allocated for military purposes (see: ibid.). The growing burden of military expenditures became unbearable for the USSR as well, playing almost a decisive role in the collapse of its economy.
In general, a fundamentally new situation has been created in the history of mankind, when the previously accumulated experience of finding optimal ways of social development is no longer enough, when there is an urgent need for non-trivial approaches that break with the usual, but no longer true, stereotypes. The unprecedented challenges that humanity has faced have required changes in the field of international relations commensurate with their scale. Of primary importance for the fate of civilization was the widespread awareness of the fact, already noted earlier by some scientists, that the modern world is an indivisible integrity, a single interdependent system. The question of war and peace has acquired new significance - everyone involved in making political decisions has come to understand that in a nuclear war there can be no winners and losers and that war can no longer be considered as a continuation of politics, because the possibility of using nuclear weapons makes the destruction of human civilization quite likely.
BIPOLAR WORLD
“The United States will have to confront world public opinion, which has changed significantly since the Cold War.
Contours of the World's Future Report, December 2004.
The number of college engineering graduates in the United States peaked in 1985 and has declined 20 percent since then. The proportion of students wishing to specialize in engineering disciplines puts the country second to last among the developed countries of the world. The number of certified engineers produced by educational institutions in China is three times higher than in the United States. In addition, widespread concern about the safety of life in the United States, which arose as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, makes it difficult to attract foreign students to American universities, and in some cases serves as a reason for denying foreign specialists permission to work in American companies. In this situation, universities in other countries, where there are no such difficulties with obtaining a visa, are trying to use the opportunities that have opened up and lure students away.
Private investment in research and development (accounting for 60% of all investment in the United States for this purpose), although increased this year, has been at a low level for the previous three years. Moreover, leading multinational corporations are establishing their own research centers outside the United States.
Historical experience. It seems that in the future, states and citizens will face dangers primarily internal nature: ethnic wars, terrorism, drugs, gangsterism - problems are more likely for the police than for the army. This is a new formulation of the issue for states that have been in the conditions of the Cold War for many years with its pronounced external threat. Decide strangers problems, interfering in the conflicts of a neighboring country, no matter how friendly it may be, will be increasingly uncomfortable, for the Americans in the first place. This will push the implementation of multipolarity. What does the experience of modern times tell us?
1. Having first become multipolar (namely a system), the design of international relations in the eighteenth century ultimately evolved into a bipolar rivalry between Britain and France. For several years, Napoleon managed to enlist the support of Russia and conquer continental Europe, thereby practically neutralizing Britain, which had also lost its North American colonies. The desire for absolute domination threw the French emperor into
Moscow, but the conquest total peace turned out to be impossible. French hegemony was broken at Borodin, Leipzig and Waterloo.
2. Between Waterloo and Sadovaya (where Prussia defeated Austria and became the leading German state), Russia and Britain maintained a bipolar system for half a century, disrupted by the weakening of Russia (the Crimean War) and the triumph of nationalism in Italy and Germany. The first industrial revolution strengthened the German states, France and Italy, c. as a result, the multipolar system triumphed again. Germany, having crushed Austria and France in 1866–1870, after Bismarck began to violate the multipolar system with its claim to continental (read global) primacy, which caused the formation of an opposing Entente cordiale.
3. With enormous efforts, the outside world rejected German encroachments between 1914 and 1945. At the same time, he put an end to dynastic diplomacy. The American-Soviet duo very quickly emerged from the anti-Hitler coalition, and the system again became bipolar for forty years (America enlisted the support of Western Europe, and the USSR entered into an alliance with China). With the alienation of Moscow and Beijing and internal discord in the USSR, bipolarity again sank into history and an American leader emerged.
American political scientists do not hide the fact that “The United States, of course, would prefer to be in a unipolar system, where it would enjoy the position of hegemon... On the other hand, major powers would prefer a multipolar system in which they could pursue their interests on their own and collectively , while avoiding the restrictions, coercion and pressure of a single superpower. They feel threatened by America's quest for global hegemony."
Some stable features have emerged. Firstly, this or that system lasts for about one or two generations. Secondly, the finale of the diplomatic-social construct is conflict. Thirdly, the movement goes from chaos to the formation of a multipolar system, in which two leaders stand out (bipolar system), one of whom, after (prolonged) rivalry, becomes the hegemon. Rivals unite, oppose the willfulness of the leader - common interests and common fears bring them closer together - and the world again plunges into some semblance of chaos.
So, the following cycle is common: from the free play of independent centers, where the variability and flexibility of the diplomacy of several centers dominates, a tendency towards greater rigidity matures and is usually formed bipolar world. Bipolarity usually leads to prolonged conflict (Cold War). Then one of the centers wins and a leader emerges, whose willfulness inevitably causes opposition and the unification of potential opponents. The monopolar world inevitably splits, and the whole process begins a new circle. This is the history of the world.
Occupying influential positions in a globalizing world, using American dissatisfaction with the difficulties of imperial omnipotence, a number of sovereign countries will have a real chance to break out of the orbit of the only superpower. The first stage of transformation of the unipolar system will be bipolar world. He will come in the course of confrontation, developing a position in the dispute over regional hegemony between the EU and Russia, between China, India and Japan.”
Confrontation between coalitions. There are various options for raising new centers. Their forces at the stage of formation of a new world center will most likely not be enough to challenge America, to really confront the world hegemon. The first step towards reforming the international system, a transitional phase on the path to interstate bipolarity, could be the rapprochement of a number of American competitors with each other. Historical experience shows the relative ease of rapprochement between countries if their interests are parallel. Separate block building is possible both in Western Europe and East Asia. Among the predicted anti-hegemonic blocs, the following stand out: five options.
First is based on the reality of alienation of a number of Western European countries that may find a friendly force in Russia. For example, the leader of modern sociology I. Wallerstein predicts the “liberation” of Western Europe from obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty. In parallel with the Russian-Chinese cooling, China will join the American-Japanese camp, and Russia will join the Western European camp. In the two great coalitions that have formed - the American-Japanese-Chinese alliance against the European-Russian alliance. Between 2000 and 2025, expansion of both blocks will take place. Then conflicting interests will not allow a collision to be avoided and the threat of a long-term world war will arise.
Second option comes from the civilizational strength of the Atlantic Alliance, which will be opposed much more naturally by the main Asian states - China and Japan. (In a purely economic sense, these two countries are natural partners - one has technology, know-how, the other natural resources and a huge market. One has an aging, sophisticated population, the other an energetic youth, one has a specifically Asian democratic experience, the other a one-party system .) Both countries can provide extraordinary assistance to each other, overcoming previous bitter historical experiences, differences in ideology, China's self-assertion, its insensitivity to Japanese concerns, and the fact that Japan is bound by treaties to the United States.
The two great Asian countries can forget their mutual accusations. And at the same time, remember the previous grievances from the Americans and Europeans if supporters of the “return” of Taiwan and the “return” of Okinawa prevail within both countries. Continuing China's rapid economic growth will help restore Japan's furious economic expansion, interrupted for a decade. China has already become Japan's second trading partner, after the United States. These circumstances immediately aroused American concern. An alliance between Japan and China could create a partnership capable of claiming dominance at any level.
Third option- rapprochement between Russia and China is not yet considered realistic in the West. Both countries value Western investment very much; they do not complement each other so harmoniously, modernizing the economy in pursuit of Western economic indicators. And yet the rapprochement of the two giants of Eurasia has features of reality. According to an Australian researcher, “the most likely heir to the modern unipolar structure will be a new bipolar a balance that will restore the old alliance between Moscow and Beijing of 1950 on the basis of a strengthened Russia and an economically and militarily developed China, including some forces from the Muslim world - for example, Iran. In traditional terms "status quo" alliance" (USA, Europe and Japan) will have much greater economic and military power, than revisionist alliance. But the tension will be reminiscent of 1949–1962, the peak of the Cold War.”
The successes of the West, the lagging behind of its “pursuers,” the irritation of Russia and China over the bias of the United States and its allies in the issue of national self-determination of the peoples living in Russia and China can sharply stimulate yesterday’s incredible rapprochement between Beijing and Moscow. At the very least, Russia’s arming of the Chinese army against the background of tightening Chinese policy on the issue of the future of Taiwan creates a plausible scenario of a voluntary or involuntary rapprochement between the two largest (in terms of population and territory) countries in the world. Over the past few years, the Russians and Chinese have made cooperation “for the glory of multipolarity” the core idea of their approach to foreign policy.
In December 1996, both countries declared in a joint communique: “A partnership of equal rights and trust between Russia and China is aimed at strategic cooperation in the 21st century.”
Russia sold China the strategically important guidance and control systems of its SS-18 and SS-19 systems for the Chinese DF-31 and DF-41 complexes. Modern Russian submarines sold to China have arrived at Chinese ports. Factories have been built in China to produce parts for the Topol-M (SS-27) mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Russia is helping China create a new generation of submarine-launched ballistic missiles and submarines themselves with virtually silent engines, approximately equal in class to the American Victor-Sh systems, which will be put into service in the United States only in 2007. Russian factories provided China with parts of the mobile SS-24 and SS-25. China received from the Russian Federation the technology to create mired solid-fuel missiles, which enormously increased the accuracy of Chinese strategic weapons. There are plans for Russia to build up to twenty nuclear reactors in China. According to the American specialist S. Blank, “Moscow sees China’s military growth and intends to promote it.” In particular, the issue of Chinese nuclear physicists studying in Moscow has already been resolved.
“As a result, China and Russia,” writes the American G. Binnendijk, “have become closer in the security sphere, despite the presence of a number of factors impeding rapprochement. Globalization seems to attract both countries to the West, but contradictions with the West hinder this trend. Strengthened Chinese-Russian ties are based on mutual distrust towards the West, growing common interests, interest in the arms trade, and the resolution of previous border and other contradictions... The ties of China and Russia with pariah states are also obvious. It is a matter of concern that nations that have serious differences with the West are forming cooperative relationships that lead to dangerous bipolarity.”
At the end of 1998, Prime Minister of the Russian government E. Primakov put forward a project for a triple alliance of Russia - China - India, which can be considered as the apotheosis of plans to unite the main non-Western forces. In 2000, Russian President V. Putin put forward similar plans during a visit to Beijing. In 2005, Uzbekistan was admitted to the SCO (Shanghai Organization of Six). In 2006, Kyrgyzstan made it clear to Washington that the presence of American troops on its territory was undesirable. The future potential of this scheme will depend on many factors.
Fourth option is perhaps the biggest nightmare for American futurists - the union of Western Europe with China, uniting the world's greatest common market with the largest nation on Earth.
Defense spending by individual European countries, including the UK, France and Germany, will decline over the next fifteen years, especially compared to China and other rising powers. But in aggregate, EU defense spending will exceed that of other countries with the exception of the United States and, possibly, China. Members of the European Union have faced in their history great difficulties in coordinating and optimizing defense spending aimed at ensuring increased prosperity, strengthening security and increasing the EU's role in the international arena. The question of whether a single army will be created within the EU remains open - partly because its creation could lead to duplication of functions with NATO forces.
Although a united Europe's armed forces are unlikely to be capable of extensive combat outside the region, the EU's strength can be used - through its commitment to multilateralism - to develop a model of global and regional governance that may be attractive to rising powers (such as China and India). , especially if they prefer the “Western” alternative to avoid unilateral dependence on the United States. For example, the EU-China alliance, although it remains unlikely, is no longer perceived as unthinkable.
An aging population and a shrinking workforce in the vast majority of European countries will have a major impact on the continent's fate, posing serious but apparently solvable economic and political challenges. The average European birth rate is now about 1.4, which is below the replacement level, which is 2.1 children per woman. Over the next fifteen years, Western European economies will need several million workers to fill the gaps left by the retirement of their veteran workers. Europe faces a dilemma: either it will be able to adapt its workforce to the current situation - that is, reform its social security, education and tax systems and integrate its growing immigrant population (especially those from Muslim countries), or it will fall into prolonged economic stagnation, which could destroy all the progress made in the process of creating a more united Europe will be undone.
This is what Presidents Washington and Jefferson feared most of all in their time: a Eurasian colossus uniting its economic and military power with the enormous human masses of Asia - a union of Middle Europe and the Middle Kingdom, a union of Germany-led Europe and China-led Asia. The United States' primary global goal should be to prevent such an alliance. If we prepare for the worst and agree in principle with the inevitable alienation of the outside world, then an alliance with Japan, Russia and India should be prepared as a counterweight. A similar situation, such a version of a “hard” future, should be avoided by mobilizing pro-American forces in Europe.
Fifth option does not look realistic yet, but is discussed in Western scientific literature. We are talking about the rapprochement of Western Europe and Japan. In principle, this is a very logical theme: those nearby are blocked against the strongest. (In addition, a number of researchers foresee “an upcoming confrontation between China and Japan.”)
Let us note the annual meetings of the leaders of the EU and Japan at the highest level, meetings at various forums, at regular sessions of the UN, the World Trade Organization, etc. In recent years, “the European Union has expanded the geographical scope of the bilateral dialogue... These meetings influence the perception of the EU and Japan of each other . The perception of this convergence is linked to the economic and security threats posed by China and the Korean Peninsula.” It is important to note the adoption of the “new Asian strategy” by the European Union in 1994. Brussels' perception of Japan as a kind of bridge between Europe and Asia has become obvious. On the Japanese side, a certain rapprochement is associated with Prime Minister Kaifu's favorable response to the call of Western Europeans to provide assistance to Eastern Europe without waiting for an American reaction. Cooperation between the two sides in the WTO “facilitates mutual support between the EU and Japan regarding American demands.”
In fact, the European Union and Japan are laying the foundation for joint action in the 21st century. Despite all Japan's reluctance to risk its special relationship with the United States, if the latter takes a more “self-centric” course, Tokyo may strengthen its orientation towards the Western European center. “While,” writes the English researcher J. Gilson, “the United States continues to reduce its intervention in European and Asian affairs; new problems of “less strategic” significance are occupying an increasing place in the international arena. Right now, Japan and the EU are becoming key players in the field of international economic and political activity, and they are already developing a partnership in resolving global issues.”
But the formation of coalitions is a difficult and often long-term process. Sovereign states that enter into alliances tend to show independence rather than discipline. Along with coalition blockbuilding, the privileged position of the United States will be threatened by anti-American evolution individual large states. They are few in number, but they are sovereign and potentially powerful.
It is not North - South and not East - West that will be the political dichotomy of the future. Two real contenders for the role of a pole independent from the United States are united Europe and China.“While it is difficult to predict the conditions that will prevail in Europe or China 25 years from now,” concludes historian P. Kennedy, “both regions have the potential to become equal to—or even superior to—the United States.” at least in economic power."
This text is an introductory fragment. From the book I Deny You, Yotenheim! author Pavlov AlexeyChapter 26 Restrained impatience, ready to turn into unbridled joy - this is what a prisoner who has been ordered with his things feels, if there is at least a theoretical possibility of release. The peculiarity of the condition lies in the fact that your position in prison can,
From the book In an environment of moderation and accuracy authorChapter IV For the first time - OZ, 1876, No. 9 (published on September 20), pp. 255–292, under the title “Excursions into the field of moderation and accuracy,” with the serial number “IV.” Signed: N. Shchedrin. The typewritten manuscript of the original edition of the essay has been preserved. The essay was written in the summer of 1875 in
From the book Unfinished author Saltykov-Shchedrin Mikhail EvgrafovichChapter V For the first time - OZ, 1876, No. 10 (published on October 21), pp. 567–597, under the title “Excursions into the field of moderation and accuracy,” with the serial number “V”. Signed: N. Shchedrin. The manuscripts and proofs have not survived. In the first separate edition (1878), the text of the chapter differs from
From the book Satire from Spark. Results author Saltykov-Shchedrin Mikhail EvgrafovichChapter VI For the first time in publication: M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. In an environment of moderation and accuracy, St. Petersburg. 1878, pp. 173–176. Manuscripts and proofs have not survived. Written specifically for a separate
From the book Hell's Game. The Secret History of the Cuban Missile Crisis 1958-1964 author Fursenko Alexander AlexandrovichCHAPTER V First Edition For the first publication of the initial editions of the fifth chapter of the Results and the establishment of their sequence, see above, pp. 657-658. The first edition is a rough autograph with numerous insertions and several deletions. In the fields
From the book The Decline of Geyropa and Russia author Razumkov MaximCHAPTER I In the uniform practice of all countries and peoples, there is a very wise rule: when a new uniform is published, a period is set during which everyone is free to wear the old uniform. This is done, obviously, with the consideration that the new form almost always catches
From the book All the Kremlin Army. A Brief History of Modern Russia author Zygar Mikhail ViktorovichCHAPTER II Imagine that in the midst of sowing, which is so abundant in modern life, at that moment when you, in the child of progress, least of all count on the possibility of returning to those orders, which, by all considerations, should finally sink into eternity,
From the author's bookCHAPTER III If there is a way to check the degree of development of society, or at least its ability to develop, then, of course, this method lies in understanding the ideals that guide society at a given historical moment. What does society sympathize with?
From the author's bookCHAPTER IV Therefore, if it is not possible to formulate what we want, what we love, what we strive for, and if, moreover (as was proven by the audit of the Perm province), despite the benefits of reforms, a person, leaving home with the firm intention of literally fulfilling everything
From the author's bookCHAPTER V Among the unrelated words with which our street slang is so rich and which most most readily abuse, the word “anarchy” undoubtedly belongs. The use of this expression is allowed in our country on the widest scale. It's only worth it
From the author's bookCHAPTER V First edition Among the words that do not remember the kinship, which are most often subject to all kinds of arbitrary interpretations, the word “anarchy” undoubtedly belongs. Street heroes resort to this expression in all sorts of cases. Does the person relate to issues
From the author's bookCHAPTER V First edition About the first publication of the initial editions of the fifth chapter of “Results” and the establishment of their sequence, see above, pp. 657–658. The first edition is a rough autograph with numerous insertions and several deletions. In the fields
From the author's bookChapter 8 Executive Committee Khrushchev's decision to rush the delivery of nuclear weapons to Cuba after Kennedy took decisive steps in September accelerated the completion of the deployment of R-12 missiles to Cuba by at least two weeks. R-12 missiles, or SS-4 according to NATO designation,
From the author's bookChapter 6 "Main Chapter". Substitution On the pages of the book, we discussed those factors that allow the servants of the Queen of Tolerance to consistently and inexorably move towards achieving their own goals. Let's briefly recall them and summarize them first. Reduce the birth rate in
From the author's bookChapter 4 In which the head of the Kremlin administration Dmitry Medvedev created a new Russian class Dmitry Medvedev makes a very unusual impression for a politician - he seems to be a good person. It is clear from him that he is not very confident in himself, especially this
From the author's bookChapter 5 In which the head of the presidential administration of Ukraine, Viktor Medvedchuk, remained the last Ukrainian whom Putin believes. At the beginning of the 2000s, Medvedchuk, against the background of Ukrainian politicians, looked like a man from outer space. Absolutely European, completely different from
