ifda dossier 74 - Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation

aise certain issues, pose doubts and
apprehensions that arise in my mind,
and suggest, both for the movements
and for the community of experts
concerned with public policy, possible
interventions that are sensitive to the
interrelationships and are capable of
safeguarding the interests of those that
continue to be marginalised by govern-
ments and ruling elites, perhaps more
so as a result of changed perceptions of
the human agenda than was the case
earlier.
Fhere is no doubt that is has finally
dawned on the erstwhile perpetrators of
the war system and the academic jus-
tifiers of the same that they had gone
too far and had ignored the consequen-
ces of their thinking for the perfor-
mance and therefore for the survival
and stability of their perspective sys-
tems. As already mentioned, this is in
part an impact of the peace movement
and the growing public criticism (inclu-
ding from earlier advocates and defen-
dants of the Cold War) but also a
consequence of exposing the sheer
madness of the ruling doctrines of
national security based on the theory of
deterrence and on the assumption that
peace was to be securing by preparing
for war. We have already been told
about the reassessment that has taken
place on the Soviet side, spurred in
particular by the economic consequen-
ces for the USSR of the continually
escalating arms race (both nuclear and
conventional). There is evidence of
sinlilcir reconsideration on the side of
the Western allies, in particular the
United States, which has been reeling
under the quite considerable economic
costs of maintaining large defense
expenditures, in particular the frighten-
ing growth of both the budget deficit
and international debt, the decline in
value of the dollar vis a vis the other
major currencies and the sharp competi-
tion offered by the new economic giants
like Japan and EEC.
Following the growing criticism on these
lines, are emerging signs of slow re-
thinking on economic ideology based on
supply side economics, liberalization and
privatization, dismantling of the Welfare
State and the discrediting of the positive
role of the State in meeting basic hum-
an needs and maintaining nlinin~um
levels of order and justice in society -
in short, a slow rethinking on the claims
and presumed virtues of the latest
phase of world capitalism fuelled by
high technology and its global reach.
Thirdly, there has also taken place some
realization of the limits of Realpolitik -
the slow realization among the leninists
and the maoists about the limits of the
eonflictual modcl of world politics and
a simultaneous though slower realization
among policy makers in the US about
the limits of the confrontational posture
of US imperialism. There seems to be
a retreat on both sides from neat blue-
prints of global hegemony to be achiev-
ed through superpower confrontation
and a strategy of drawing various regio-
nal client states into that confrontational
model.
Ail these shifts represents no more than
a pragmatic reassessment of continuing
with the war system and is not yet
based on any fundan~ental ideological