In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Editors’Note The collapse of the Soviet Union has spurred massive restructuring in the U.S. defense industry. But according to Eugene Gholz and Harvey Sapolsky, both of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology , the post–Cold War U.S. military drawdown has not been as extreme as many believe. Gholz and Sapolsky contend that the military-industrial complex continues to be plagued by surplus capacity and overproduction, both of which reºect a reaction to “Congress’s pork barrel instincts” rather than to perceived U.S. national security needs. The authors offer a three-step policy recommendation to address the problem: U.S. government buyout of excess capacity, development of a “private arsenal system,” and reassessment of the federal government’s position of maintaining at least two suppliers in each segment of the defense industry. Many scholars and commentators have raised questions about China’s regional and global aspirations, particularly in the military sphere. David Shambaugh of the Sigur Center for East Asian Studies at George Washington University evaluates the perceptions and attitudes of the People’s Liberation Army at the beginning of the twenty-ªrst century. After consideration of some of the factors that continue to shape China’s strategic calculus—including the 1999 Kosovo conºict, mounting concerns over U.S. global predominance, and deep suspicion of Japan’s “militarist” tendencies in Northeast Asia—Shambaugh concludes that the PLA’s views of China’s security environment are often marked by considerable ambivalence. In general, however, they reºect a pessimistic appraisal of Chinese security—sharply contrasting with the outlook of China’s civilian defense analysts. Do economic sanctions “work”? Is this the question scholars should be asking? David Baldwin of Columbia University addresses “the basic paradox” he sees at the core of the sanctions debate: nation-states and international organizations are using sanctions with growing frequency at the same time that many in the scholarly community discount the utility of economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool. To explain this seeming contradiction, Baldwin maintains that while scholars tend to frame the debate in terms of whether economic sanctions “work,” policymakers focus on the question of whether they should be used. In addition, scholars often employ different concepts and methodologies when discussing sanctions, which results in disjointed and ultimately ineffective argumentation. According to Baldwin, the stakes for the scholarly community are high, because “until researchers agree on which International Security, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Winter 1999/2000), pp. 3–4© 1999 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 3 questions to ask and on how to seek answers, the sanctions debate is unlikely to produce useful policy- relevant knowledge.” Our ªnal two articles consider the impact of ethnic identity in Eurasia following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of ªfteen nation-states that are home to a variety of dispersed ethnic communities. Each article reºects on the multilayered meaning of the term “ethnicity” and its complex relationship to national and international politics. Charles King of Georgetown University and Neil Melvin of the University of Leeds assess the inºuence of “diasporas”—“ethnic communities divided by state frontiers”— on the international relations of three Soviet successor states: Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan. They write that in general the “diaspora politics” of these three states have been relatively ineffective as a foreign policy. Their evidence also suggests that although Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan do portray themselves as ethnic homelands and continue to reach out to co-ethnics living abroad, such actions should not necessarily be considered destabilizing or a prelude to ethnic conºict. Ronald Grigor Suny of the University of Chicago seeks to dispel the notion that ethnicity is “essentialist, holistic, and homogeneous.” Using a constructivist approach to the study of ethnic and national conºicts, Suny holds that it is fallacious to assume that nations and states possess a single identity that drives their domestic and foreign policies. Rather, “political actors are capable of employing various identities . . . that shape their attitudes in domestic and international arenas.” note to contributors International Security welcomes submissions on all aspects of security affairs. Manuscripts should be typed, double-spaced, with notes double-spaced...

pdf

Share