One popular alternative to realism in explaining post-Cold War events is the “idealist” theory of “democratic peace.” According to Democratic Peace theory, Realism may be useful in explaining interactions between non-democratic states, or between a democratic and non-democratic state. However, in relations between democracies, realism is obsolescent. Because of their popular input, checks, and balances, democratic governments recognize each other as having a common interest in peace, so they band together. Thus it is said that “democracies do not fight one another,” and that the more democracies arise in the world, the larger the zone of peace that is created.
In 1989 Francis Fukuyama wrote and article entitled "the end of history" which celebrated the triumph of liberalism over all other ideologies, contending that liberal states were stable internally and more peaceful in their international relations. At the political level in the international system powerful states are able to use institutional leverage as a means of embedding former non liberal states into the, Liberal New World Order.
Structural Imperialist sees very little different between the New World Order and the Old World order. That with the speculative demise of the Cold World Order and the emergence of the New World Order, Herb Addo a structuralist saw like Lenin that "Imperialism is the permant stage of capitalism", the continuity with which capital has leaked from the periphery to created the center of world capitalism spans its entire history. "From earlier mercantilism (1500-1600's) through mercantilism (1640-1750's), classical capitalism (1750-1870"s), monopoly capitalism (1870's to 1950's) to the transnational and new internal division of labor capitalism, (1950's to the present.)" Each of these phases of capitalism had it specific mechanism of imperialist exploitation, which has pushed periphery states out of the reach of developed nation status
The world has always been exploitative, and will continue to be, thus nature of capitalism is exploitative and in the Old World Order, it was exploitative and in the New World Order it will continue to be so. The Structural theory of the New World Order maintains the view, that the nature of the imperialistic hegemony over the Third World states would not change in the post -1989 from the post -1945 situation. As by its very nature it is necessary for the core to exploit the periphery to ensure survival. Thus, there is no departure form the Old World Order that the New World Order is attempting to replace.
However, they to do see some form of change, not constructive change but change nevertheless. Herb Addo, preserves that what will be new in the third world "is that with the present eradication of socialism as a global organizational alternative, global capitalism". The New World Order is built on a "strengthen conservative capitalist bases" with an incurable," motive of ever increasing efficiency of the accumulation of capital at the expense of and without the interference of the Third World."
The Dependency theory put forth by Andre Gunder Frank, assumes "underdevelopment is caused by the transfer of goods and economic surplus from the periphery to the industrialized core"." That is, "capitalism both world and national, which produced underdevelopment in the past and which will still generate underdevelopment in the present." "(berger) The Dependency theory, the structuralist approach of Herb Addo and Emanuel Wallerstien and the neo -realist perspective of Berger, sees the continued cycle of underdevelopment and exploitation of the periphery countries at the hand of the industrialized d nations. Nothing had changed in the cycle of exploitation from the New World Order to the Old World Order. World Systems theorists, have a similar view of this trading relationship that is quite similar to Dependency theorist, who regard the economic relationship between the core and the periphery as fundamentally exploitative. "Trade and other forms of economic relationships between the core and the periphery befit core capitalist at the expense of the periphery." (shannon)
Emmanuel Wallerstien, a structuralist maintains that, "the economic organisation of the world system consist of a singular division of world wide labor that unifies the multiple cultural systems of the world, people in a single integrated economic system." In turn, such interdependence leads to an economic exploitation of the periphery. Economic activities in the periphery are relatively less technologically sophisticated and more "labor intensive" that those in the core for most of the modern era..
Structuralist, such as Wallenstien and Addo maintain that the, basis of the peripheral exploitation is unequal exchange and that the majority of the world nation states are poor. Moreover, will continue to be despite any transformation of the World Order because the economic relationship hinges on an unequal exchange of goods.
Structuralism views the structure of the international system as changing under The New World Order. Because "the new world order being a post cold war phenomena will not have the overarching form of two competing hegemonic power, It's structure will resemble a board of directors in a capitalist world economy." A movement from dupoly of hegemonic superpowers to a" hegemonic concert of oligarchy in the New World Order." Because of the deep structures and processes that propel the world to remain capitalist, nothing will change.
Herd Addo purports that the New World Order "will be different, the again it will not. " Because it is a world historical system like another in the past but then it will, due to confidence and functional capabilities through strengthen global structure.
The Old world Order was maintained as a notion of security by dueling superpowers .The third world was vied as an area of competition and a rigid system of alliances were formed. Order was maintained in the third world to ensure the maintainance of the ideological preference of the hegemony.
However, with the acceleration of economic and political globalization there is a resurgence of ethnic and national conflict than it has to international peace and stability (BERGER). The social formations emerging out of the ferment of Soviet collapse are not characterized by democratic order and dynamic economic development but by unstable parliamentary authoritarian governments considerable dependence on the I.M.F and the World Bank and growing ideological and even cultural subordination to the United States and Western Europe (berger).
Liberalist Nye agrees with is position as he claims "With the demise of the Old World Order and the disappearance of the balance of power, New World Order politics hinges on the growth of untamed nationalism, whose animosities were never settled in the institutional structure of state communism". (nye)Under the hegemony, power rivalries were put aside and tamed but with the departure of the hegemonies this rivalries consumed the third world countries and left room for bitter factional conflicts.
Further, more Berger raises the point of the economic and cultural subordination of the former alliance states at the hands of the international system. They are forced by the consorting world powers to adopt certain polices in order to obtain loans these polices such as structural adjustment are not applicable to many third world countries whose, society is divided whose resources are scarce. These structural adjustment programs and other policy decisions taking from the metropolitan nations lead to great hardship in the third world. This helps to account for the deep resentment for western ideology and their principals. This clash between civilization is most conspicuous between the West an Islam. Largely to with secular over religious ideal, and partly to do with Western domination of the post colonial political structuring of the Middle East. (buzman)
In "The Clash of Civilizations", Samuel Huntington argues that the old bipolar cold war model of international relations is now being replaced by a model based upon competing civilizations. This argument moves past the notion of ethnicity to examine the growing influence of a handful of major cultures--Western, Eastern Orthodox, Latin American, Islamic, Japanese, Chinese, Hindu, and African--in current struggles across the globe. Samuel Huntington sees the West in decline and faced with a resurgent Islam and a vibrant and growing East Asia with China as possibly superpowers. He argues for a genuine new multicultural world order based upon these post Cold War realities.
Furthermore the hardships that the Third World faced under the strain of the I.M.F and World Bank economic polices had caused grave poverty within these states. Thus it is the leading rationale for issue of migration. Migration threatens the cultural fabric of the northern states. The conditions the dominate role of the north in the south and the economic polices they are forced to carry out leads to massive influxes in to the core states.
The New World Order is no different to the Old World Order before the Cold War as the Old World under British hegemony was attempting to spread the doctrine of economic liberalization before their decline. In the New World Order, the United States has taken the realm. Movement of goods, capital, and technology: and creation and international environment conducive to Americana's democratic values are attempts to perpetuate Unpopularity. The United States is pursuing essentially the same goals and the using the same means to achieve them that it pursued in it's post war quest preponderance, preventing multi-polar rivalries, discouraging, the rise of global hegemonies and preservation of a co-operative and healthy world economy . (christorer layne)
While the overall bipolar structure may been altered because During the cold war era, Neo realist point to the fact international politics was profoundly shaped by the bipolar competition between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Waltz testifies to the anarchical condition of the international realm which imposes the accumulation of power as a systematic requirement on states.. The ordering principal of the international system is anarchic with and absence of any overarching authority regulating the behavior of nation -states towards each other. Nation states, unlike individuals in domestic society exist in a self-help environment where the quest for survival requires them to seek security through the accretion of military power. Burchill
Neo realism recognized the possibility of system change although not peaceful system change by maintaining that multipolar systems were more war prone. Peace would endure because the superpower posses nuclear weapons. Waltz argued that by 1990 bipolarity was coming to and end. He predicted the emergence of a multipolar system with all its-associated tensions or a system that will retain some of the benefits of bi-polarity because of the presence of nuclear weapons. .
In a Hobbiesian world of realism Multi polar and bi-polar systems are anarchical ,the international system is still technically anarchical because there is not enforcement authority the allegedly inescapably consequence of anarchy have been largely overcome by a complex web of institutions that govern interstate relations and provide mechanisms for resolving disputes. These institutions reflect and help sustain a consensus in favor of consultation and compromise that mute the consequence of power imbalances among states. In course of two generations a community of nations had evolved that is bound together by the realization that national security and economic well being require close cooperation and coordination with other democratic and democratizing states.
For realist states cannot escape from the predicament of anarchy the best they can do is adapt to the underlying realties of international relations. "Through all the changes of boundaries, of social, economic and political form of economic and military activity the substance and style of international politics remain strictly constant." The predictive claims of realist theory rest on the assumption that states do adapt and therefor respond in similar ways to similar constraints and opportunities.
A similar process in on the way in international tradition. Throughout the nineteenth and first half of the twenty-century the great powers behaved like friends. Prodded by the examples of two destructive world wars and the possibility of a third that would be fought to with nuclear weapons. Leaders sought way to escape from the deadly consequences of self-help systems they developed and nurture supra national institutions, norms, and rules that mitigated anarchy and provided incentives for closer co-operation among states. Gradually, the industrial democracies bound themselves in a pluralistic security community. The post war experience suggest that "atomist " or "transformational " conception of structure is more appropriate to the study of contemporary international relations among the developed democracies.
Postwar leaders changed the structure of international relations by developing new institutions, norm and rules. The concept of evolutionary structure recognizes the possibly of change in different directions. It may be that the community of developed nations may and will become more peaceful and generates structures that encourage peaceful behavior .It is also possible that unforeseen developments could bring about the return to a self help system and the kind of behavior identified with realism (richar dned lebow)
Richard Ned Lebow challenges the applicability of the realist concepts of anarchy and polarity to the post-Cold War world. He argues that the international system is still technically anarchical because there is no enforcement authority but that the concept of anarchy offers little help in explaining the character of present-day relations among the developed democracies. Lebow argues, , that the allegedly in-escapable consequences of anarchy have been largely overcome by a complex web of multilateral institutions that govern interstate relations and provide mechanisms for resolving disputes. These institutions reflect and help sustain a consensus in favor of consultation and compromise that mute the consequences of power imbalances among states. To the extent that the principles that govern relations among the industrial democracies come to characterize relations between them and many of the countries of the former Eastern bloc, Lebow contends, this cooperative pattern of international relations will encompass most of the developed world. It will coexist with the more traditional, conflict-prone pattern that continues to characterize relations among other former communist states (e.g., Yugoslavia) and many lesser developed countries and between them and the developed world
Note 1: Michael W. Doyle, “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 12 (Summer 1983): 205–35; “Part 2,” (Fall 1983); “Liberalism and World Politics,” American Political Science Review 80 (December 1986): 1151–69; Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: The Free Press, 1992); Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993).
