The Cold War and Realism in International Relations - Essay Example

Introduction This is no coincidence that theories of International Relations developed a lot during the twentieth century. The fast pace at which international events took place during this century was unprecedented before. With these events arose the desire to study their nature. The rise of educational standards around the globe furthered the cause. Two World Wars within the space of two decades followed by a nerve-wrecking Cold War era proved to be a catalyst for understanding International Politics. The Cold War is one of the most sought after phenomenon of the twentieth century politics. Even after the fall of Soviet Union the subject continues to attract much attention of the scholars. The desire to understand the rise and fall of a great power has combined with the urge of better understanding the future course of history. Various scholars have attempted to understand the volatile nature of modern international relations. International Relation theories help a great deal in understanding the historical events and when we talk about Cold War, the theory of realism dominates the other theories towards a better understanding of the facts. The theory has its pros and cons but it hold itself true in many cases while trying to understand the cold war phenomenon. The end of World War II marked the start of the cold war. The cold war was essentially a struggle of power between the west led by United States of America (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Although both were partners during the World War II but their differences arose soon after the war on the future shape of the world. The USA led the western block whereas USSR created the eastern block comprising over eastern European countries and countries annexed by USSR. The cold war was multifaceted. It signified a bi-polar world where both US and USSR were striving for hegemony on political, military and economic fronts. Both had their ambitions but had the fears of other’s dominance resulting in efforts of balance of power as well. The cold war reached it culminating point when USSR invaded Afghanistan and tried to reach the warm waters whereas US used its diplomacy and resources to stop USSR. It ended in 1991 when the later collapsed due to economic, military and political turmoil. The cold war is named as such because through out this era no actual war took place between the two sides but the threat of such war kept looming the political world throughout. Such was the tension between the two sides that the world at large feared a World War III. International Relations deal with relationship and foreign affairs of the countries as well as international bodies. International relations emerged as a discipline in the aftermath of First World War and soon became a leading branch of political science. The events of World War II further increased the importance of this branch of political science. It became one of the most popular social sciences during the cold war era as the scholars around the world tried to understand the phenomenon of conflicts among nations. International relation theories provide platform to study international relations. There are various theories in this regard such as Marxism, constructivism and idealism but the most important ones are realism and liberalism. These two are also known as positive theories of International Relations. In the aftermath of World War II and all through the Cold War, realism surpassed liberalism as the tool of understanding international power conflicts. The term realism was ffirst coined by Thucydides around in 450 B.C. in his work History of the Peloponnesian War. Later Machiavelli wrote his famous book The Prince in 1513 where he also used the term. The Prince is known as a foundation for realist political thought, particularly in the field of international relations (Doyle, 1997: 93). After the Second World War Hans Morgenthau wrote his book titled Politics Among Nations. The Struggle for Power and Peace where he examined this theory in detail and advocated it as a tool of political study’. Realism became one the most prominent theories of International Relations during the second half of the 20th century. It is also knows as political realism. The realist political scientists believe that idealism –an other approach in early political thoughts- has no room in the modern political systems. This school of thought advocates that national security is the utmost important factor in the eyes of a state and things like ideals, ethical principals and social responsibility have no space in international relations. This concept coined the famous saying that ‘there is no right or wrong in international relations; there is only national interest’. The theory of realism has certain assumptions. A realist political philosopher believes that: International relations are based upon anarchy; States are the most important actors in international relations; No institution or governing body can dictate to sovereign states thus they much settle their disputes themselves; Big powers have more weight in their voice as they can dictate terms; States are unitary actors and whole nation backs what the state says even if there are differences among people at domestic level; States are rational enough to identify their goals and preferences; High politics which consists of security and national interest govern every state’s foreign policy; Every state strives to achieve economic and military power to ensure national security. Many branches of political realism developed over the course of time. They all tried to explain the nature of events during the Two World Wars and the Cold War and looked to explain future trends in international relations. They all share the basic features of the theory but differ in details. The interesting point in almost all of them is that they all are influenced in one way or the other to the events happening during the second half of the twentieth century. Among these prominent ones include: Offensive realism which states that every state has inherent desire to expand and it will do so whenever there is an opportunity present; Defensive realism which states that anarchy in the international relations force states to take security measures; Liberal realism which states that the world at large is a society of states just like a society of people living in a village; Subaltern realism which states that third world countries are more concerned with short term objectives The above discussion on Political Realism provides us with a very interesting finding. The salient features required to hold political realism viable were very much the corner stones of cold war politics. The war was based upon the desires of both big powers to expand; their fears of self security on the eve of other party’s expansionist designs and their ability to negate international non-state organizations such as United Nations when it came to their national security. On the one hand USSR was seeking to reach the warmer waters and oil of gulf through Afghanistan and Pakistan. On the other hand USA and its allies were all bent to negate any such adventure from USSR. The Cold War also signifies that Realism theory was correct when it came to third world countries. Countries like Pakistan looked to take immediate advantages from the Afghan situation rather than having a long term agenda. This resulted in a huge political turmoil in the region in the aftermath of Soviet defeat. The rise of Al-Qaida, Taliban and other religious extremist groups in the region is a direct result of such short term decision making. The cold war particularly demonstrated defensive and offensive realism at its best. Defensive realism suggests that if a state is feeling insecure it would look for means to counter that insecurity. USA felt that insecurity during the early stages of cold war. The Soviet invaded Afghanistan and the US responded with a very hostile reply in backing the Afghan Jihad. US even changed its diplomatic policies toward non-parties to the conflict where it felt necessary to guard its own interests. Countries located as far as Latin America where it feared a communist connection and in Middle East where it looked to find support against Soviets felt the change in America’s policies the most. In the era of Ronald Reagan America’s foreign policy was at its best to diplomatically engage as many countries as possible. Defensive realism also suggests that states will look to enhance their economic and military powers when feeling insecure. This is precisely what USA tried to do throughout the cold war, right from the Cuban missile attacks till the fall o soviets. The military budget of US increased dramatically during the era. The desire of security was sufficient for the nation to allow for such expenses at the cost of social security measures. If on the one hand America was feeling the heat of defensive realism, the USSR was caught up by offensive realism. The first most characteristic of offensive realism is that states desire to maximize their power by all means and will do so whenever there is an opportunity. The USSR felt that it had the power to expand and the attack over Afghanistan was ample proof of that. Similarly, as soon as the decline of Soviet Union escalated defensive realism hit them hard. The reality that more than 40% of USSR’s budget was going to defense and that the state could not bear its own weight proved to be a U-turn for Soviets. Gorbachev first withdrew the Red Army from Eastern Europe and then left Afghanistan. During the process it even left the European and Central Asian states it had annexed since World War II. There is an other angle to view offensive realism’s application in cold war. It suggests that third world countries and weak states look for short term benefits and will cooperate with bigger nations because of smaller countries’ own sense of insecurity. Through out the cold war the whole world was divided into two groups. Almost all states were forced to side with either of the two. In this regards the USSR used offensive techniques as predicted by offensive realism and had direct control over the land and resources of many states. The US, on the other hand, used the defensive approach of realism and tried to find partners based upon mutual sense of insecurity. The creation of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) were the cornerstones of such policy. Conclusion Today, almost two decades after the fall of Soviet Union, political realism is at a cross-road. The fall of Soviet Union had long ended the bi-polar world where one power could contain the other and vice-versa. Instead a uni-polar world had emerged with USA as the sole super power. Regional powers have started to emerge now; the rise of European Union (EU) and increasing importance of international bodies have started to shape the world differently. Economic blocks are fast becoming popular. Multinationals Organizations have started to speak louder than states. These developments are far different than the realities of Cold War era. Other theories of international relations e.g. neo-liberals etc. are coming forward to argue their cases. It would be interesting to see if realism can hold itself true in these changing times or not but it would be wrong to hold itself as completely non-viable even in the changed times. If some facts have changed, others have not. States are still the main forces in international relations; they still seek power and hold their national security very high. International system is as anarchic in its nature as before and realities in the eyes of policy makers and scholars have also not changed a lot. There are obstacles in the way of post cold-war realism as well. The rise of terrorism and religious extremism in the world combined with extreme nationalist and ideological bases has changed the face of realism. The threats posted by these elements require independent studies to evaluate the weight of each and only then a modern or new-realism school of thought can provide thought provoking knowledge. Political realism played a significant part in the politics of cold war era. The nature of struggle between the cold war enemies was such that the features of realist theory proved to be very true in those times. Today’s world may not be the best picture portraying the assumptions of the realism theory as it did during the cold war but it still depicts many a features identical to the theory is discussion. Political scientists have also given weight to other theories e.g. constructivism, liberalism and world system theory in recent times but the most important in this regard is the Critical Theory. The critical theory says that all theories have their weight but the final decision rests with human decision making. Human beings chose the best possible things keeping in view the demands of their times. This is where political realism will continue to serve human minds towards better understanding of political phenomenon. Future history may unfold many an unseen pages where political realism may work as a beacon. Work Cited Doyle, Michael. 1997. Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism. New  York: Norton. Read More