Introduction

INTRODUCTION. Wi, ith this fifth issue—the first of volume three—the SAIS Review is firmly established among the few first-rate American journals devoted entirely to reporting and analyzing the world scene. Indeed, it is distinguished among these journals by its felicitous blending of scholarship with newsworthiness and by the diversity as well as the quality of opinions and perspectives it encompasses. More wide-ranging in subjects than previous issues, which have featured groups of articles devoted to major themes, this issue is no less coherent even in its diversity. What do nuclear policies, U.S.-Soviet relations, the changing internal and external policies of China, critical developments in the Middle East and Africa, the economic and political issues of North-South relations, and human rights have in common? One may see them as a cross-section of the extensive agenda of American foreign policy or as principal elements in the changing international system. But in neither case are they unconnected items on a random list, like the episodic mishmash oftelevision news. Rather, each subject, to some extent and in some way, penetrates the other, whether it is the regional interplay of East-West and North-South relations; the functional fusion of military, economic, and political phenomena; the linkage between domestic and international politics; or, cutting across several ofthese convergent issues, the relationship of moral concerns to U.S. foreign policy. For most (perhaps all) readers, a collection of articles like this will be inspected in pieces, according to their special interests. Yet, in the round, the collection stands out as a representative exhibit of the complexity of contemporary international relations. The wonder is not that a government like ours, inescapably entangled in the interconnected strands of this complexity , frequently flounders in failures of comprehension, calculation, and consistency, but rather that it can cope at all. 2 SAIS REVIEW To the extent that it copes successfully, this cannot be the result of anything so grand as the "coherent national strategy" that the Reagan administration , like most incoming administrations, promised and proclaimed. Our governing institutions and processes are too pluralistic and cumbersome for that. Rather, what coherence there may be arises from a few simplifying themes of national purpose and policy that impose a certain order on the multitude of daily concerns flooding the in-boxes of the hard-pressed managers of foreign affairs, for whom reflection is an unobtainable luxury. If the administration gets these themes essentially right, substantive coherence may mitigate the costs ofprocedural chaos. Ifit gets them wrong, even retreat into the confusing improvisations of compromise between aspiration and reality will be better than the stubborn pursuit of coherence. But if you, dear reader, in the luxury of your imagination, unfettered by cables, clearances, and deadlines, should indulge your reflective wisdom by comprehending this SAIS Review in the round as well as in pieces, you may see whether you can fit the pieces of the puzzle of current issues into any better policy pattern than the one we have. Those who are adventurous enough to tackle this task should give special attention to the provocative essay by Professor Liska. For Liska, who has made a career of strategic thinking on the grand scale, here caps his copious contributions to a national strategy of East-West equilibrium with an appeal for reconstructing the international system. Perhaps few will find his strategic prescription spontaneously acceptable, but none should reject it before pondering the alternatives with equal vision and depth. Robert E. Osgood Christian A. Herter Professor ofAmerican Foreign Policy School ofAdvanced International Studies ...