The Imperatives of Political Change

  • Alpo M. Rusi


This study equates the concept of an organic security order with a specifically European security order. After World War II Winston Churchill was of the opinion that Europe should restore itself as a political “world region.” Such a restoration was necessary to create a more stable world order based on “regional pillars,” with a “unified Europe” as one of those geographically organic pillars.1 Churchill’s hope concurred with the views of, among others, George F. Kennan, who in his capacity as one of the chief planners of the postwar foreign policy of the United States advocated a strategy of a federated Europe “into which the several parts of Germany could be absorbed.”2 Unfortunately, none of these plans was ever realized. Instead, a divided Europe emerged and the military alliances became the symbol of this failure.


Foreign Policy Nuclear Disarmament Military Alliance Warsaw Pact Soviet Influence 
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. 5.
    Seweryn Bialer, “Harsh Decade: Soviet Policies in the 1980s,” Foreign Affairs 59, no. 5 (Summer 1981), pp. 999–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 9.
    F. Stephen Larrabee, “Eastern Europe: A Generational Change,” Foreign Policy 70 (Spring 1988), pp. 42–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 12.
    See Pierre Hassner, “Soviet Policy in Western Europe: The East European Factor,” in Soviet Policy In Eastern Europe, ed. Sarah Meiklejohn Terry (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984).Google Scholar
  4. 13.
    A. Ross Johnson, The Impact of Eastern Europe on Soviet Policy Toward Western Europe, A Project Air Force Report. (Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation, March 1986), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
  5. 17.
    Quoted from Marantz, “Changing Soviet Conceptions of International Security.” For discussion of the changes in Soviet foreign-policy thinking since the end of World War II, see Allen Lynch, The Soviet Study of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 19.
    H. Fiedler, “Bundnissystem und Vertragsbeziehungen,” in Sowjetunion Aussenpolitik III, ed. D. Geyer and B. Meissner (Köln: Bohlau, 1976), pp. 130–162, here p. 139).Google Scholar
  7. 21.
    See, for example, Aurel Braun, “Whither the Warsaw Pact in the Gorbachev Era?” International Journal 43 (Winter 1987/1988), pp. 63–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 29.
    Christoph Bertram, “Europe’s Security Dilemmas,” Foreign Affairs 65, no. 5 (Summer 1987), pp. 942–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 32.
    See CSIS, Beyond 1992: U.S. Strategy toward the European Community, p. 40. The concept of political integration (and political union) is often used in a different sense, referring to the creation of a federal European state with common democratic institutions. The EPC will be discussed in detail later. For a historical analysis see C. Hill, National Foreign Policies and European Political Cooperation (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983)Google Scholar
  10. Helen Wallace, Widening and Deepening, the EC and the New European Agenda, Royal Institute of International Affairs Discussion Paper, no. 23 (London, 1989)Google Scholar
  11. Thomas Pedersen, “Problems of Enlargement: Political Integration in a Pan-European EC,” Cooperation and Conflict 25 (1990), pp. 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 33.
    See Baard Bredrup Knudsen, “Europe Between Superpowers: An All-European Model for the End of the 20th Century,” Cooperation and Conflict 20 (1985), pp. 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 38.
    Robert Jervis, The Symbolic Nature of Nuclear Politics (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, 1985), p. 6.Google Scholar
  14. 43.
    De Gaulle’s conception of “European Europe” was aimed at undoing the partition of Europe with political means and excluding the superpowers. See, for example Zbigniew Brzezinski, “The Framework for East-West Reconciliation,” Foreign Affairs 46, no. 2 (1968), pp. 256–275. To a certain extent, the present process of “Europeanization” of European security matters fulfills the criteria of de Gaulle’s vision.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 44.
    Ernst Haas has noted that military alliances, even with permanent organs and broad competence, have historically triggered little or no permanent interaction between members. Ernst Haas, “The Study of Regional Integration—Reflections on the Joy and Anguish of Pretheorizing,” International Organization 24 (Spring 1970), pp. 618–639.Google Scholar
  16. 46.
    See, for example, J. Noetzold, A. Inotai and K. Schroeder, “East-West Trade at the Crossroads,” Aussenpolitik 37, no. 4 (1986), pp. 400–412.Google Scholar
  17. 47.
    See, for example, Edward N. Luttwak, “The Shape of Things to Come,” Commentary 89, no. 6 (June 1990), pp. 17–25.Google Scholar
  18. 49.
    See David Gress, Peace and Survival: West Germany, the Peace Movement and European Security (Stanford: Hoover Institution, 1985), pp. 151–152.Google Scholar
  19. 50.
    Jacques Rupnik, “Central Europe or Mitteleuropa?” Daedalus 119, no. 1 (Winter 1990), pp. 249–278.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute for East-West Security Studies 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alpo M. Rusi

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations