At the state and society level, the cold war can be explained by the Liberals as a demonstration of the Kantian logic, which has been elaborated in the Democratic Peace Thesis, how authoritarian states go to war and democratic dont. During the cold war, the world was divided between the east and west where the west stood for individualistic democratic values and the east for socialist. Therefore, as the USSR and its allies were not democratic, hence it acted so aggressively and provoked the US. The Radicals however, take a different view and claim that the war was not due to a clash of values but more of an expansionist war of a capitalistbourgeoisie nature, where the elites in both states were fighting for more resources, by gaining more allies. For them, the war was all about economic gain. The Realists would agree claiming that both states wee merely acting rationally to maximize their power and security.
If we look at it from another level i.e. the international system, that also generates a lot of different views. The Realists claim that states are security maximizers and as each state works for its own security, this creates a security dilemma. As Kaufman (2006) says,
Both the United States and Soviet Union arrived at such policies that each felt would solidify its own power, as well as send signals to the other country
In the absence of an arbitrator or global policeman, both states go to war, hence creating anarchy. Here, the Liberals fail, because the claim that anarchy can be curbed through building international institutions. However, at the time of the cold war the UN failed to mediate and was rather monopolized by both countries showing how their theory lacks practicality. What is interesting to note is that both states never declared a full-fledge war on each others soil but conducted proxy wars. This can be explained by the Realist perception of Balance of Power. As both of them were equally matched in their resources and might, it deterred them from declaring war on each other.
The cold war ended eventually, with the break-up of the USSR. This meant a defeat for the Realists who had advocated Balance of Power and a bi-polar world. The Liberals, however emerged triumphant with their liberal values. At the heart of the liberal explanations for the end of the war lies Economic Liberalism which stresses on the market system in the world and how trade promotes peace. The triumph of the US is explained in terms of its economically liberal system as opposed to the command economy of the USSR which eventually gave in to pressure and collapsed by the end of cold war. As Globalization intensified and states integrated through greater communication and trade, the Soviet bloc remained isolated and did not reap the benefits of expanding markets. A Soviet island of communism was not able to survive the capitalist sea (The globalization of World Politics an introduction to International Relations, 2005). With the fall of Berlin wall, globalization now started flourishing at an even quicker pace towards the east as well, where it wasnt present before.
Therefore, the developments and consequences of the Cold War are viewed through different lenses by different paradigms and give a variety of analysis.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment