The other theory by liberalism however questions the sole dominance of the nation states explaining that it is possible to have peace and cooperation in international politics (Richardson, 1997).Liberalism admits the sovereignty of states but also emphasises the importance of other non-state actors and their roles in international politics. This view gained further prominence at the end of the Second World War when the United Nations was created for fostering cooperation amongst nations. The end of the Cold War also pushed up the liberalist views to the forefront of international politics.
There is another view by the Constructivists which argues that individuals are influential in shaping events in international systems. The Constructivists approach, influenced by the written works of Alexander Wendt (1958–) argues (Wendt, 1992) argues that unlike the ways in which theoretical explanations by realist and liberalist were incapable of explaining events such as the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall fall, their theory is able to explain these event (Blair et al, 2009 p.21-22).
Between the years 1947 -1991, the world experienced the struggle by two fundamental opposing systems; the socialist communism and liberal democracy. The two proponents of this struggle which eventually engulfed the rest of the globe were the US and the Soviet Union. The end of World War II brought an end to the European supremacy in world politics as they were eclipsed by the new powers of the Soviet Union and the US. The two had overridden the European powers economically and militarily as the Great powers of Europe (British Empire and France) were drawn to their limits by the aggression of the Axis(Germany ,Italy& Japan).The United States was able to emerge as a victor of the war having done well economically and militarily with no major destruction to their infrastructure. The Soviet Union too had moved alliances during the war and was part of the winning side though it sustained massive losses on the account of the Axis. They had matched their tent against the Third Reich and also wanted to increase their sphere of influence by becoming a major player in the international system.
Although there were traces of cooperation between the apparent super powers after the World War II ,but the different interest indicated by Soviet Joseph Stalin and US Roosevelt over the arrangement of an European post war order soon began a divide that eventually set the stage for a bipolar international system. The divide was further created when the US bombed Japan in August 1945 which raised the mistrust between the two super powers and marked the beginning of the arms race. The hopes following the end of the World War II to replace the anarchy in the international system was instead filled with antagonism between Communism(the East) and Liberal Democracy(the West). The period of 1945 and 1947 saw an increase in the consolidation of the Soviet Union over Eastern Europe; this contributed more to the estrangement of the superpowers and began the Cold War in earnest.
The Cold War was first focussed in Europe but soon spread its dynamics into the other parts of the globe such as Asia, Middle East and Africa where the hot wars within the Cold War were fought. The conflicts were fought in most parts of the world with the West backing one side and the East supporting another side. In addition, the three main wars of the Korean War (1950-1953) the Vietnam War (1946-1975) and the Afghanistan Wars (1979-1989) were also “proxy wars” fought by the US and Soviet Union surrogates.
Society and culture were also affected by the Cold War with music and religion being under the influences of the Cold War. Ethnic divisions mostly in the Communist were blurred as a function of the Soviet Union insistence to incorporate the different and diverse ethnic groups. For the period of the 46 years the Cold War waned, it became a defining feature of International politics (Arnold, 2012, pp. x-xi).
In October, 1962, the two super powers had a nuclear face off in what could be termed the most frightening fortnight of the Cold War, the US President Kennedy had announced of the discovery of the Soviet missiles just off the coast of the Florida State in the US. During the early period of the crisis, President Kennedy and his officers were persuaded that the missiles deployment was a plan by the Soviets to increase the pressure on the Berlin issue, since the Soviet President Khrushchev had stated it in his ultimatum of Berlin. It was believed that an invasion of Cuba by the US would cause the Soviets to also invade Berlin, but the reaction by the White house from the Soviets after the Cuba naval blockage did not materialise as the Soviets refused to intensify the conflict. Fortunately the deadlocked made the two superpowers to reconsider their actions to prevent an escalation into a nuclear war.
One of the major trends in the international political system during the Cold War was the pre-eminence of military power .Both super powers kept trying to outdo each other’s military might. The Soviet Union were able to consolidate a second strike capability in the 1970s achieving the same quantity of military power as the United States. This was however seen by the US as the acquisition of nuclear warheads making both sides to have an equal 25,000 each on the two sides, while also possessing same types of delivery systems. This caused a situation of mutual susceptibility as a result of the increase of nuclear weaponry. But as the nuclear age progressed, there was a loss in the meaning of balance of military power as the understanding of economic power increased with the reduction of military power (Zimmermann, 2003, p. 157).
Another dynamics of the cold war on the international system was that new economic powers also arose in Europe and japan which showed economic power becoming a significant factor international politics which was brought about by the coming of increasing economic interdependence in the 1960s.The economic recovery of Europe and japan saw a great turnaround with the Marshall plan which brought a fast reconstruction of the economies of Europe from the 1950s and 1960s.Japan also received similar economic aid and which gave it an unparalled boosting in two decades. Both Europe and japan had made gains from the nuclear deterrent. Economically, japan and Europe had gained significance as to the Soviet Union. The growth in the economies also led to an interdependence of these three economies i.e.US, Japan and Europe thereby changing the character of international economic relations.
The Cold War period also saw an increase in a structural change in the international system, brought about by the process of decolonisation which marked a sharp increase in the state actors compared to the end of World War II.National emancipation which started in the 1950s saw a lot of former colonies getting independence and this brought an increase in the number of actors in the international system. The Non-Aligned Movement which was formulated in this period sought a new agenda to carve a third bloc away from the East and the West. This brought complexity to the International system as it had a lasting effect on the United Nations where a new majority was developed.
Nevertheless, by the end of the 1970s,there were only two superpowers as the US and the Soviet Union were only ones with the ability to defeat any foe with conventional and nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons developed by France, China and Britain paled in comparison to the arsenals of the two powers. But by the 1980s, events had begun to change the face of international politics; the deep seated economic crisis in the Soviet Union caused by its command economy had taken its toll on it. While economic power became more prominent in the 1970s, the Soviets had a stagnated productivity; obsolete industrial plants could no longer produce high quality goods that could compete favourably in the international markets causing budget shortages. The maintenance of Soviets military in Eastern Europe as well as its other commitments in the third world brought about the quick dissolution of the Soviet Union.
The historic disruption seen between 1989 and 1991 in Europe and other parts of the world finally brought the Cold War to a close. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and fall of communist regimes in Eastern Europe, the bipolar antagonism between the two value and social systems –East & West) had stopped defining the structure of international politics. One of the world’s superpowers had declined leaving the global stage to the remaining super power the United States. The American President then in power George H.W.Bush had given an introduction to the world of a new order in his statement when he said:
We have enjoyed an extraordinary possibility that few generations have enjoyed-to build a new international system with our values and ideals, as old patterns and certainties crumble around us….I hope history will record that the gulf crisis was the crucible of the new world order (Zimmermann, 2003, p. 237).
The end of the Cold war had brought with it, the invalidity of the limiting force of bipolarity in the international system. In the Western and Eastern bloc, the concept of a common threat was now the defining principle of order. Many observers believe that the international system will be left with a unipolar system under the hegemony of the United States at least from the military and political point of view. The major previous rivals of the US primarily the Soviet Union had collapsed and China had dropped the main feature of the ideological differences that made it hostile to the US. Many other countries have also yielded to American military Protection. The “American Empire “is best seen in the Middle East where the US have soldiers and military bases to keep watches on potential enemies such as Iran and North Korea (Sanders, 2008).But the international system from the economic view has taken on a new character of multi polarity, which has the US in contention with five or six other major powers. The principle of order in the international system is quite distinct from the balancing system of the former centuries as powers are distributed and not limited to a particular region (Zimmermann, 2003, p. 238).
The end of the bipolar relations also created a power vacuum which gave rise to new tensions and reoriented the international community. With the wane in the force of ideology after the disintegration of the Soviet, entered in, the ancient bane of religious fanaticism and ethnic strife in forms of unsavoury new appearances. The Post-Cold war international system added strength to the fast development of communications, digitalised weapon technology and access to different belligerent groups. The combined transition from the industrialised age to the information age with the fundamental shift in the distribution of power globally gave an uncommon cast to international politics. The trend moved from interstate to intrastate wars, while the number of interstate wars reduced, intra state wars produced civilian causalities in women, children than any other decade since the end of the World War II, a change brought about by the end of the Cold War (Zimmermann, 2003, p. 241).
In interstate wars, the proponents are often non state actors and the traditional means which have been produced to manage and contain interstate conflicts became inadequate in administering the crisis resolution. The Balkans for example became the site of growing ethnic tensions after the collapse of the Yugoslavia, since the central in the federal republic could not hold together, as it was under the regime of Tito, tensions amongst the diverse ethnic groups grew back to such a degree that the old enmity between the peoples of the Balkans resurfaced into prominence in politics.
The rise of Islamic fundamentalism, also a phenomenon of the end of the Cold War international system replaced the ideological war of the Cold War and is now a serious cause of international conflict. Even greater than ethnicity as argues Huntington that religion provokes a sharp divide amongst people ….So far people define their identity on ethnic and religious terms, they will many a times see an “us” versus “them” in the relations existing in people of different ethnicity and religion (Huntington, 1993, pp. 40,45).This spirit of religious militancy often called religious fundamentalism includes support for violence against perceived oppression upon the Muslims by the West and is the driving force in the world’s most dangerous terrorist organisations today such as Al Qaeda (Yilmaz, 2008, p. 50).
With the onset of the growing economic globalisation, the previous traditional Westphalia state system supported by the Realists viewpoint had undergone a change. Since the sixteenth century international politics was understood and practiced in a way that separated domestic from foreign politics but in the course of the information revolution, the boundaries of nation states became more porous. The privatisation and liberation of many economies encouraged flows of capital, services and goods across borders. Obviously the reinforcing significant of international economics made international politics to be defined in a new framework that puts global and local factors in relation to each other. The rise of global complex relations of state and non-state actors has given a boost to the various transnational financial activities, one can see the formation of three trading bloc that is hinged on the dollar in the North and South America, the yen in the Asia Pacific and the Euro in Europe as different to the Cold War era, as local and regional factors have taken predominant role.
International Politics has become multi-layered: post-modern, modern and pre-modern societies co-exist and are intricately interconnected. The new changes in the international system have seen the liberalist views also taking a prominent role in the explanation of events in international politics.
In conclusion, the single phrase that best describes the present world order in spite of its current confusion is the “post-Cold War era or the end of the Cold War. It gets the merit of grounding our understanding of international politics in the great changes that have occurred since after 1989-1991 .The major difference between previous global wars and the Cold War was that earlier wars(except the bombings of Hiroshima) were all fought with the conventional weapons. The destruction by nuclear weapons by obvious implications far outweighs any conventional weapon and if the stability of the Cold War had ever been altered, attempts at composition history of international politics would probably never have happened. Had the Cold War ever turned into a hot war, it would have been the war to end all wars, plunging the entire world into a nuclear catastrophe of unprecedented magnitude. It is therefore the beginning and the end of that war that has reshaped and reconceptualised the events in international politics having held sway for half of the twentieth century. The End of the Cold War has helped to avoid a language that suggests a total divorce from the past and acknowledging that the events of September 11, 2001 did not bring in a completely new era.
by
owoade_kklm (student)
