In the article is made an attempt to analyse the international relations after the termination of Cold War on the basis of a foreign historiography and to define influence of Cold War on development of the international relations in the second half of XX – the beginning of the XXI centuries. Also analyzed the influence of such factors as globalization, pluralism, the multipolarity, issued after the termination of Cold War on studying of the international relations. Formation of world economic system in the conditions of Soviet state disintegration, which has finished opposition of two world powers of USA and the USSR is considered. There are traced changes in the development of the diplomatic relations which come to a new level of development and have affected strengthening of the international relations as a whole.
The modern world is undergoing fundamental and dynamic changes. Transformation of the international relations, the termination of confrontation and consecutive overcoming of consequences of Cold War expanded possibilities of cooperation on the international scene. Threat of the global nuclear conflict is minimized. While maintaining the values of force in relations between states economic, political, scientific, technical, environmental, and information factors began to play an important role. However, modern international relations are not definitively established system yet, continuing to be in the process of dynamic formation. The article discusses the factors and results of the Cold War, which influenced to the development and study of international relations.
The post-Cold War period was a transitional moment in the development of many disciplines, including international relations. Many analysts believe that the end of the Cold War weakened international relations. However, we would like to counter this argument and show that the effect of the end of the Cold War and globalization, and their positive influence on the development of the discipline. We offer three arguments in support of our statement. The first argument involves multipolarity and pluralism. The second argument is the opening of new subjects of study. At the same time diplomacy survived a critical period and found a new level of development, which involved positive factors that strengthened international relations. The third argument — globalization’s influence on studying of the international relations.
The end of the Cold War is one of the most meaningful events in the development of the discipline of international relations. Adam Roberts in his article «International Relations after the Cold War» described this period as follows: «The end of the Cold War is arguably the most significant development in international relations since 1945, and the most difficult to explain. This valedictory is a reconsideration of the causes and consequences of the chain of events whereby the Cold War ended, and their implications for the study and practice of international relations in the post-Cold War period» [1; 3].
In order to summarize the period of the Cold War, we can say that after the end of World War II the relations between the United States and the Soviet Union deteriorated from being allies to being in conflict with one another. Both sides possessed nuclear weapons and threatened one another without ending up in direct military conflict. However, in their struggle for global influence they engaged in regular indirect confrontations through proxy wars. As a part of this were occurred following events, in which the USA and the Soviet Union took part directly or indirectly: Berlin Blockade (1948–1949), the Korean War (1950–1953), the Suez Crisis (1956), the Berlin Crisis of 1961, the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), the Vietnam War (1959– 1975), the Yom Kippur War (1973), the Soviet war in Afghanistan (1979–1989), the Soviet downing of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (1983), and the «Able Archer» NATO military exercises (1983). The conflict was expressed through military coalitions, espionage, massive propaganda campaigns, rivalry at sports events, and technological competitions such as the Space race. The USA and USSR became involved in political and military conflicts in the third world countries of Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. In the 1980s, the United States increased diplomatic, military and economic pressures on the Soviet Union, when the communist state was already suffering from economic crisis. In the mid-1980s, the new Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev introduced the liberalizing reforms («Perestroika»). After that, there were a number of revolutions in country-members of Soviet Union, which culminated in the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, leaving the United States as the dominant military power.
Many questions of international relations are debated and researched at the academic circles of our days. Among them questions about reasons, results and influence of Cold War to international relations.
Fred Halliday wrote in his article that «The Cold War was, at first sight, «good» for international relations, as the failure of the League of Nations and the Second World War had done much to establish the «realism». Cold War is a conflict in which all societies appeared to be overshadowed by the danger of interstate nuclear war certainly reinforced the importance of the ‘international’ within universities» [2; 740].
The question about the Cold War influence on international relations, does not have a certain answer. With the end of the Cold War there has been more and more literature written on the terms «multipolarity» and «pluralism». With the appearance of globalization there is a visible tendency of distribution of power in which more than two nation-states have nearly equal amounts of military, cultural and economic influence. Pluralism of theories, political systems and regimes, cultures, methods of analysis give a «jump-start» to the development of international relations.
Pluralism is a recognized strength of international relations studies in the UK. The end of the Cold War was the result of a plural mix of factors: both force and diplomacy; both pressure and détente; both belief and disbelief in the reform ability of communism; both civil resistance in some countries and guerrilla resistance in others; both elite action and street politics; both nuclear deterrence and the ideas of some of its critics; both threat and reassurance; both nationalism in the disparate parts of the Soviet empire and superanationalism in the European Community [1; 8].
With the end of the Cold War the focus of international relations scholars on the development of the bilateral relationship between the US and the USSR switched to relations between other countries. «There is the importance of other dimensions of late twentieth-century change — the economic revolutions in East Asia and the rise of political Islam foremost among them» [3; 167]. In connection with these events there arose a huge field of new subjects for research in international relations.
The end of the Cold War undoubtedly sent international relations analysts scurrying in all directions as the realization of their potential intellectual redundancy dawned. Some of them got out their atlases and looked for work, finding new theatres of conflict to explore and involving themselves in the study of practical issues humanitarian intervention and peacekeeping operations [4; 54].
The appearance of pluralism and multipolarity affected not only International Relations, but also opened up new areas of study for different spheres (Sociology, Philosophy, Geography, Politics, Diplomacy, Music, Economics, and Human Rights). The End of the Cold War meant more research opportunities and therefore more resources for IR specialists. This period became a subject for a whole range of books: «New world order», «Clash of civilizations», «End of history», «Global chaos», which became famous throughout society.
The beginning of wisdom lies in recognition of the plurality of the causes of events, especially the end of the Cold War; and recognition also of the plurality of perspectives that endure in the post-Cold War world [1; 4].
The end of the Cold War was critical period for diplomacy. Leaving aside war, these fantasies about the «end of history», and with it presumably also of diplomacy as a tool of conflict management, there was prevailing sense that a very unusual era had came to an end [5; 11]. After the collapse of the USSR the former component countries received independence and became full actors in the political arena. After 1990 the integration process began between countries, the creation of political coalitions and international organizations. The UN adopted new members and took on new activities. The OSCE focused its activities on crisis prevention and management.
The end of the Cold War can also be interpreted as having had the opposite effect. First of all, the imminent threat of nuclear war had served to focus popular and media attention upon diplomatic affairs. This means that international relations scholarship was very important.
The Cold War was not only a matter of conflicting economic, strategic and political interests, although we must not forget these aspects. It involved ideological beliefs, psychological convictions, deep-rooted prejudices. To a certain extent the Cold War was similar to the revolutionary wars of the Napoleonic era and to the religious wars which devastated Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Only when one of the ideologies that had shaped the twentieth century — communism — appeared to have lost its worldwide attraction, and the political instruments it had created had collapsed even in the country where it had first triumphed, could the Cold War come to an end [3; 276].
The field of IR, which had previously focused so much on how these ideologies affected diplomatic activities, had to adjust its views. Ideologies — this was the meaning of life for entire populations. People were united behind one goal, that of fighting a war against a common enemy. The end of this war meant the fracturing of these ideological regimes. People lost that common idea and were no longer joined by anything. All the same, in my opinion, the absence of an ideological struggle at the end of the Cold War allowed people to gain the right to vote and form their own political opinions.
In addition to the conclusion of the Cold War, globalization has been a major historical event in the past few decades. This has also had a massive impact on the field of international relations. It could even be said that international relations now exists between members of a population, where previously such relations were the domain of the leaders of countries.
Globalization is not only a threat to international relations. In fact, it links cultures and international relations on a variety of levels. International relations focus on interaction between states, people, organizations and globalization is making a profound effect on international relations [6; 219].
The strengthening of pluralism in the post-Cold War period attracts attention to the variety of international and transnational actors. Much writing on globalization draws attention to the role of transnational corporations in creating a global market and system of production; to capital markets in creating an integrated financial system; International Monetary Fund (IMF) in disseminating a particular view of the state’s role within the international economy. As part of a pluralist paradigm, globalization may also be conceived as an intensification of the conditions of interdependence, with all the supposedly transformational associations that flow from such a condition.
The creation of a global market gave opportunities for development of «healthy» competition in both economics and industry. Companies began to orient on the consumer’s needs, which helped on the improvement of the quality of their products and affected consumers positively. Consumers gained a choice in quality and prices. However, there were negative effects as well.
Economically, globalization creates winners and losers. But the polarities extend well beyond those who simply profit or lose by their position in the global market. They incorporate also ideas about access to global networks, lifestyles, and the security of cultural identities: «rather than homogenizing the human condition, the technological annulment of temporal/spatial distances tends to polarize it’ is one such verdict» [6; 236].
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the 15 members that comprised that union declared their independence and sovereignty. Finally, the world learned about these countries as independent and sovereign actors in the international system. Active participation of the countries in the integration process, their participation in international organizations and events such as the Olympics games — this all raised the nationalism and identifications of the populations of these countries.
All the same, many specialists think that the development of globalization in the post-Cold War period led to a loss of identification. The general standards and rights force people to have a uniform identity. These specialists might think that such uniform thinking takes away from the field of international relations. While there might be less differences between populations and thus between their leaders, at the same time these populations are increasingly in contact with one another as a result of globalization. Leaders of countries and scholars in international relations have to take these new channels of communications into account when they think about relationship between countries. Thus, globalization has added elements to the study of international relations [7].
Multipolarity opened up a new line of investigations for analysts in the field of international relations. With the end of the Cold War the focus of international relations scholars moved from the bilateral relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union to the relationships between different countries.
The end of the Cold War opened new subjects of study for international relations scholars. The events that occurred in the post-Cold War period, such as the appearance of new actors in the political arena and the interaction of countries with each other on a new level—created new subjects and resources for analysts studying international relations. At the same time diplomacy survived a critical period and found a new level of development, which involved positive factors that strengthened international relations. The End of the Cold War meant more research opportunities and therefore more resources for international relations specialists.
The creation of new countries and the increased amount of commerce and communications across borders has increased the importance of international relations.
Today there are many people among scientists — historians, political scientists, who consider that «cold war» didn't end, and passed to a new phase; there are also those, who is inclined to consider its results as the beginning of new opposition. Cold War remains the main event of the XX-th century. Many various books, articles are written about it. This war brought with itself the negative phenomena and positive results. First, because it wasn't hot, i.e. for a long period despite of very strong contradictions sides could sort out the relations without using weapon force; secondly, Cold War forced the opposite sides to carry on for the negotiations and to include certain rules of the game in opposition (the whole system of contracts on restriction of armament race is the proof); race of arms as the phenomenon has an unconditional minus side. It carried away huge material resources, but as well as any phenomenon had also another side. In this case it is possible to speak about «Golden Age» of natural sciences — new discoveries and the achievements, which results we can see today.
Thus, international relations scholars have a whole new set of questions to answer as a result of these changes.
References
- Roberts A. International relations after the Cold War, Blackwell Publishing Ltd/The Royal Institute of International Affairs: FEB
- Hallyday F. International relations and its discontents, London: International Affairs, 1995, 740 р.
- Westad O.A. Reviewing the Cold War: approaches, interpretations, theory, London: Frank Cass, 2001, 382 р.
- Smith, Michael R. Hear the Silence: Investigating Exclusion in Cold War International Relations // Cold War History, London, 2001, Vol. 1 (3), P. 54.
- Mastny, Vojtech. Cold War History, 2, Issue 3, New York; Oxford: Oxford univ. press, 2002, P. 11.
- Hirst P., Thompson G. Globalization in Question, Cambridge: Polity press, 1996, 23 р.
- Rosenberg Globalisation Theory: A Post-Mortem, Vol. 42, № 1, London and New York: International Politics, 2005, 2–74 р.
- Wastl F. The End of the Cold War as a Moment of Complexity // Conference Papers — International Studies Association, San Francisco, 2008, р. 12–18.
- Joseph Stiglitz, Making Globalization Work: The Next Steps to Global Justice, London: Penguin, 2007, P.