The Cold War Interpreted - Essay Example

Essay: The Cold War Interpreted The cold war explained After the end of World War II, there was polarization of the world in a cold war involving two superpowers; the US and the Soviet Union. Coming out of the post-world war II tensions, the two superpowers developed mutual suspicions, mistrust, heightened tensions as well as a sequence of international incidents that almost brought the two superpowers to the precipice of disaster (Walker, 1995). Thus a conflict of very different ideologies-communism versus capitalism and beliefs-each one of them held with nearly religious conviction, became the basis of a worldwide struggle for power, with every side vying for supremacy ,exploiting each chance for expansion everyplace in the world(Gottfried,2003).Two perspectives arose to explain this standoff; realist and liberal perspectives. The realist perspective fundamentally focuses on numerous possible reasons that led to this standoff; maybe the Cold War started due to Soviet aggression, or maybe due to expansionist nature of America’s capitalistic system, or, maybe it started basically due to the international security impasse that left the 2 countries with no other feasible option. Whatsoever the reason ,realists are of the opinion that the US was victorious because of deterrence in addition to an arms race which made the Soviet Union bankrupt(Jehangir, 2012). The realist, or materialist explanation regarding the Cold War is on the basis of the concept of stagnation of Soviet economy due to a number of reasons; one of the most significant being the arms race against the United States. Soviet Union’s leader by then, Gorbachev acknowledged that, were a new round of arms race to start, there would be so much pressure on his country’s economy. Thus the impracticality of the Soviet Union to effectively compete with the US as well as other Western countries in the arms race is entrenched in a technological progress gap existing between the Western States and the Soviet Union. The other key reason for Soviet Union’s economic stagnation was rooted in technological competitiveness and economic productivity. This led to reduced growth rates and long term decline. In addition, the international promises made by Soviet Union to Cuba, Ethiopia and Afghanistan were becoming a heavy burden to the economy of Soviet Union (Jehangir, 2012). The realist perspective also analyzes the external factors that led to the end of the Cold War and collapsing of the Soviet Union as a world superpower. One of these factors is economic growth of the US and Western Europe throughout the entire 2nd half of the 20th century. It is this growth in the economy that enabled the US to raise its expenditure in military; making it possible for West Germany and Japan to near the US development level. The other 2nd external factor that led to the end of the Cold War was reforms/transformations in the international system, especially in Eastern Europe. Thus, following the fall of the Berlin Wall and subsequent reunification of West and East Germany with the ascent to power of non-socialists governments such as Hungary, Poland, as well as Czechoslovakia drastically inflicted a huge harm to the Soviet Union’s image resulting to the end of the Cold War (Gottfried, 2003). Thus realism aids in explaining the importance of the material pressures that greatly hindered Soviet’s leaders’ policy choices in the 1980s.At that time there were several possibilities, especially those of systems transformation. Thus wars that involve adequate key powers might be system-transforming and as happens in a bipolar world, a key power may search for hegemony or rather look to enlarge the pool of key powers by engineering union of many 2nd tier nations. This perspective therefore implies that states find themselves in an unavoidable security competition and while in power struggle, it becomes difficult for states to agree and cooperate in the building of a peaceful global order. Nevertheless, this is exactly what Western leaders and Gorbachev did at the end of the Cold War (Tyan, 2012). Realists argue that a global swing in material structure prevented Soviet leaders from executing anything but balancing back their empire and power. Hence, the ideational factors submitted to by Soviet leaders at that era and by international relations researchers later resulted from material structure-material incentives and pressures created by material factors became the key driver of Soviet policy decision-making. Though the effect of ideational factors is not entirely discounted, realists argue that material inducements methodically destabilized substitutes to retrenchment inside Soviet sphere of influence (Darnton, 2014). Realism focuses mainly on existing structure-and indeed some of realism’s strongest theoretical-analytical material investigates static structure as opposed to dynamic transformation and history. In addition, realism is also well-prepared in handling of material forces as well as the policies for tackling economic problems that the Soviet Union faced at the end of the Cold War. Nevertheless, realism, with its key focus being on international structure ,could be well-versed to underline the material pressures that created the approaches considered by Soviet leaders in handling the methodical economic issues involving fiscal management and military spending. Nonetheless, factors of comparative power with the West and the US, in the sense of traditional power were not principal in the occurrences that brought the Cold War to an end. Realist insights and assumptions into the end of the Cold War arise from the realist notion of anarchy and may clarify the end of the Cold War as shrewd modification of Soviet Union of ends and means to accomplish its basic security concern in a world that is hostile. As far as realism is concerned, there is running away from “self-help” urgency that controls nations in a world that is hostile (Little & Smith, 2006). The liberal viewpoint on the other hand focuses on diplomacy and institutions and attributes Cold War origins to the failure of UN to institute collective security. Thus liberals argue that Cold War came to an end via the gradual process of negotiations, communications as well as détente, which was characterized by agreements such as those of Helsinki Accords. Liberalism can also crudely be described as a concept whose basis is on individual freedom since it believes that humans are good tempered beings. The core ideals for liberalism stress on human rights, sovereignty from authority, individualism, universality as well as the power of law to treat everyone equally (Jehangir, 2012). Liberalism can assist in explaining how Gorbachev endeavored to manage as well as take advantage of developments in domestic-politics in Eastern Europe and his own backyard. Most significantly, liberalism can assist in explaining the peaceful end of Cold War. The policies of economic restructuring and political openness pursued by Gorbachev opened democratization trends doors particularly in Eastern Europe. Liberalism also assists in understanding the events that unfolded in Europe with its economic interdependence claim that Gorbachev recognized that the disintegration of the Eastern European and Soviet economies would only be prevented through creation of economic associations that would further open economic ties with the West. The focus by liberalism on democracy, domestic political structures, economic interdependence as well as international organizations presented a powerful, multi-causal justification for the occurrences that resulted in 1989 historical chain of incidents that completely changed the international political structure that; even with the full engagement of national security concerns (the Soviet military was in one piece and the cold war was still ongoing until 1991).Liberal’s outlook of changing state preferences assists in explaining Gorbachev’s concern in resolving the military rivalry of cold war(Ikenberry,2009). Moravicsk (1997) argues that power balancing by realist was just a momentary sustenance of the status quo. This is because the end of the Cold War was followed exactly as per the prediction of Kenan’s 2-stage liberal model .The balancing of power by realist served through the entire period as an interim, static tool for maintaining the status quo, even though changing state preferences gives an insight on the eruption as well as final passing of the clash. By annulling the Brezhnev doctrine, Gorbachev foresaw a political mileage in addition to responding to significant transformations in the local political landscape in Eastern Europe and Soviet Unions, and thus transforming the political policies inside the communist bloc-this was not a reaction to any structural powers. Nevertheless, Gorbachev appeared liberated by the new reasoning instead of being restricted by any systematic powers (Moravicsk, 1997). According to liberalists, the Cold War came to an end, the way it did due to pressures for political representation and pluralism as well as economic incentives that led to the creation of political opportunities for such leaders as Gorbachev; empowering them to respond to societal power groups demands in addition to representing new state inclinations. Whereas liberalism lays emphasis on the 1989 crumbling of socialism in Eastern Europe as the fundamental transformation that Gorbachev was reacting to, the perspective of the individual actor focuses on developments that had started no less than 3 years earlier. Eventually when the Cold War came to an end-which to Margaret Thatcher was as early as 1988-the existing description signaled the 1989 Eastern Europe’ socialism end as well as a critical turning point. This was despite prior occurrences such as the 1986 Chernobyl disaster which were quite influential in the creation of new thinking that Gorbachev assisted implement using the new Soviet strategies(Jehangir, 2012). One of the most strong explanations as to why the Cold War ended emanated from the perception of the individual actor; that Gorvachev together with his team of policy analysts and makers, starting in mid 1980s, mutually reached at a coherent notion (global view) that allowed the security mutuality in the nuclear era in addition to the interdependence of states-settling on a policy approach whose aim was preventing the security impasse at the center of the tensions in Cold War. Thus, Soviet reasoning did not just recognize the international community, but also claimed that the Soviet Union ought to be a full participant in the so called, “ liberal international community” which basically was a definitive change for particularly communist leaders together with a legitimately new national distinctiveness for the Soviet Union having facilitated the new formulation of national concerns. According to the perception of the individual actor therefore, the cold war came to an end in the manner it did since Gorbachev had changed his initiatives for the role of the Soviet Union in international political arena, in addition to being able to pass adequate policies to turn that new national uniqueness into a political reality (Moravicsk, 1997). Thus, the realist’s notions of power accumulation and power would advocate that the Cold War came to an end due to Soviet’s acknowledgement of a patent powerlessness to protect herself against potential military assault against herself and her satellites. Through a realist concept of power, someone would make an assumption that for there to be an end of Cold War, there had to be an acceptance of some form of explicit and formal defeat by the Soviet Union. However, on the contrary Soviet’s leader Gorbachev behaved like he assumed that the new concepts he embodied had won. On the other hand, for liberalist the Cold War ended due to not only economic inducements but also political push for political reforms and representation; creating opportunities for individuals such as Gorbachev to rally power by symbolizing new state inclinations (Ikenberyy, 2009). References Andrew, M. (1997). Taking Preferences Seriously:A liberal Theory of International Politics. International Organization 51 , 547. Christopher, D. (2014). Rivalry and Alliance Politics in Cold War Latin America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hamza, J. (2012). Realism,Liberalism and the Possibilities of Peace. International Relations Students , np. John, I. (2009). Liberalism in a Realist World:International Relations as an American Scholarly Tradition. International Studies , 205. Little, R., Smith, M. (2006). Perspectives on World Politics. New York: Psychology Press. Martin, W. (1995). The Cold War. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Nikolay, T. (2012). How Different Theoretical Perspectives Explain the End of the Cold War. Academia.edu , np. Ted, G. (2003). The Cold War. New York: Twenty-First Century Books. Read More