BASICS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-IV

 

To understand the Cold War one has to understand and decipher the historical preconditions and factors that resulted in the hostility.

Political realism can be refined into a proper definition by the three “S”: statism, survival and self-help.

Statism dictates that international nature, by its very nature, is a state-centered social structure, indicating that the state is the only true actor. Survival, generally speaking, states that the main task of every state is to survive what is essentially an aggressive anarchic international environment. This aggressive anarchic environment more often than not results in fending for itself, and each and every state has to protect itself.

Anarchy is an inherent presence in international politics. The absence of a centralized authority to protect states from each other is the root cause of anarchy, resulting in self-help described above. One of the key assumptions in political realism is that the international system is anarchic. There is no higher controlling authority to preside over issues and resolve tensions; states have to make and break relations with other states, and live and die by their decisions.

Another key assumption of political realism is that sovereign states are the protagonists in the international system. They have the most influence, with other independent institutions and corporations having little to no say.

The third key assumption is that there is little trust and confidence as far as long-term alliances are concerned. National interest is of paramount importance and each state is concerned with its own self-interests; a siege mentality emerges.

The historical preconditions resulting in the Cold War are down to the transformation of the realist approach; leaning towards reactive rather than proactive measures and policies of the key actors involved due to non-flexible structure of international relations, emergence of military blocs and strategic deterrence.

Two camps emerged after World War II; the capitalist camp and the socialist camp, as well as two military blocs; the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Warsaw Pact, which resulted in a decrease in international flexibility as far as international relations were concerned.

The appearance of nuclear weapons was another major development; its mere presence influenced international relations theories.

Mutually assured destruction (MAD) was a concept when any aggressive actions might lead to catastrophic consequences. Domination was sought as a survival strategy and this political logic dictated future theories.

Apart from the historical preconditions, conceptual preconditions are also important as we try to understand the Cold War. The traditional approach in international studies argued that international relations research should be based on the observation of an actor, focus on diplomatic and international history, proper analysis of international laws and treaties, reading memoirs and other descriptive materials and using case studies as the main research method.

The latter part of the 20^th century was focused on the precise sciences, resulting in a clash between traditional and scientist approach.

Much of what is written above is the case in today’s world as well; survival of the fittest and self-interest are propagated by almost all actors, as states look to place emphasis on a more structured approach to international policies and concepts.

             

Based on the course “Understanding  International Relations Theory” in Coursera, by the National Research University: Higher School of Economics