Search

In 1984, the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization established the Office of Innovative Science and Technology (IST), charged with involving universities and small businesses in basic research on a wide range of exotic technologies relevant to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). In the spring of 1985, IST began an aggressive campaign to recruit academic scientists and engineers for SDI research which quickly brought some three thousand inquiries from the scientific community. In conjunction with the release of an IST briefing document for potential researchers which described the academic community's reaction to SDI as "immediate and overwhelming," served as inspiration for the National Pledge of Non-Participation. In 1986, the National Pledge of Non-Participation had been signed by 3,850 faculty members and senior researchers and 2,850 graduate students and junior researchers. The best discussion of opposition to SDI research in the academic community is Jonathan B. Tucker, "Scientists and Star Wars," Union of Concerned Scientists, Empty Promise: The Growing Case Against Star Wars.

Despite grand visions of a cosmopolitan planet living in peace, the first globalization at the turn of the 20th century descended into World War I as the old empires scrambled to preserve themselves as others sought self-determination. Powers on the losing end of that war reasserted themselves in yet another worldwide calamity within decades. After World War II, in the early 1950s, with the victorious American-led alliance in the driver's seat, institutions such as the United Nations and the Bretton Woods arrangements created a global stability that enabled peace, prosperity and the “rise of the rest.” In 2014, the world order is shifting again with the rise of China reviving in Asia the very kind of nationalist rivalries that led Europe to war twice in the 20th century. Will we be able to build new institutions that accommodate the new powershift without resorting to war, or will the second globalization collapse as well? Top strategists from the US, Japan and China respond to this momentous question.

President Obama has been elected to office in the United States during a crisis of confidence in America's capacity to exercise effective leadership in world afairs. National self-indulgence, greedy financial irresponsibility and an unnecessary war have discredited that leadership, a situation that has been compounded by the current global economic crisis. Added to these self-inflicted wounds, this article suggests, are two transformational developments on the world political scene. First, the ‘global political awakening’ to issues such as climate change, health and social inequality; and second, a shift in the distribution of global power from the West to the East. However, although this shift is occurring, it is a slow process and in the foreseeable future there is no state, or combination of states, that can replace the role America plays on the international scene. What is also clear is that without an American recovery, there will be no global recovery. The American recovery will be a monumental task. But four small, telling words—unify, enlarge, engage and pacify—summarize the essence of the needed response. There needs to be an effort to re-establish a sense of unity between America and Europe; an enlarged coalition of principal players is necessary to promote more effective global management; dialogue engaging a wider circle of partners key to global geopolitical stability should be promoted and maintained; and a deliberate effort not to get bogged down politically and militarily in the Middle East is essential.

How will history judge Vladimir Putin? He had alternatives, but his decisions, despite their apparent short-term success, are likely to have negative long-term effects on the Russian political system, economy, and geopolitical prospects.