International Relations during and after the Cold War - Essay Example

International Relations during and after the Cold War Name: Course: Tutor: Date: The cold war was a different kind of war than the previous wars that had rocked the world before. This war can be said to have lasted between 1947 till 1991. According to Gaddis, this war was characterized by high and sustained political and military tension (Gaddis 2000). During this time Germany had fallen from the vantage point in international politics and the United States had risen to fill this void. The cold war thus was majorly tension between The United States of America and United Soviet Socialist Republics. Funnily enough this tension was coming just after these two countries had successfully partnered against Hitler’s Nazi Germany campaign and as the Germans were defeated these two countries stepped in to fill the power vacuum. (Donnelley 2000) This war was called a cold war because none of these antagonizing countries actually faced each other in a head on battle as experienced before. The general explanation to this is that because both these super powers were in possession of nuclear weapons and they posed mutual destruction to each other. It was evident that in case either of them struck the other with nuclear weapons the other would also have a chance of hitting back and causing just the same kind of destruction. This mutual fear of annihilation ensured that these two countries could not consider meeting each other in the open battlefield like the one experienced in the world wars prior to that date. Thus they fell back on ideological fighting and the race to spread their ideals across the globe and in the same time reduces the influence of each other. This paper wills analyze the international relations during the cold war and post cold war eras. There are similarities and difference in how countries relate with each other during the cold war and after. One of the similarities is that there was an international body that was tasked with the affairs of harmonizing the relations of these countries. This was the United Nations this body was instituted to champion peaceful relations of countries. Today it has been given the same mandate but the distinguishable difference is that during the cold war it took a stand actually and it also took part in this war by supporting the allies against the Soviet Union’s actions (Gaddis 2000). The second similarity was that during the cold war period was characterized by countries trying to determine their political systems so as to adapt to the existing environment that they found themselves in. to this extend governments choose to either rally with either of the super powers with the key intention of gaining political and economic development by this association. Today countries are lining up to rally behind China, one of the leading economic giant from the east and USA and Britain which represent the development from the West. This deliberate alignment of countries perceived to be powerful has been alive even to date. However there are differences as to how international relations worked during the cold war and to date. Firstly during the cold war period the countries of the world were majorly divided into two camps. This was called the bipolar effect of the cold war. This grouping led to a distinguishable linear division between the East and the West. According to Geoffrey the Soviet Union and its allies were a huge threat to the American Interests (Geoffrey 2005). To this extend how the Americans reacted to this threat led to the bipolar world which was characterized by two super powers with keen ideological difference and competition. Many countries across the globe joined either side of the divide for different reasons. The American government therefore adopted a containment policy to try and bud the spread of the Soviet’s influence in the political arena. They hence went ahead and forged military alliances such as alliances NATO, SEATO, CENTO and ANZUS which ensured the success the spread of the socialism influence was cut. A point in case is the allies’ involvement in Korea leading to the Korean War. The actions of the American administrators to divide the peninsula along 38th parallel which was taken up as the influence of the US military and southern Korea being the influence area of the soviet. This divide subsequently led to a national civil disorder and war called the autumn uprising. Further still they created an economic system through many subsequent programs that led to trade agreements that locked out the soviets Union and all its allies, this also included aid programs for their friendly nations and economic packages like the Marshall plan. These campaigns eventually worked and the Soviet Union collapsed. In contrast to this, the period post cold war has been filled with many countries developing rapidly in terms of their economies and governance (Gaddis 2000). Today, instead of the USA facing one sole opponent in regard to being the super power there exist a fluid environment where many countries actually have the potential of our staging them in the international power politics. China for instance has come up so fast and taken over the major sectors in regard to economical and technological advancement. This country has also invested in growing its influence outside its continent and this has greatly increased their veto power in the international politics. Other countries like Germany, Britain and Japan are also heavy weights in the international power play. This non specific power opponent is different from the one USA faced in the cold war period. This complex and dynamic international system is anything other than bipolar. This is the axis of power does not belong to only two countries anymore (Donnelly 2000) Secondly during the cold war period, there was a crazy unchecked development of nuclear energy and other weapons of mass destruction without any producer of these facing legal constraints. The USA and USSR pursued highly competitive nuclear energy and weapons development without qualms from any other states. However, after the cold war, the international community realized the catastrophe humanity will be faced with if such unrestricted active pursue of nuclear weapons would be allowed. To this extend countries came up with international laws and restrictions to govern how countries would pursue this kind of nuclear energy. In the present time countries which try to pursue nuclear energy in a manner likely to suggest that they may use it for ulterior motives face international sanctions for example North Korea and Iran (Donnelly 2000). The other major difference is that during the cold war period, the American government and the Soviet Union were majorly concerned with the military might of their countries and of their allies. This was a cautious move to ensure that they could outmaneuver each other if war would break out. Today structural economic problems that they face have become the leading concern. Each country is keen in developing the welfare of their citizenry by engaging in economical activities that would increase their political strengths (Charlton 2002). This economic question however has been the pain of the United States as China one of the cold war enemies to USA and now a key partner in the United States economic affairs has increasingly grown its influence on the international political scene. This development has threatened the US power share in the worked as more and more countries have started to align themselves and be sympathizers of China. China today stands as the potential inheritor of the super power mantle from USA. There are many ideologies and theories that have been postulated to try and explain the above happenings in international relations as per training to the cold war Liberalists have always held that states are free to act as their own individuals and be the major determinants of their governance and how they relate to other countries. In this regard they explain that countries like the United States of America adhere to their national aspirations and the way they engage other countries in the international arena is in a way that does not contradict their own national policies and aspirations. However realists have come up to refute this claim as they assert that the reality on the ground is that countries do not have the same influence over the international politics let alone their own internal politics. They give an example of how countries like the United States and the Soviet Union during the cold war period took to arm twisting governments across the globe to ensure that the other’s influence was curtailed. The clear hand of these countries in most of the developing countries in the European , Middle East, Asian and African continents was a an indicator that not all countries are as free to determine themselves as the liberalists think (Charlton 2002).  In addition to this there is the school of neo liberalists have championed the spread of democracy and free market economy. They have also championed the international legal system that seeks to protect each and every state as sovereign. To the liberalists they hold that peace should be the main objective in international relations, if conflicts arise they can always be dealt with in a manner not to lead to war. However from the cold war period and even today this has not been fully achievable. This is because there are still many instances where the determination of different states has been snatched out of the hands of the local populace. There are political realists today who have even gone ahead to try and rationalize the influence that USA has on other countries. According to David Abshire who is a leading personnel in the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, he says that “ the international politics ought to be flexible and selective international intervention based on which the US will get involved only in cases when it’s strictly defined vital interests are at stake (Gaddis 2000, p 45). They hold that this is a very natural state of affairs because there needs to be strife for countries to deal with but this strife can be lived with because it contributes also to the development of the international relations (Geoffrey 2005) This selective intervention has been the reason why the US has got involved in the affairs of countries like the Somalia and the Afghanistan in their quest to stamp out terrorism by the Al-Qaida. Just as there existed proxy wars and wars during the cold war era, there is still significant strife among nations with ideological and resources distribution being the key focus. The terrorists of al Qaida perceive the West in general as self seeking and out to impede their development by controlling their oil fields. On the other hand the West perceives themselves as champions of justice and democracy and they seek to establish this in the Middle East and beyond. They hold that this terrorist group poses a threat to their citizenry and to their interests across the globe. This has been their argument to enter into other countries and pursue these terrorist groups. However the irony of all this is that these terrorist have taken up arms against the US because they hold that the influence they force down other countries is not always welcome and neither is it applicable to everyone as they would want to think. This can be illustrated by the failed democratic states of Afghanistan (Young 1998) In conclusion, the cold war was indeed a defining period in the international relations history and many of the international policies today and how countries relate was defined majorly by this period. This war ideally ended in 1991 but the underlying factors and strife have never been resolved completely. The tension between the North and southern Korea, the active pursuant of nuclear power and energy still is a concern for the key players in the international arena. The United Nations however has undergone a lot of improvement and has quite a significant hold on the international relation affairs of countries in the world. However its mandate on the USA which chose not to be a member is still an international issue yet to be resolved. Reference CHARLTON, M. (2002). Crosscurrents: international relations in the post-cold war era [...] [...]. Scarborough, Ontario [u.a.], Nelson Thomsen Pp 12-27 DONNELLY, J. (2000). Realism and international relations. Cambridge, [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Press Pp 14-38 Geoffrey R. 2005 "Litvinov's Lost Peace, 1941-1946" (Volume 4, Issue 2): Pp.5-7 Young K. 1998 "A Most Special Relationship: The Origins of Anglo-America Nuclear Strike Planning"(Volume 9, Issue 2):Pp.3-4 Gaddis L. J. 2000 International Security Vol. 17, No. 3 (Winter, 1992-1993), Published by: The MIT Press pp. 5-58 Read More