The Nineteen-Nineties as History

THE NINETEEN-NINETIES. AS HISTORY Vojtech Mastny .0 speak of the challenges of the 1990s is to suggest that one era may be ending and another beginning. This may indeed be the case in a sense deeper than that usually conveyed by the much overused word, era, because of the sudden accumulation ofchanges so unexpected as to generate the illusion that "history" itselfmight be ending. This view—that history may have ended because, with the universal acceptance of Western liberal principles, mankind has reached the end of its ideological evolution—was recently expressed by Francis Fukuyama in a widely discussed article.1 Heartening though the triumph of these principles over their illiberal competitors may be, to judge the course of history by the fate of abstractions presumes an exceedingly rarefied world ruled by the very ideologues whose fate is supposed to have been sealed. The overestimation of change at a time of precipitous development is as much an attribute of the ideological mind as its underestimation in more sluggish times is of the "realist" mind. Consequently, with their limited sense of history and millenarian expectations of a novus ordo seclorum inscribed on every dollar bill, Americans should be especially wary of any suggestion that history's happy end is here. Accordingly, this 1 . Francis Fukuyama, "The End of History," The National Interest, no. 16 (Summer 1989): 3-18. Vojtech Mastny, professor ofinternational relations at Boston University, is the author of Russia's Road to the Cold War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979) and numerous other works on East-West relations. He is currently the 1989-90 Fulbright senior professor at the University of Bonn, West Germany, where he is preparing a follow-up to his Cold War book. 1 2 SAIS REVIEW introductory essay to the symposium, "American Interests in the 1990s," will consider the forthcoming decade as very much a part of history in the making. Sorting out what has changed from what has remained the same, it will put the decade into a perspective long and specific enough to judge the continuities and discontinuities that underlie the challenges the United States will face in the foreseeable future. The 200-year period since the end of the eighteenth century, which happens to coincide with the life span of the American Republic, has witnessed not only the origination of most of today's problems, but also numerous attempts to solve them — with results that allow for informed conclusions. Inevitably, such conclusions require a term of reference, which, in turn, is bound to be arbitrary. Yet, it is difficult to think of a more appropriate term of reference than security. Not only has mankind invented and acquired over the past 200 years the means to obliterate itself; it has also created the means for making both individuals and nations more secure than ever. Within these two extremes, there is enough room for history to unfold. TAe Saliency of Security To grasp the meaning of security in a rapidly changing world requires considering the concept in its broadest sense. Ultimately, this embraces everything that makes people and their governments secure within the system of sovereign states that has been the hallmark of the past 200 years. By the beginning of this period, the states system had been firmly established in the European-dominated areas of the world, and its replacement by any other now is highly unlikely, the development of transnational integration notwithstanding. Security has both external and internal dimensions, the latter entailing economic, political, and ideological factors. It is the different weight of these factors at different times that gives security its historical flavor. The fact that the very term "security," has been widely used only since World War I illustrates its changeable substance. The utility of security as an organizing concept becomes apparent when addressing the three sets of important and interconnected problems that have constantly preoccupied national leaders over the last two centuries. The first is the defense of the state against external challenges, which may or may not include the use of military force. The focus here is on the threats both to the territorial integrity of the state and to the integrity of its political and...