End of Cold War: Systemic Change

systemic change

change in polarity in the system

• bi-polar to multipolar

• redistribution of material power

• great powers change: can be multi-polar → multi-polar but change in great power

beyond materialist conception

• international systems are made of settled or routinized practices sustained by norms

transformation of international system

regulative norms: norms that regulate interstate interactions

• what behaviour is legitimate/illegitimate, what behaviour is expected/unexpected

constitutive norms: norms that define the main actors and their capacity

• who are the actors, what is a great power, what is a rogue state

  • how does order treat/deal with rogue states

normative basis of international order

neorealism false predictions about cold war

cw was result of bipolar distribution of power and would continue as long as bipolarity continued

• must be unipolar or multipolar to stop it

• what happened: cw ended, bipolarity remained (material capabilities)

system could change only through a hegemonic war or the emergence of another superpower

• unlikely without a hegemon

  • need a big war for systemic change

• what happpened: missing the great power war that stopped the end of the cw

if the ussr lost the cw, the us would eliminate the soviet threat by asserting their dominance

• what happpened: ?

if the ussr imploded, other states (germany, france) would arm up and form an alliance against the us

• engage in balance of power politics to protect themselves against us

• nato is going to disappear: soviet brought them together, gone threat = no nato

  • europe would distance itself from us, intra-european rivalries will come back

    • did not happen

aspects of cold war

heightened superpower rivalry

• particular bipolar system

block politics: spheres of influence

western block (block politics)

old style

usa (western hemisphere and west europe): intervene in favour of local forces to make sure that when communist local forces take power, help their opponents get them out of power and reinstate pro-west government

response of control of eastern block: policy of containment and acceptance of the iron curtain

• iron curtain: speech in early cold war by churchill, given fact that there is a divide to be accepted in europe, iron curtain (west and east, should not expect any kind of exchanges going through the curtain)

  • not bother them and expect them not to bother us

  • not try to liberate the societies (de-communize), but contain communism so that it doesn’t expand

eastern block (block politics)

formal and informal empire

• soviet union over other parts of the world

• formal empire: soviet republics annexed the union

  • part of soviet states, soviet union instead of russia

  • control was absolute and formalized, part of sovereign state, moscow is authority

• informal empire: east european states

  • sovereign states: poland, hungary

  • moscow controlled who governed the territories (puppet governments)

    • controlled foreign policy was in line with soviets, socialist revolution, expanding socialism

    • domestic politics: any kind of political mobilization against socialism/soviet union/nationalist movements is squashed

  • suppression of domestic civil society

    • brezhnev doctrine: use of soviet military force when necessary to maintain the rule of the communist party in the east european countries

      • brezhnev: last leader after stalin

      • imposition of the soviet model

end of cold war

because of domestic revolution in eastern europe and ussr, and moscow’s reactions to them

• reaction to states not wanting to be controlled by moscow: applied the doctrine, became costly and ineffective

• change in international distribution of capabilities happened later and more gradually

legitimacy deficit in eastern block

anti-totalitarianism movements since late 1970s

doctrine was not going to work anymore, too many people unstatifed with the status quo

gorbachev: end of the brezhnev doctrine early 1980s

• wanted normal state-to-state relations with east european states

  • more recognizing of their sovereignty

    • controlling their foreign policy (aligned with moscow) by allowing them to do whatever in domestic politics

  • local communist movements:

  • alternatives to communism

• changed image of the adversary us-soviet partnership)

  • legitimacy deficit was a threat to soviet union survival (not usa)

    • change way we work with the united states

    • change definitions of national interests

• narrower definition of the national interest

• new approach to the security issue: mutual security, positive-sum game

  • mutual interests: those that had brought usa and soviet together to attack germany

  • willing to cooperate on interests in common → turn zero-sum game to positive-sum game

contagion effect

from the informal empire to the formal empire

formal empires contesting soviet control

• national identities with the ussr

implosion and dismemberment of the ussr

• soviet republics had enough of union that suppressed their national identities

united states reciprocates

time to move beyond containment 1989: speech, public commitment to not threaten or encourage autonomy

• lift iron curtain

the us would not threaten the ussr or encourage greater autonomy in eastern europe (won’t try to westernize them, everyone leaves them alone)

invitation to join the community of nations for russia

• G7 summit in paris 1989: first time for russia

german re-unification and nato membership

new unified germany entering nato was important step (germany was main cause of 2nd world war)

altered International system when unified for the first time → led to 1st world war

us-soviet cooperation in the un security council

re-activation of collective security on iraq 1990: iraq invaded kuwait

• russia and the us approved a resolution that authorized the use of force against iraq

• in the past, could have been blocked by one super power or the other

  • willing to cooperate

summary of end of cold war

from domestic revolutions in informal empire and then soviet union → systemic change

• constructivist: how this transformed the relations between the two super powers

  • relationship marked the cold war: when rivalry was gone = end of cold war

• neoliberals?

balance-of-power practices were replaced by practice of multilateralism

• united nations, security council being reactivated: channelling many decisions about international security

  • during cold war: managed unilaterally by each superpower, no cooperation

distribution of capabilities changed from bipolar to a unipolar distribution, as a result of the end of the cold war (happened after)

• realism: distribution of material capabilities

system from bipolar to unipolar: happened into the 90s, cannot be seen as cause → effect

international transformation of social structures (critical strategy theory)

1. rationalist pov

2. focused on expected consequences and strategic behaviour

3. norms are crucial to anchor any change brought about in the system

   1. persist over time: legitimacy basis = normative basis

   2. focus on structures

4. change: deviate from the original norms, act to transform certain norms with other norms

   1. not norm-driven behaviour

   2. change from deviated from the norm: strategic part, focus on actors

   3. gorbachev did and usa did in reciprocity: agents decided to transform the interactions between the two, with the gal of replacing one kind of order of rivalry with multilateralism and gains from cooperation

to end of cold war (critical strategy theory)

1. break down of consensus

   1. break down rivalry, interests

2. denaturalization of existing identities and interests

   1. the way you define identity, the opposition to the other

   2. not natural: different

3. change in one’s practices

   1. through interactions: not just at the level of idea

4. change in collective practices

   1. unilateral change → becomes collective change (both of our behaviour)

   2. final step to change social order

critical strategy theory

how: change of ideas, turn into change in actions, turn into change in engaging relationship (other must reciprocate)

Kolowski

The article examines how domestic political changes transformed the international system, using the collapse of the Soviet empire as a case study. The authors critique neorealism for its explanatory failures and advocate a constructivist approach that emphasizes ideas, norms, and institutions in shaping state behavior.

1. Critique of Neorealism

Core Tenets of Neorealism (Outlined by the Authors):

• International politics operates as an autonomous realm.

• The anarchic international system is defined by the distribution of power.

• States prioritize security and power.

Neorealism’s Shortcomings:

• Neorealism cannot explain the collapse of the Soviet empire.

• Prediction error: It assumes the United States, as the remaining superpower, would maximize power and suppress potential rivals. Instead, the US pursued multilateralism by including the Soviet Union in institutions and aiding economic reform.

2. Constructivist Explanation

The authors argue that constructivism better explains the events of 1989.

Key Constructivist Insights:

• Ideas and legitimacy matter in driving state behavior.

• Gorbachev’s decision to end the Brezhnev doctrine stemmed from a legitimacy crisis within the Communist Party, not changes in power dynamics.

• The emergence of civil society and the increasing appeal of democratic values destabilized Soviet control.

3. Stages of the Soviet Empire’s Collapse

1. Ottomanization:

   • Gradual decay of Soviet control over Eastern Europe.

2. Finlandization:

   • Eastern European states gained domestic autonomy while maintaining Soviet-aligned foreign policies.

3. Counterreformation (Gorbachev’s Strategy):

   • Gorbachev sought to implement limited reforms to preserve the Warsaw Pact and Soviet superpower status.

   • Backfire: Reforms catalyzed revolutions that spiraled out of control.

The Role of Contagion:

• The success of opposition movements in one country emboldened others, creating a domino effect.

• The Communist Party’s collapse in Eastern Europe spread to the Soviet Union, triggering its disintegration.

4. The Role of Ideas and Norms in International Change

• Events of 1989 highlight that shifts in ideas, norms, and domestic politics—not material capabilities—drove the transformation of the international system.

• Constructivism explains how the interplay between domestic legitimacy crises and international contagion effects reshaped global dynamics.

Conclusion

• Constructivism offers a more compelling framework than neorealism to understand systemic changes in international politics.

• The authors demonstrate that:

  • The collapse of the Soviet empire resulted from norm shifts and political legitimacy crises, rather than power imbalances.

  • A focus on ideas, domestic politics, and interconnected international processes provides a nuanced understanding of international change.

Grieco

Model 1: A World of Geo-Economic Competition. This model posits that while great power war is unlikely, competition will persist in the economic realm, with states focusing on capturing export markets, securing raw materials, and creating high-value jobs for their citizens. The rise of regional economic blocs, intensifying competition for natural resources, and the close relationships between governments and key firms are cited as evidence for this model.

Model 2: A Return to a Multipolar Balance-of-Power System. This model, grounded in realist thought, predicts a return to a multipolar structure where military power remains a key determinant of influence. It suggests that multiple great powers will engage in balancing dynamics, forming alliances and competing for security and primacy. Evidence cited includes anxieties over US unipolarity, soft balancing strategies employed by other states, and the reassertion of power by states like Russia and China.

Model 3: A Return to Bipolarity. This model suggests that China will emerge as the sole challenger to US dominance, leading to a new bipolar structure. It anticipates a geopolitical clash between the two powers, fueled by China's rising capabilities and ambitions, differing political systems and values, and potential flashpoints like Taiwan. Evidence includes growing tensions over economic and security matters, and the historical precedent of the Cold War.

Model 4: A Democratic Peace. This model, rooted in liberal and constructivist perspectives, suggests that the spread of democracy will lead to greater international peace. It argues that democracies are less likely to fight each other due to their political structures, norms, and the constraining influence of public opinion. It also highlights the role of international institutions and economic interdependence in fostering peace among democracies. The empirical regularity of peaceful relations between democracies and the historical spread of democracy are presented as evidence.

Model 5: A Clash of Civilizations. This model posits that future conflicts will arise from cultural and religious differences, rather than state rivalries. It identifies nine major civilizations and argues that their differing values, beliefs in the universality of their own values, and uneven development will lead to clashes. Evidence includes conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Chechnya, Kashmir, and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism.

Model 6: Hardened Borders: A Nationalist World. This model envisions a retreat from globalization and a resurgence of nationalism. It suggests that states will reassert control over their borders and economies, driven by factors like economic inequality, political mobilization of discontent, and geopolitical shifts. Evidence includes declining trade growth, the rise of populist and nationalist movements, and the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on border restrictions and economic policies.

The source concludes by emphasizing that no single model is definitively correct, but exploring these various possibilities helps us understand the potential trajectories of world politics and the factors that may shape the future international order.