A Radical Reinterpretation for the Soviet Union - Essay Example

 A Radical Reinterpretation for the Soviet Union Introduction: Before the cold war concluded, the conflict between the Communist Soviet and the democratic USA, a revolutionary event came forward in the account of world politics via the activities of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. This revolution has been hypothesized and projected as policy of “bourgeois restoration, populist resurgence, or libertarian reaffirmation” (Abbott, 1997). This revolutionary policy measure emerged from an political and economic condition of a deliberate growth of economy, reduction of international power and results in a policy of tough defense and reaffirmation of the state concern, reopening of idea of market economy over state controlled system and repronouncement of customary and conventional values and ethics. Reagan and Thatcher, both took the dynamics of conservative approach of politics, such as governmental law of legislation, electoral command, and media treatment for implementing such programs on the ground of national and economic policy. World Politics and the End of the Cold War: Relationship between both allies (Soviet Union and USA) of the Second World War, deteriorate after the war period though the severances on the ground of control of world power already started between the world’s top two powerful nation even before the war. Knowing as cold war, the rival relationship between these two nations mainly started due to their complete opposite standpoints regarding the management and execution of politics and economic functionalities. When America believed in a democratic political environment, Soviet accepted the policy of dictatorship and autocratic− completely different from democratic orientation. Communist believes of Soviet Union wanted to demoralize the doctrine of ‘Survival of the fittest’ of the capitalist America. During the Second World War for defeating Germany and Italy, the associate nations expressed interest to handshake with the communist Soviet Union though both Russia and the USA did not like to agree on that issue. Differences in thought between Russia and the USA started to gather the momentum on the ground of allocation of power at the post-war period. After the war, when Russia and the Allies partners divided the territories of Germany into their respective occupancies, the relationship of Russia with USA and Great Britain turned out into a bitter state of affairs. In one hand Russia almost took the controlling power of the east Europe in its hand. On the other hand, Britain and specially USA wanted to prevent the stretching of power of communism in the world. Besides, both the western allies and the communists wanted to capture other nations, such as Vietnam, on the morality of power establishment and gradually affianced in wars. Besides Russia tried to guard it and its alliances from the west. A radical competition almost started on the earth on superiority in economic execution, development in science and improvement in technology that ultimately led to furnishing of nuclear and atomic weapons in the hand of many countries. During this period of time, many attempts were taken for making a diplomatic consensus between the democrats and the communists to the end the era of the Cold War. But it was continued until the protest started to rise against the notion of communism by many states of the Eastern Europe. With the fall of the so-called ‘Berlin Wall’ the protest against the communism started to get its ground in Poland. The politicians and the leaders of Soviet Union and USA thought for mutual understanding with supportive talks between themselves, as this was probably the almost right time for that. The ice of the cold war started to melt down for giving relieves to many people across the world. Reestablishment of the political and ambassadorial relationship among the Cold War players started. (Wohlforth, 1994-95, pp- 111-125) Post cold war - Transformation of Soviet Union The thought behind the realism archetype was based on the central postulation and conjecture of the mayhem and turmoil that define the characteristics of the system of international movements. Realism may be explained for the three most international developments that took place firstly in the period of unification and peace among the superpowers of the earth emerged when the Second World War was over. Secondly it may be explained by the rejection of Soviet Union of its territory and domain and thirdly, the conversion of the prevailing global arrangement after the end of the cold war. The breakdown of the international order in 1930 raised the concept and notion of realism. As the Second World War came to conclusion when the international cooperation fell down, pragmatism came up to be known as the leading method in the line of political practice in USA. (Lebo, 1994, pp 250-255) At the time of cold war the thought of displacing realism was continuously frustrated by the rivalry of the world two prominent powers, Soviet Union and the U.S. At present when there is no such contention exists in the world, one of the main argument to the politicians is whether the rapid turn down and the serene and passive crumple of the Soviet Union in the global politics disgrace the thought of realism. In this regard many politicians have argued that event of Soviet Union’s plunge bewildered the realist thinking as it seems not relevant to understand the political principles of the period after the cold war. Others argue that the late 1980s revolution of world politics may not be the proper assessment for the realism. (Wohlforth, 1994-95, pp. 91-93) However, the theory behind the realism should not be nullified by the early 90s renovation of the international politics as the notion of realism should not be narrowed only in the form of structural realism which merely has any relation with the change. Rather, it is very helpful to build up the perception of pragmatism as reflected in the thought of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan for explaining the peaceful submission of Soviet Union. Rational thinking suggests, the influence of the Soviet Union has declined relatively and this reassured the west. Khrushchev, Stalin and Brezhnev presumed that they had the capabilities to continue compete with U.S on their ideological belief. But Gorbachev implicitly understood the condensed potential of the Soviet Union, which was the main force for withdrawing enmity with United States. (Wohlforth, 1994-95, pp. 94-100). According to realism, relative changes in power accustom the changes of the actions of the nation by means of the adjustment with the exogenous constrictions. Period of The Cold War seems very different from the other important evolutionary periods in perspective of the international dimension because of the stability of the international relationship that persisted for almost forty years. Thought of structural realism seemed to explain this condition. However, the transformation of the world political system at the post 80s and pre 90s period does not comprise a decisive case for realism. The realization that the cold war was over was accomplished as the conglomerate state Soviet Union contracted by forsaking the Post-Cold War. Analysis of realism has focused their target on the structural realism, which has been displayed prominently during the post 1989 period with its accredited meagerness in understanding such changes. However, the complexity of theoretically and practically different formation from units is particularly apparent when the international diplomatic relations is in a shape of instability. The excitement and enthusiasm is high to measure structure. It is difficult to detect the present structure or what are the processes to accurately know when actually it has altered. (Gaddis, 1992-1993, pp.17-38) As the Cold War came to an end Soviet took out its troops from the Eastern Europe. However, United States maintained an ample army in Europe. This allowed the U.S. to deter hostility and retain the balancing role that it failed to keep in 1914 and in 1939. This also helped the U.S to strengthen its hand to exercise the leverage over the states of the East Europe. (Evera, 1990-1991, pp. 54-57). Conclusions and further outlook On the ground of international coalitions, end of the Cold War and alteration in the domestic construction we may raise some arguments. The theories of realism and liberalism opened the window of prospect for the end of the Cold War by explaining the structural changes highlighted by these theories. We should explain specifically the revolution of foreign policy taken by Gorbachev and the response of the West on this, if we eager to know its direct cause. (Wohlforth, 1994-95, pp. 106-115) Structural explanations are very limited for this explanation. Secondly, we can say that the substance of the change in the Soviet foreign policy and the reaction of the West on it together executed a vital contribution to the conclusion of the Cold War. There were some specific ideologies and fundamental beliefs, some values and tactical prescriptions. These ideas mainly originated in various academic societies and from a global moderate and international society particularly those, which informed about the reviewing of the Soviet security. Finally, an improved domestic structural move that integrates political culture can explain such differences. (Risse-Kappen, 1994, pp.186-195) Therefore the structural hypothesis of international and diplomatic relations should be balanced by methods that incorporate domestic policies, intercontinental associations and the function of ideas and thought to reinterpret the changes in the world politics. References 1) Abbott, P. (1997). Leadership by exemplar: Reagan's FDR and Thatcher's Churchill, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 27. available at: http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LzqYTTyLZWTT0yjpyzW1R2FJ3p69F1LWdypH2Pnl11TLlnVkT7d5!1487624667!-1514640193?docId=5000477583 (accessed on March 31, 2010) 2) Evera, V, S (1990-1991), “Primed for peace: Europe after the Cold War”, International Security, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 7-57 3) Gaddis, L, J. (1992-1993), “International relations theory and the end of the Cold War”, International Security, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.5-58. 4) Risse-Kappen, T. (1994), “Ideas do not float freely: Transnational coalitions, domestic structures, and the end of the Cold War”, International Organization, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.185-214. 5) Lebow, N, R. (1994), “The long peace, the end of the Cold War, and the failure of Realism”, International Organization, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.249-77. 6) Wohlforth, C, W. (1994-1995), “Realism and the end of the Cold War”, International Security, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.91-129. Read More