The East-West Rivalry of the Cold War - Research Paper Example

INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT by Date Introduction The years following World War 11 (1939-1945) marked the beginning of a change in world politics and were dominated by East- West rivalry of Cold War. It was a period marked by bipolarity with the United States and the Soviet Union emerging from the war as the world superpowers. Though the two nations were allies in WWII against Japan and Germany, there were tensions and mistrust between the leaders dictated by historical events and ideological differences. The Soviet Union was communist while the U.S was advocating for capitalism and democracy in the world. As such, Joseph Stalin of USSR blamed the WWII on capitalism and was bent on ensuring its collapse while Roosevelt aimed at ending the spread of fascism communism especially in Eastern Europe. The cold war thus began in 1946-1991. It was regarded as Cold War since there was no direct fighting between the two superpowers but use of proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan among other areas. The war escalated leading to arms and space race with potential of culminating into an all-out nuclear WWIII or annihilation. The end of the Cold War led to redefinition of international conflict. While the Cold War involved conflicts between sovereign nation states (inter-state conflict), in post-Cold War period internal conflicts are predominant. Yilmaz observed that “from May 1988, as the cold War was coming to an end, up to present day, out of the 47 conflicts in which United Nations has intervened, only 3 are inter-state in character.”1Now some conflicts are considered threats to international peace even though states are not fighting. The aim of this essay is to evaluate how conflict has changed in the post-Cold War using two international relations theories: realism and liberalism. It will argue that the Cold War had framed all conflicts hence the end of cold war was a watershed in contemporary conflicts. This change is enhanced by democratization, end of bipolarity, increased globalization, and redefinition of sovereignty, international coordination of security policy as well as increased role of international organizations such as the UN. Brief history There have been various wars in the international system ranging from civil wars to wars of international scale such as the First World War and Second World War culminating into the Cold War. Due to the size and character of the wars, Goldstein et al. Acknowledges the difficulty involved in defining war.2 As such, many theories have been advanced as to what causes war but none of these theories has a strong empirical support. The realists would argue that conflicts are inherent in the world system due to power balancing by states seeking to advance self-interests while liberalists would argue that if only states cooperated, then peace would prevail as each state would gain. However, critical theorists stress the importance of class inequalities in causing conflicts.3 In this sense, international conflict mainly entails discovering and explaining why states get into conflict or war and how such conflicts can be resolved. International conflict is part of international relations (IR) which refers to a set of ideas that explains how the international system works. Realism is the dominant IR theory with its origins in the WWII; it was a response to the atrocities committed during that time. It is based on state centrism, rationality, power, unitary actors and low politics. Proponents of this theory also believe there can never be a world government hence a state of anarchy exists. Other theories such as liberalism were a response to the claims made by realists and it views democracy as an important tool in ending conflicts since cooperating nations rarely fight each other. After liberalism came Marxism or critical theories grounded in the works of Marx and Engel. Marx emphasized that capitalism produced two classes opposed to each other hence class conflicts are inherent in this kind of system.4 Critical theory involves such theories as the world systems theory, Gramscian hegemony, and feminism. The Cold War however, was rooted in realism as it was all about power and struggle for dominance by the two superpowers. The whole conflict began when the ‘Big Three’: US President Roosevelt, Britain Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin of Russia as they defined how post-World War II Europe would look like. The USSR was to dominate most of Eastern Europe while Britain and U.S dominated Western Europe. Europe was divided into ‘occupational zones’ while Berlin Germany was divided among the four powers (Britain, U.S, USSR and France). United Nations (UN) and the UN Security Council were formed to ensure peace prevails. However, the Soviet Union being suspicious of U.S and Britain as well as UN engaged in conquering states and transforming them to socialist republics culminating into formation of Eastern Bloc or what was regarded as ‘iron curtain’ by Churchill.5 It is this behavior that led to other nations to feel threatened by Soviet Union hence engage in war for dominance especially the U.S. This was achieved by economic and military assistance to states engaged in civil war and the defeat of one side meant the other was the powerful one. Cold War escalated between U.S and Soviet Union but eventually, the U.S won hence remained the only superpower after the war was over in 1991. This war shaped U.S foreign policy for decades. However, the post-Cold War was an era of globalization hence needed a change in strategy in dealing with international conflict. The first way in which conflict changed in post-Cold War period is that now the international system was no longer bipolar since the U.S was the only superpower. An increased role and responsibility for the U.S in peacekeeping was inevitable. The U.S placed itself in the world system as the police to ensure democracy thrived. Bipolarity in international system during Cold War necessitated the use of traditional diplomacy or use of influence to dominate states. Cold War was based on realist theory whereby the states are the only actors hence it was easy for US or Soviet Union to exert influence.6 In this case, the most powerful state in terms of military capabilities and resources had greater influence and this made the U.S and Soviet Union to spend highly on defense at the expense of investments so as to win this war. At the end of the Cold War, both nations had spent great deal of money on military especially while engaging in arms race and space race.7 The USSR was hardly hit and its economy was on its knees hence its main priority became economic reconstruction. It was this spending that led to breakdown of Soviet Union into sovereign republics and fall of communist party hence the fall of USSR as a world power. It could no longer compete with U.S for dominance and this shaped further conflicts. Since each power during Cold War was serving self-interests, sometimes they found it necessary to cooperate to avoid an eminent nuclear war or to avoid mutual assured destruction. The Cuban missile crisis almost resulted in nuclear war and there was this possibility as long as the two powers engaged in arms race. In post-Cold war, the U.S is not competing for power hence it uses its resources to ensure international peace especially by offering assistance in terms of humanitarian aid, military where needed. For example, it helped oust Saddam Hussein’s military from Iraq with the help of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other allies. Cooperation has become the norm thus embracing liberalism. A marked change in post-Cold War era is use of liberalism theory as opposed to realism. Liberalism assumes there is no state of anarchy since cooperation exists between states and laws do exist to govern international relations.8 In absence of world governments, the rules guide international relations and place upon leaders of sovereign states the responsibility to ensure rules are observed and that peace prevails. As such, there is increased responsibility for states. Liberalists do not believe in use of military force to resolve conflicts as it was during the Cold War. Instead, creation of democracies ensures conflicts are reduced since those who cooperate rarely fight. The spirit of cooperation is thus evident in post-Cold War in terms of economic, social and political spheres. This has been made possible through globalization and improved communication technology. Nations now serve mutually beneficial interests as opposed to self-interests thus minimizing conflict. Liberalists also acknowledge the role played by non-state actors such as NGOs, MNCs, UN and IGOs in international system. 9These organizations make collective security arrangements hence defend participants against aggression. Moreover, they provide humanitarian assistance to affected states especially refugees. Peace can only be brought about through addressing the main causes which are injustice and poverty and these organizations help to curb poverty hence minimizing risk of conflict. They also hold sovereign states to account hence making sovereignty capacity for good governance and not an absolute right. Some of these institutions (UN, NATO) were founded during the Cold War and they helped to understand that it is not always proper to use military intervention if alternatives exist. Besides, military power does not always lead to victory as was evidenced by the defeated of U.S forces by Viet Minh during the Vietnam War (1955-75). 10 In the 1970s and 80s, U.S and USSR had entered a détente to create a predictable international system as they learned from experience the importance of peace. Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) had begun in earnest and agreed upon by end of Cold War to limit the military. This would in turn lead to economic recovery as funds are channeled to good use. Just like during the Cold War, economic sanctions and threats of force are used to make errant nations to comply with demands however, in a different way. The U.S as the superpower often issues threats of armed force alongside withdrawal of foreign aid to aggressive nations or those that do not acknowledge human rights so as to end conflict. During Cold War, such sanctions worked well but in post-Cold War they do not work most of the time especially after the humiliating defeat of U.S in Vietnam War.11 For example, the U.S threatened USSR with economic sanctions if it did not remove missiles from Cuba which could have resulted in nuclear war. The USSR complied although after the U.S promising not to attack Cuba again. Today, radical leaders like Saddam Hussein of Iraq rarely heed to such threats based on their assessment of the situation. This forces the U.S to resort to military action to maintain peace. According to Yilmaz, there are many reasons as to why U.S threats of military and economic sanctions do not work. First, it is because of precedent (Vietnam War) whereby affected leaders think they can pull it off like Vietnam.12For example, Mohamed Farah Aideed of Somalia in 1993-95 was proved correct when U.S withdrew troops from Somalia. The manner in which a threat is conveyed to recipient also affects success. Yilmaz believes the content of the threat should be seen as urgent not to give leader a chance to defect. The threat in this case should have a deadline just like the ultimatums in Cold War. For example, the threat given to Manuel Noriega of Panama did not have a deadline hence did not look serious leading to it being ignored.13 Furthermore, if the threat does not enjoy public or congress support as well as third alliance, it may lack credibility hence render it ineffective. Verbal threats thus must be followed by military action. In addition, the demand must be understood by the recipient for him/her to act on it and comprise inducements if possible. For example, the demand on Hussein of Iraq inn 1990-96 was clear; that is, to withdraw from Kuwait. However, it may still not be complied with if the leader views the costs of not complying as less than benefits of complying or just because they do not wish to comply. In such cases, resorting to military action is justified.14 In this sense, war is not inevitable as realists would make us believe and military power is not the only solution to conflicts as other alternatives do exist. Conclusion In this essay, I have evaluated using two international relations theories how conflict has changed in the post-Cold War world. International relations are a discipline involving a set of ideas that explain how the international system works. International conflict is part of IR dealing with conflicts among nations and trying to explain why the war or conflicts occur. The two dominant theories in IR include realism and liberalism. Realism assumes states as the only actors in international system and is rational driven by self-interests. They also believe there is no world government and that war is inevitable hence military power is important. Liberalists on the other hand, believe in cooperation and the role of non state actors such as NGOS and UN. For them, a world government is not required as rules drive nations to take collective interests into consideration hence anarchy does not arise. Due to globalization and emergence of U.S as the only superpower, conflict has changed in post-Cold War. Military action is not the only method of conflict resolution as other alternatives exist. Instead, cooperation and mutual assistance has gained importance as U.S and allies together with other institutions such as UN, NGOs, MNCs foster peace and offer humanitarian aid to affected areas. Furthermore, sovereign states are more responsible and accountable for their actions hence have the duty to avoid conflicts. The U.S role also has increased responsibility to police the globe and ensure peaceful democracies exist although this role is increasingly becoming difficult as some nations fail to comply leading to military action. References Copeland, Dale (1996) Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations, International Security, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.5-41 Goldstein, JS., Pevehouse,JC and Sandra Whitworth,S (2013). International Relations, 3rd ed. Canada: Pearson National Research Council (2000). International Conflict Resolution after Cold War. Washington, DC. Snyder, Jack (2004). One World: Rival Theories. Foreign Policy, 145, p.52 Walter LaFeber, W (2002). America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945–2002. McGraw-Hill Yilmaz, Muzaffer E. Resolving internal conflicts in post cold-war era: Is peacekeeping enough? Journal of Economic and Social Research, 8(2), 27-42. Read More