Editors' Note

Editors’Note T h efirst three articles in this issue focus on the future of U.S. foreign policy. Eugene Gholz, Daryl Press, and Harvey Sapolsky of MIT‘s Defense and Arms Control Study Program declare that the collapse of the Soviet Unionprovides the United States with an opportunity to redirect the course of its foreign policy. They contend that the United States, having won the Cold War, is now in a position to reap the benefits of its enormous wealth. Toward this end, they propose a policy of restraint: ”thedisengagement of America‘s militaryforces from the rest of the world.” This restraint, they argue, should not extend to U S . trade, however, nor should it be construed as a “total withdrawal from the world.” Michael Mastanduno of Dartmouth College addresses the question a number of critics of realist theorieshave been asking: are realism’s days numbered as the dominant paradigm in the study of international relations now that the Cold War is over? And, specifically, can realism continue to be used to explain U S .foreign policy? Mastanduno answers these questions using Kenneth Waltz‘s balance-of-power the0y and Stephen Walt’s balance-of-threat the0y to infer predictions and explanations for U.S. security and U.S. foreign economic policy. He concludes that first, the United States has continued to pursue its grand strategy of preserving its primacy. Second, for the United States, “security strategy has been more consistent with the predictions of balance-of-threat theoy, while economic strategy has followed more closely the expectations of balance-of-powerthe0y.” John Gerard Ruggie of Columbia University contends that ”sustained engagement by the United States for the sake of a stable international order will prove more problematic in the years ahead than it was during the Cold War.” Ruggie analyzes the engagement strategies of U S . leaders in 1914, 1945, and the early Cold War yearswhen the United States was confronted with the dilemma of determining its political role in the world as a result of profound changes in the global order-to determine if there are valuable lessons to be learned. The collapse of the Soviet Union has created tremendous international concern regarding the security of its weapons-grade fissile material. Oleg Bukharin of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Princeton University considers the fate of Russia’s plutonium cities-nce the linchpin of the Soviet-Russian nuclear weapons program, but now in a state of dramatic decline. According to Bukharin, ”The ultimate solution to the nuclear security problem lies in the reconfiguration of Russia’s giant nuclear infrastructure and its conversion to productive activities.” He also International Security, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Spring 1997), pp. 3 4 0 1997by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 3 International Security 21:4 1 4 encourages the integration of Russia’s nuclear industry into the world economy as an0ther step toward strengthening nuclear security cooperation. Thomas Rise of the European University Institute reviews Frank Elbe and Richard Kiessler‘s A Round Table with Sharp Corners, and Philip Zelikow and Condoleezza Rice’s Germany Unified and Europe Transformed. He considers the authors’ analyses of the importance of the Two plus Four negotiations on German reunification and their contribution to ending the Cold War. Charles Glaser of the University of Chicago comments on John Matthews’ Summer 1996 article, which provides a reformulation of “howand when concerns over relative gains act as a barrier to cooperation.” Matthews replies. This issue marks two transitions in our editorial staff. Teresa Lawson, who has been with the journal nearly ten years, has decided to take her leave. We extend to her our deep gratitude for her superb contribution and wish her every success in her new career as an editorial consultant. We welcome Diane McCree as the journal’s new Deputy Editor. She holds a B.A.from Tufts University in international relations and an M.A. from Georgetown University in Middle East studies,and has been working as an editor for the last several years. Finally, we congratulate Karen Motley, who leaves her position as Assistant Managing Editor of the journal to become Executive Editor...