{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022466300549176237, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006989515726410384, 'mean_word_length': 4.989536621823618, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The European Rupture: The Defence Sector in Transition. Ed. Mary Kaldor and Genèvieve Schméder. United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research. Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar, 1997. vii, 256 pp. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Tables. $80.00, hard bound.

Mary Kaldor of the European Institute at the University of Sussex and Genevieve Schmeder of the Centre Science, Technologie et Societe at the Conservatoire Nationale des Arts in Paris have produced a book that is something of a puzzle. The book contains a series of case studies of how some states in Europe have responded to changes brought about by the end of the Cold War. The countries examined are the Czech and Slovak Republics, France, Germany, Hungary, Russia, and the United Kingdom (or Britain as it is called in the book). The case studies contain much interesting and useful information. In addition, separate chapters examine the economic legacy of the Cold War, new issues in European security, and institutional arrangements in Europe. These chapters are more controversial in that the ideas and judgments they contain, as well as the approach to organizing the data in the book, will not be accepted by all readers. Their overall conclusion is that changes in Europe do not amount to a systemic transformation, only a contraction of existing structures. The impression left by the book is of a Europe that faces a crisis that is both structural and far-reaching in nature and that encompasses both economic and political spheres (chapters 2 and 10). This view reflects a line of thinking that sees conditions familiar from earlier periods being recreated in modern Europe—the combination of economic and political instability, unemployment, and a failure of (or loss of faith in) the ability of institutions and organizations to respond to problems effectively. According to this view, if we compare the post-Cold War period with the interwar years, we could be said to be roughly in 1928. To many (including the reviewer) this general conclusion seems at best overstated and could be considered downright perverse. Undoubtedly we do not yet have a clear picture of the consequences of the end of the Cold War for European security. The conclusions presented in the volume seem to be based on events up to 1994-95. The authors might moderate some findings if given an opportunity in light of more recent political and economic developments that are raising the self-confidence of governments and international organizations in Europe. The general issues dealt with in the book are of great interest. The threat of a war that could have been immensely destructive even by European standards should it have occurred was a central factor in post-1950 Europe. In conditions of a central confrontation in Europe between the world's major powers, political decision makers at the highest level attached great importance to military preparedness. Given the global confrontation between incompatible ideologies, these decision makers also saw military assistance to other countries (including providing equipment) as a necessary and useful instrument of foreign and security policy. As noted above, in spite of the declaratory statements to the contrary, European security is neither "indivisible" nor based on solidarity. However, it is based on an acknowledgement (codified in legal documents supported by organizations to verify their implementation) that force is not a useful instrument to address the problems between states. In the post-Cold War period, the benign threat environment in Europe has led to significant reductions in military spending and diminished the importance of military security issues in the eyes of great powers and in the eyes of political decision makers in general. The discussion of the basic tools of military force—armed forces and weapons—has been somewhat disconnected from "high politics" in European major powers who now see other elements as more central to their security.