ECH lecture 2 pt. 2

Changing Geography of Warfare After 1945

The Shift in War's Location

Post-1945, the traditional geography of warfare underwent a significant transformation. Prior to this period, major conflicts were predominantly centered in Europe. However, following the Second World War, the locus of conflict shifted dramatically to regions such as Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East.

Driving Factors for the Change

This fundamental change in the nature and location of war can be attributed to two primary, interconnected factors:

  1. The Bipolar World: The emergence of a bipolar international system, dominated by two superpowers—the United States and the Soviet Union—profoundly influenced global conflicts. These two powers, locked in a Cold War ideological struggle, avoided direct confrontation in Europe to prevent a catastrophic nuclear war. Instead, they projected their influence and engaged in indirect conflicts across the globe.

  2. Decolonization: The wave of decolonization across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East led to the creation of many new, often fragile, states. These nascent nations frequently became arenas for superpower competition, internal conflicts, and struggles for influence, further shifting the geography of war away from the former colonial metropoles.

The Rise of Proxy Wars

A direct consequence of the bipolar world and decolonization was the widespread adoption of proxy wars. Instead of engaging in traditional, direct warfare, the United States and the Soviet Union supported opposing sides in conflicts occurring in other countries. This strategy allowed them to advance their geopolitical interests and ideological agendas without risking direct military engagement with each other, particularly in sensitive regions like Europe. For instance, while avoiding direct military conflict in Europe, both superpowers funded, armed, and provided political support to various factions in conflicts across Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East.

Key Realist Assumptions in International Relations

The study of international relations, particularly through the lens of realism, provides a framework for understanding state behavior in this context. For the exam, it is crucial to understand and explain the core assumptions of realism:

  1. Statism: This assumption posits that states are the primary and most important actors in international politics. Other actors, such as international organizations or non-governmental organizations, are considered less significant or derivative of state power.

  2. Survival: The ultimate goal of every state is to ensure its own survival. All other objectives, such as economic prosperity or human rights, are secondary to maintaining the state's existence and security.

  3. Self-Help: In an anarchical international system (meaning there is no overarching world government to enforce rules or provide security), states cannot rely on others for their security. Each state must therefore rely solely on its own capabilities and resources to ensure its survival. Alliances might be formed, but they are always viewed through the lens of self-interest and can be broken when they no longer serve a state's security needs.

  4. Anarchical System: This refers to the absence of a central authority or world government above individual sovereign states. This lack of a global enforcer means that international politics is fundamentally a struggle for power, where states live in a condition of potential war, making security a constant concern.