Roles of the United States, Russia, and China in the New World Order: An Introduction

  • Hafeez Malik


Russian leaders and scholars did not anticipate, nor did any intelligence experts or leaders in the West — or for that matter in China — predict the fall of the Berlin Wall, the reunification of Germany, the liquidation of the socialist system in East European countries and the Warsaw Pact coalition, and finally the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991. The former Soviet republics, including Russia, became supplicants for American economic aid in utter desperation. Our world, which appeared to have settled into a comforting and reassuring equilibrium between the United States, the Soviet Union and China, was suddenly sent spinning in an international ‘anarchy,’ calling for a new balanced rearrangement. The United States emerged as the sole superpower in world politics — an unusual, almost an exceptional, development in modem history.


Foreign Policy Nuclear Weapon Lateral Pressure World Order World Politics 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Stanley Hoffmann, ‘International Organization and International System,’ in Leland M. Goodrich and David A. Kay (eds), International Organization: Politics and Process (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1973), p. 50.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Nazli Choucri, Robert C. North, and Susumu Yamakaye, The Challenge of Japan: Before World War II and After(London: Routledge, 1992).Google Scholar
  3. 6.
    A.J.P. Taylor, The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1848–1918 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954), pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    Edward Vose Gulick, Europe’s Chassical Balance of Power (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1955), pp. 3–89.Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    Abridged and modified from Charles W. Kegley, Jr. (ed.), ‘The Medieval Challenge to Realist Theories of World Politics: An Introduction,’ Controversies in International Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995), p. 8; also Morgenthau, op. cit., pp. 4–15.Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    Jan Aart Scholte, ‘From Power Politics to Social Change: An Alternative Focus for International Studies,’ Review of International Studies (January 1993), pp. 3–21Google Scholar
  7. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Power and Interdependence (Glenview, Ill.: Scot, Foresman, 1989) for a new liberal paradigm.Google Scholar
  8. 13.
    Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World System (New York: Academic Press, 1974), p. 390.Google Scholar
  9. 14.
    Joel Brinkley, ‘U.S. Looking for a New Path as Superpower Conflict Ends,’ The New York Times, February 2, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 15.
    Alexander Radygin, ‘The First Stage of Privatization Completed,’ Moscow News, No. 27, July 8–14, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 16.
    Harry Harding, A Fragile Relationship: The United States and China Since 1972 (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1992), p. 336.Google Scholar
  12. 23.
    Max Singer, ‘The Crucial Differences Between Russia and the Soviet Union,’ Hudson Briefing Paper, No. 166, Indianapolis, July 1994, pp. 1–3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Hafeez Malik 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hafeez Malik

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations