Editors' Note

Editors’Note E a c h of thefirst three articles in this issue investigates the shaping of the new world order. Richard Betts of Columbia University argues that collective security and arms control, contrary to the conventional wisdom, may create not the conditions for peace but those for war. Ted Hopf of the University of Michigan reviews the security case for the exercise of U.S. influence on the states emerging from the former Soviet Union, and recommends ends and meansfor that influence. The CFE Treaty limiting conventional forces in Europe, shaped by the Cold War East-West conflict, will nonetheless profoundly influence military Capabilities in the post-Cold War world; Randall Forsberg of the Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies and Jonathan Dean of the Union of Concerned Scientists assess its impact, its shortcomings, and its potential lessons for continuing conventional arms control. Blamefor China’s entry inforce into the Korean War was laid by some on President Truman’s alleged lack of toughness, while others argued that it was General MacArthur’s reckless bellicosity that provoked the Chinese. Both arguments have affected U.S. civil-military relations for forty years, but without access to evidence of Chinese motives, both have rested on speculation. Such evidence is finally available, argues Thomas Christensen of the Center for lnternational Affairs at Harvard; his discovery, translation, and analysis of classified Chinese documents recently available in the West are presented in this issue. Robert Lieber of Georgetown University explains the economics of oil, and finds that the apparent ease with which the world weathered the potential oil shocks of the 1991-92 Gulf crisis depended considerably on luck, and argues that oil shocks may yet disturb the global economy. In a review essay on JackSnyder‘s Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and InternationalAmbition, Fareed Zakaria of Harvard’s Olin Institute assesses Snyder’s attempt to improve upon realist theories by incorporating domestic politics into his model of international relations. Finally, this issue includes an exchange of views between Robert M . Stein of the Raytheon Company and MlT’s TheodoreA . Postol regarding Postol’s recent article on the performance of the Patriot missile in the Gulf War. Postol’s article and Raytheon’s reaction to it ignited controversy that has been widely covered in the media, and some readers may wonder how we view thejournal’s role in such circumstances. Many International Security articles provoke strong responses, and while the Patriot controversy has gotten more attention than most, thejournal is accustomed to receiving pressure to publish or not to publish particular articles. Sometimes this pressure comes from powerful figures and institutions in International Security, Summer 1992 (Vol. 17, No. 1) 0 1992 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 3 International Security 17:l I 4 academia, industry, and government. In this case, Raytheon made it clear before publication that it viewed Postol's article as incorrect and misleading, and that it believed the journal should not publish the article. However, based on the results of our standard review process, we judged the article worthy of publication, and we published it. We also arranged for the exchange of views that appears in this issue. Wehave beenguided throughout this debate by ourfundamental mission: to publish the most substantial contributions we receive on significant issues of international security. For a journal in this important field of public policy, nothing less would be acceptable. From time to time, partisans on both sides of the issue, as well as reporters, have asked us to render opinions on the substantive merits in the debate over Patriot performance. We have refused to do so, in this as in all such cases, for a very good reason. It is our authors who are experts in their fields, not the editors. Our role is to present the debate, developed as fully as possible, and to leave judgment on the merits to our readers. As the Summer issue was in press, a new and disturbing issue made its appearance in this debate: Postol was approached by the Defense lnvestigative Service (DIS), which claimed that his article in our Winter issue contained classified information. The press...