International Relations Theories: The Soviet Union And The United States

In the period after World War II, from the late 1940’s up until the 1990’s, the United States and their allies were engaged in a “cold” war with the Soviet Union and its allies. Except for minor proxy wars between countries supported by the respective sides, no major wars were fought between the U.S. and the USSR. Nonetheless, tensions were extremely high for many years and the two superpowers constantly went back and forth trying to best the other. Likely the most well-known of these competitions was the Space Race. Battling for cosmic supremacy from the late 1950’s to 1969, the two countries traded many victories over the years and pushed each other to their technological apexes.

The tension between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War allowed for both nations to exhibit questionable actions around the globe. The Iran-Contra Affair was one event that occurred under Reagan’s Administration that exemplified the trans-national impacts the Cold War was having around the world. The Affair is a combination of the United States’ actions within the countries of Nicaragua and Iran. However, the United States’ involvements were both ethically questionable as well as the motives of the Cold War. Although the actions in Nicaragua and Iran were separate actions, they showed how the government was involved in questionable activity around the globe while in the full-swing of the Cold War. The Iran Contra

Despite the unsuccessful past during the Cold War years between the United States and the Soviet Union, President Ronald Reagan and his counterpart the general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev during the 1980s should have focused on bright future by reducing the nuclear arms, because having a partnership, friendship and the common goal will move two nations toward success. On 1985, in an effort to improve the international situation, the United States and the Soviet Union have decided to hold a meeting in Switzerland, Geneva. It was a first official meeting between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, to discuss reductions in nuclear weapons and talk about future partnerships. Geneva Summit led on to four further meetings in 1986 Reykjavik, in 1987 in Washington, Moscow in 1988, and the last one in New York Harbour in 1988.

Before the 38th Parallel , there was no North Korea and South Korea – only Korea. The 38th Parallel was initially created to guarantee that Japan would surrender to the Soviet Union in the north and the south would surrender to the United States, but it later became a barrier between the two states. (Gupta 1972). The line was proposed by the United States and agreed to by the Soviet Union. Author William Stueck names the 38th parallel as the first step in the Korean War, writing, “the war originated in 1945 with the division of the peninsula into occupation zones by the Soviet Union and the United States, and the perpetuation of that division as a result of the two nation’s subsequent failure to agree on terms for unification.” (Stueck 1995)

Toronto, Canada---- Since the end of World War Two, the United States and the Soviet Union have experienced a number of political clashes. From the Marshall Plan to the Korean war, to testing nuclear weapons, and to the use of missiles, the United States and the Soviet Union have definitely established a divide between the two empires. The growing dependence of the United States in Europe and Great Britain has increased imperialist speculation from the USSR. However, the United States justifies their presence though the policy of Containment, in its attempt to defend democracy. Also since post World War Two, there has been a massive increase of arms in both the Soviet Union and the United States. From the booming economy of the war and the devastating atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States became a global superpower. The need for efficient nuclear weapons suddenly became an obsession. In 1952, the USSR managed to develop their own Atomic bomb, which threatened the position of the United States. And from there an arms race began. The use of nuclear weapons is an extreme that neither empire wishes to reach, however, the public is not certain.

Even though realism finds itself deeply rooted in a utilitarian moral framework, critics arise as to such an outlook remains immoral (it is wrong to apply) at best. A major opponent theory is liberalism. Dismissing that conflicts are inevitable, liberals uphold that the spread of legitimate domestic political orders will eventually bring an end to international conflicts.[ Scott Burchill, “Liberalism” in Theories of International Relations, ed. Scott Burchill (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 35.] This approach involves embedding notions of democracy, human rights, and free trade. As a result, states will avoid ideology clashes and a universal state will emerge. Liberals might repudiate realism on its utilitarian ground: its consequential nature and lack of universal moral code. In this section, I will defend realism against some liberal criticism.

America’s foundation was constructed on the ideal of freedom, whether that be religious, political, or individual freedom. U.S. citizens have very strong feelings about their independence and will do almost anything to protect their rights from being taken away. During the 1950s Americans were afraid that their freedom was going to be threatened and taken away by the communist style of government. The Soviet Union and America were both trying to win control on a global scale, but with the USSR being communist the paranoia of a socialism takeover was heightened. Americans were so fearful of communism that it became known as the Red Scare. All over the country people were being accused of being communist spies and federal employees were being interrogated, the U.S. was in full panic mode. The United States was so fearful of the USSR being able to gather more communist allies and take over that the U.S. stepped in militarily to protect South Korea from North Korea’s communist invasion. This battle for dominance between the nations was named the Cold War. I believe that this war was justified because there were clear threats towards the United States and their capitalist ideals. In the very beginning of the Cold War the Soviet Union successfully tested an atomic bomb. This seemed like a clear indication that the USSR had plans to use that bomb in order to establish their dominance and embark on a communist takeover. America fought to keep their freedom and rights safe from the

Liberalism was previously a projection of how international relations ought to be; now, liberalism is a modern theory towards peace attained with a state’s ambition for dominance. “Self-interest” has two definitions in accordance to liberalism and realism. Liberalism considers the measure of power within states through stable economies, the possibility of peace and cooperation, as well as the concepts of political freedoms (human rights). Realism believes states are driven by competitive self-interest; international organizations hold little to no real influence because states are self-preserved. International relations is governed by states acting in their self-interest through liberalism; states act in their self-interest by cooperating with one another through international organizations, transnational advocacy networks, and non-governmental organizations. International organizations, normative values, and terrorism are all examples of how international relations is progressing into liberalism.

Change upended Europe many times in the latter half of the 20th Century. After World War II, with the rise of the United States and the USSR as the world’s foremost superpowers, Europe split between East and West. NATO allied Western Europe and the United States against the rise of communism. The Warsaw Pact allied Eastern Europe militarily. This effectively split Europe into two competing camps that ensured relative peace for the following decades. In 1989, however, that changed entirely. With the borders and limits between East and West erased, Europe had to embrace a new identity. They had to create a new definition for what it meant to be “European”. The West had previously developed models and institutions that united multiple states, and communism united the East. When the two intermingled politically, economically and socially, there were going to be growing pains. The East had to integrate into Western institutions because of the fall of communism. Easterners tended to move west to find work and a new, higher standard of living. This placed a significant burden on the West as a whole. Spurred by the mass migration of people from the East to the West, the West responded by hindering Eastern states’ ability to integrate fully with “European” institutions.

America’s tension with the Soviet Union grew stronger during World War II, but it was clear that this alliance would be short lived and following it would be the race between Democracy and communism. The countries represented the extremes in social ideology; American Capitalism with monetary pursuit and rugged individualism, and the USSR’s Communist preaching redistribution of wealth under temporary totalitarian rule (that never left power). The tension had been building up since the Russian Revolution with America not recognizing the Bolshevik Government until 1933, and was brought to its tipping point during WWII as the USSR had been denied its, proper second front, its development of atomic weapons, and ultimately the denial of reconstruction loan while Britain’s was approved. Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill met at the Yalta Conference in February 1945. They made strategic plans to defeat Germany and began discussing crucial postwar issues. All this build up caused Stalin to pursue his own goals instead, as was demonstrated when the war was over when Soviets refused to recognize Poland’s conservative in exile and instead instituted a communist government as it had been continuously doing in Eastern Europe. With the European Allies exhausted of their resources. It fell upon America and F.D.R’s successor, Harry Truman, to engage the USSR and its spreading communism, beginning the Cold War. However as America for the majority of its existence had remained an isolationist

After World War II, the United States and the USSR established themselves as the two most dominant nations in the world. Though they were tentative allies throughout the war, they came to distrust each other as direct rivals. Throughout the Cold War, the United States attempted to contain the spread of Communism, endorsing democratic regimes in Asian, Latin American, and African countries. The conflict reached its peak in October of 1962 in the Cuban Missile Crisis which was triggered by the Soviet deployment in Cuba of intermediate and medium-range ballistic nuclear-armed missiles with nuclear warheads. Although deeply challenging Americans’ tactical interventions, the Cuban Missile Crisis revealed the sophistication of the U.S. intelligence community, especially in its capability to collect and analyze information. Indeed, the American intelligence discovered the Soviet Union’s missiles through diverse intelligence gathering methods, such as aerial photoreconnaissance, human intelligence and advanced signal interceptions. This intelligence not only revealed critical information about the Soviet’s missiles, military units and weapons present in Cuba but also prevented an imminent nuclear war, hence demonstrating the power and war strategies deployed through espionage while questioning the right balance between its morality and necessity.

Classical realist theory is based upon the idea that human nature is inherently bad and selfish, the international system is anarchic, and the state is the most important actor in international affairs. Basing policy decisions on human nature, the state looks to maximize it’s power and security within its geographic location. Realist theory sees all conflict deriving from power struggles between states, though it is not about fostering wars; rather the opposite.

The study of international relations takes a vast spectrum of theoretical approaches. A theory of international relations is a collection of concepts that delineate how the international system operates (SparkNote on International Politics, 2010). Contrary to an ideology, a theory of international studies is endorsed with solid evidence. This essay will focus on two dominant theories of International Relations (IR), namely realism and liberalism to decide for this matter on the more pragmatic one for the study of IR. According to realism, states work only to gain more power relative to that of other states (Donelan: 1990:23). Liberalism matured in the 1970s as some scholars generated arguments that realism was defunct. With the rise of globalization, the immediate increase in communications technology, and the expansion of international trade meant that states could no longer be dependent on complete power politics to resolve matters (Lawson, 2015:96).

Many scholars have observed IR (International relations) through different theoretical lens throughout time, the two most debated on theoretical lens in international relation are liberalism and realism. Realism according to Korab-Karpowicz is the view of international politics in which states are only concerned with there own self interest, security and struggle of power (Korab-Karpowicz/2017). While on the other hand liberalism defined by John Ikenberry is the focus of “society, interdependence and progressive change”(Ikenberry 2009/pg.204-205).Although realism sees the world in a pessimistic view, it is the most powerful descriptor of IR. This essay will support the claim that realism has provided a more convincing description of IR through the analysis of power lust, self security and economic greed states have shown throughout time. However the essay will also entertain liberalist arguments through the view of interdependence and common interest.

Realism and Liberalism are two significant and dominant theories in global politics. Both have contrasting ideas when dealing with how states should relate to each other in the field of international relation. In today’s world order, most causes of states’ actions can be labelled along either of these two theories. Realists consider states as being the principal actors in the international arena, who are often concerned about their security, act in pursuit of their own national interests and struggle for power (Bull 1995:189).