Analyzing the Cold War through the Lens of International Theories

Introduction

Theory is something abstract, which exists, separated from the facts, with the task of making the
world more clear or even better understood. International Relations are considered by a variety
of theoretical conceptions and by an absence of an object of study commonly accepted by most
experts. Theories are relationships between facts, or sorting these facts; set of constructs
interrelated, definitions and propositions that presents a systematic conception of phenomena by
specifying the relationship between variables in order to describe them and guessing them.

Objectives

Main Objective

1. To analyze the cold war through realism.

Specific Objective

1. To analysis the core assumption of realism.

2. To find out the relevance of the cold war with realism.
3. To point out the limitation of Realism to analyze some events of cold war.

1
Literature Review

What was the cold war?

In the bipolarized world of the Cold War, the USA was representative of capitalism and the
USSR was the representative of socialism. After the Second World War, the world has gone
through major structural changes. The USA and the USSR blessed themselves as the
superpowers, and rivals, began to dictate the international agenda, creating a bipolar and
ideological system of international relations, known as the Cold War.

During this period, the superpowers have adopted as a strategy the military and ideological
expansion of their respective blocks and restraining the expansion of the rival bloc. This way, the
theme of Security became predominant in the international agenda. The States affirmed
themselves as the key actors, since they were understood according to the Weber’s concept of
State in which it is understood as the institution that holds the monopoly on the legitimate use of
force, what gives a prominent position in the formulation and maintenance of the international
agenda. Although there were transnational relations and flows, i.e. those that occurred between
non-State actors, the international relations were dominated by inter-State interactions made
amongst official chancelleries of sovereign States. Throughout the cold war, the tension between
the USA and the USSR established mutual limits to action. (Prof. Arieh J. Kochavi,2011)

International Theories

Realism
Realists emphasize the constraints on politics imposed by human selfishness (‘egoism’) and the
absence of international government (‘anarchy’), which require ‘the primacy in all political life
of power and security’ (Gilpin 1986: 305). Rationality and state-centrism are frequently
identified as core realist premises (e.g. Keohane 1986: 164–5). But no (reasonably broad) theory
of international relations presumes irrationality. And if we think of ‘states’ as a shorthand for
what Gilpin calls ‘conflict groups’ (1996: 7) or what Waltz (1979) calls ‘units’, state-centrism is
widely (although not universally) shared across international theories. The conjunction of
anarchy and egoism and the resulting imperatives of power politics provide the core or realism.

2
Realists, although recognizing that human desires range widely and are remarkably variable,
emphasize ‘the limitations which the sordid and selfish aspects of human nature place on the
conduct of diplomacy’ (Thompson 1985: 20). As Machiavelli puts it, in politics we must act as if
‘all men are wicked and that they will always give vent to the malignity that is in their minds
when opportunity offers’. (Scott Burchill,1995)

Liberalism
It has championed limited government and scientific rationality, believing individuals should be
free from arbitrary state power, persecution and superstition. It has advocated political freedom,
democracy and constitutionally guaranteed rights, and privileged the liberty of the individual and
equality before the law. Liberalism has also argued for individual competition in civil society
and claimed that market capitalism best promotes the welfare of all by most efficiently allocating
scarce resources within society. (Scott Burchill,1995)

Constructivism
Constructivism is not a theory, but rather an ontology: A set of assumptions about the world and
human motivation and agency. Its counterpart is not Realism, Institutionalism, or Liberalism, but
rather Rationalism. A focus on the social context in which international relations occur leads
Constructivists to emphasize issues of identity and belief. The perception of friends and enemies,
in-groups and out-groups, fairness and justice all become key determinant of a State’s behavior.
While some Constructivists would accept that States are self-interested, rational actors, they
would stress that varying identities and beliefs belie the simplistic notions of rationality under
which States pursue simply survival, power, or wealth. Constructivism is also attentive to the
role of social norms in international politics. (Anne-Marie Slaughter,2011)

Discussion & Analysis

The States are dominant and stable actors in the International Relations. There is a hierarchy of
topics in the World Politics, with a majority of the military security issues on the Economic and
Social issues. The threat of their employment is the most effective measures for the exercise of
power and conflict resolution.The Realists look for a opinion of how the world really works and

3
not as it should be, presenting just a dose of fatalism and conformity in relation to the human
nature and to the International Relations.
The law and morality are minor to the power politics: relationship among the States in which
predominates the armament, isolationism and diplomacy of power and war.
The changes in the economic relations among countries are determined, in fact, by changes in
hierarchical distribution of power that comprises political consequences and create tensions in
the support of the entire system. The Realists don't see the free market as the vital aspect of
international relations, but the distribution of power. By most important is the level of world
trade, it does not emerges suddenly, but is the result of political arrangements between States that
stimulate predilections from interests.
The structure of international politics lasts to be defined from the interaction of the National
States; transnational movements run within this structure. Although they may abstain from
intervening in matters of Non-State actors for long periods of time, the Member States shall
control the terms of the relationship between them.

Limitation of Realism
Realists believe they can deliver the best explanation on why cooperation is so difficult to
achieve.  Realism is the most leading theory and has been so since the end of the Second World
War. The classical realists are more anxious with human nature. They believe that people in
general are selfish and violent. The main actors of the international system, the states, are guided
by this and essentially war is expected. There is a lot of proof to support that, like the Nazi
Germany led by Hitler or Iraq led my Saddam Hussein.  Neo-realists are more worried with the
distribution of power and the international system. The international system lacks a sovereign
authority that can make and apply binding agreements.
If one state sees another state quickly increase its military power it will assume that it is about to
attack even if that might not be the case. The state that thinks it is under threat will have to
increase its military power too which in turn will alarm the unique state and this spiral could
continue for a long time. It is a never ending condition which is in fact why realists believe
cooperation is not only difficult to achieve, but mostly impossible. Security dilemma occurs
because of fear between states.

4
Liberalism was innate just after the end of the First World War. Europe was so shocked by what
occurred that the politicians wanted to come up with a way to prevent any wars happening in the
future. So Woodrow Wilson, the United States president at the time drew up 14 points to make
peace throughout the international system and to make way to manage the international anarchy.
Liberal theory suffered a major blow when the Second World War broke out just a few years
after the 14 points were formed and most scholars and political scientists have been sceptical
about the almost pacifistic views of the liberal theorists until the end of the Cold War. The reason
why liberal view became more widespread after the Cold War is because states started to adopt
international laws, arms control, the roles of international organizations became much greater
and the wish for democracy in a lot of states started taking place.

Conclusion
Every time peace breaks out, people pop up to announce that realism is dead. That is another
way of saying that international politics has been converted. The world, however, has not been
altered; the structure of international politics has simply been remade by the vanishing of the
Soviet Union, and for a time we will live with unipolarity. Moreover, international politics was
not reshaped by the forces and factors that some believe are creating a new world order. Those
who set the Soviet Union on the path of reform were old Soviet apparatchiks trying to right the
Soviet economy in order to preserve its position in the world. The revolution in Soviet affairs
and the end of the Cold War were not carried by democracy, interdependence, or international
institutions. Instead the Cold War ended exactly as structural realism run one to expect.

5
 References

Andreas Hanselever; Peter Mayer; Volker Rittberger, Theories of International Regimes

(Cambridge: University Press, 1997).

Scott Burchill, Theories of International Relations (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; Palgrave

2001).

Kenneth Waltz, the Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub.
Co.,1979)

Paul R. Viotti, e Mark V. Kaubbi, International relations theory: realism, pluralism, globalism. 2.ed.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1993.