International Economics and National Security
In the post-cold war era, US security will increasingly involve national economic interests, and a new style of political leadership which can focus on them. Notes three specific tasks (1) reduce US dependence on Gulf oil (2) ease the Third World debt crisis (3) limit the damage from narcotics traffic.
Theodore H. Moran is Karl F. Landegger Professor and Director of the Program in International Business Diplomacy, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University. This study was sponsored by the Aspen Institute Strategy Group.
The list of international economic problems that will trouble policymakers in the 1990s is long and diverse. Among the most important issues for U.S. national security are three that pertain primarily to relations among the developed countries: encouraging stability and reform in the Soviet Union, maintaining a cooperative U.S.-Japanese relationship, and avoiding vulnerabilities from the globalization of America's defense industrial base. Three more major issues facing the United States have a North-South dimension: reducing dependence on oil from the Persian Gulf, moderating the impact on the Third World of the prolonged debt crisis, and limiting the damage from the narcotics trade.
Clearly this list is not exhaustive; it could be lengthened without difficulty. Several issues that deserve emphasis in purely economic terms-from the outcome of the multilateral trade negotiations, to the competitiveness of American industry, to the future of the U.S. budget deficit-weave their way in and out of the entire list.
In the six primary areas examined here, U.S. national security policy in the 1990s faces a challenge of a different order than that confronted during the Cold War period: not clear and present dangers requiring great sacrifices, but dim and distant dangers calling for small sacrifices. The array of threats to American well-being on today's horizon is no less real than in earlier periods and in some cases may turn out to be even more troublesome. But meeting these threats will require a new kind of leadership: the management of the mundane.
Before turning to the broader theme of economic policy and the evolving strategic concerns of the United States, it is important to look closely at each issue on its own terms.
II
Does the United States have an interest in joining with other countries to provide large-scale financial support to the Soviet Union as that country struggles to transform its economy?
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
The great solidarity Europe showed America after September 11 has started to wear off, and real differences have opened up in the transatlantic pursuit of homeland security. Europe's reluctance to take necessary steps to tighten security has made America more vulnerable. And unless cooperation improves, Europe will also be increasingly at risk.
Uncertainty is necessarily the lot of the planner, since the deals with the future. Uncertainty can never be completely removed. However, it can be compensated for, and to do so is a continuing responsibility of those who plan military forces. Primarily this can be done by insuring, in so far as we can, that future weapons and forces will be adaptable to the right range of defense needs or, as defense planners often put it, by insuring flexibility.
One of the most important figures in Obama’s administration will be his national security adviser. An examination of past advisers shows how to get the job right—or wrong.
