Post-Cold War Conflicts and International Order
As one looks at international relations in this post-cold war era, it is important to know that the liberal-realist ideologies are crucial elements to understanding post-cold war conflicts. Realists believe that wars arise from the efforts and desire of states to obtain power and security in an anarchic world. In a realist's perspective, the balance of power, rally of allies, competition over territories and resources are the roots of war. In addition, realists deem the notions of self-help and arms build-up as the decisive arbiters for states in an anarchic world. Liberalists on the other hand believe that conflicts and the prevention of conflicts are not only determined by the balance of power, but also by "the domestic structures of states, their values, identities, and cultures, and international institutions for conflict resolution." (Nye, 587) A liberalist would argue the importance of domestic structures and values in relation to international affairs. To further understand post-cold war conflicts and international order, I will first look at works conducted by Joseph Nye and Michael Klare and in the end I will incorporate Wohlforth and Huntington's articles on hegemony against the wider background of world relations.
This article presented by Nye meshes with his previous argument and takes on the realist view on similar accounts. In Conflicts after the Cold War, he discussed the initial important steps to take for international stability start with grounds set on the realist perspective. These are the balance of power, the nature of military technology, and the importance of territorially defined resources; essentially the concern for self-help and self-interest first. Subsequently, Nye says a collaboration of states needs to create new international institutions that will prepare them for post-cold war conflicts. The same message is carried in his Redefining the National Interest article. The article says national interest for the U.S. should be to accordingly develop methods and strategies with the use of their present power to construct an efficient foreign policy. Contrary to this belief, Klare takes the liberal view and believes post-cold war conflicts are from within. In Redefining Security: the New Global, Klare says that post-cold war conflicts originate at the domestic level. He says that if global stability is to exist, world powers need to decrease the discord (social structures) that exists at their domestic level. Although both intellectuals agree that present conflicts are communal and internal, they differ on ideological approach to resolving these post-cold war conflicts. Nye says the "key is to take the steps necessary to make ad hoc coalitions of the willing effective, such as developing agreed-upon mechanisms for burden-sharing, interoperability of forces, and decision-making mechanisms on missions and rules of engagement." (Nye, 602) These methods will allow states to act even when who they are unwilling to contribute and those who are willing can lead military operations. Nye takes the realist view on this debate about conflict. He explains the balance of power, nature of military technology and defined resources are optimistic grounds for determining the occurrence of conflicts. These are optimistic grounds because the U.S. and its allies have controlled power resources thus territorial aggression is no longer as tempting as it once was. Therefore, the Liberal aspects relating to domestic structures of states are the causes of distress and concern. As we take into account the arguments conducted by Nye, Klare and Rieff, let us set out and evaluate the pros and cons about U.S. hegemony found in William Wohlforth's The Stability of a Unipolar World and Samuel Huntington's The Lonely Superpower. First and foremost one must first understand the concept of hegemony. Hegemony in essence is the leadership or dominance of one nation over the others. In lecture, Professor Gordon asked: "Is a hegemonial system stable?" and he noted that most realists believe it is not stable. Prof. Gordon then acknowledges the system cannot balance itself and realists would say states balance power and not threat. (Lecture, 11/15) U.S. hegemony in a way is much like world government; it supplies cost to public goods (dollar), diffuses economic and technological information and is a structure in which one's capabilities are too great to be counterbalanced. At the same time, its capabilities are not great enough to produce a global empire or imperial state. Wohlforth says there is widespread belief that unipolarity is dangerous and unstable. In fact, neorealists believe "unipolarity is the least stable of all structures because any great concentration of power threatens other states and causes them to take action to restore balance." (Wohlforth, 510) Contrary to this belief, Wohlforth takes the opposing view: "I find the opposite to be true: unipolarity is durable and peaceful, and the chief threat is U.S. failure to do enough." (Wohlforth, 512) He believes the U.S. possesses the undisputed dominance of power and says if efficiently Washington responds to international systems and provides order, unipolarity may las
Some common words found in the essay are:
Cold War, Prof Gordon, Klare Nye, Africa Cambodia, , Communist Party, Redefining National, Nye Klare, Global Schisms, China Russia, communal conflicts, post-cold war, cold war, post-cold war conflicts, international relations, war conflicts, nye klare, conflicts nye, foreign policy, internal conflicts, balance power, takes liberal view, national information age, conflicts cold war, conflicts international relations,
Approximate Word count = 3317
Approximate Pages = 13 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
