Hedley Bull's conclusions on the pluralist and solidarist debate helps are understanding of human rights issues in the Cold War in terms of why the USA responded in contradicting ways to various human rights abuses from different state actors. Throughout the Cold War, the US concept of order was that of a solidarist in so far as it believed its conception of human rights to be the only correct one. However, its views were tempered by prudence in that due to the international bipolar system, the US could not just inflict its view of human rights on the Soviets without expecting retaliation. Therefore, US behavior was essentially pluralist, although during the Carter administration, this pluralism was diluted with elements of solidarism. Bull is ultimately a pluralist. However, his version of pluralism incorporates some aspects of the solidarist debate as he is drawn to the solidarist theory of the international society which incorporates considerations of order ad seeks to place justice at the centre of foreign policy. He incorporates this belief into his version of pluralism, as he grew increas

"There are three possibilities in descending order of preference, a decent democratic regime, a continuation of the Trujillo regime, or a Castro regime. We ought to aim at the first, but we really can't renounce the second until we are sure we can avoid the third "

So, rather than 'turning a blind eye' to those states with human rights abuses that were allied with the 'West', sanctions were imposed on them and support withdrawn, whilst in Eastern European countries, the Carter administration took a much more proactive approach to encouraging human rights, an approach that extended far beyond the rhetoric of previous administrations. However, as X points out, Carter never succeeded in placing human rights at the top of the foreign policy agenda and, after the 'loss' of states such as Nicaragua, even began to slip down in order of priorities.

It was the US view that it was better to have an undemocratic anti-Soviet regime supporting the West than implementing a human rights diplomacy that may force that regime to become a pro-Soviet ally with the East. Furthermore, those states that were the West's allies merely tolerated human rights abuses, but did not actively commit human rights abuses like those states in the 'East' . Indeed, as Franklin D. Roosevelt once put it when talking of Somoza:

ingly concerned with the ideological polarisation that would threaten to undermine the very order the pluralism promises .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Cold War, Soviet Union, Nicaragua Somoza, Cuba Communist, human rights, Franklin Roosevelt, Accordingly Americans, Eastern European, Reza Pahlavi, Hedley Bull's, Address Carter, cold war, rights abuses, human rights abuses, foreign policy, tempered prudence, rights cold war, previous administrations, soviet union, rights cold, issue human rights, rights diplomacy, hedley bull's, human rights diplomacy, human rights cold,
Approximate Word count = 1558
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)