Neorealism: War Avoided in Thirteen Days

Thirteen days. For some, it seemed like a lifetime. Thirteen days. For others, it was the scariest moments of their lives. Just thirteen short days to prevent a nuclear war. After Fidel Castro overthrew the Cuban government, he turned Cuba into a communist regime. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics decided to provide Cuba with Soviet aid. Soon after, The United States found evidence of nuclear missiles. The Cuban Missile Crisis was an important time in both Cuban and American history. Castro’s Cuba was just the beginning, things then started to intensify with Soviet aid, and culminated with the United States responding to end it all.

The film, Thirteen Days, is a stark reminder of just how close the United States came and stood at the brink of war with the Soviet Union. It also depicts the internal struggle within the White House, and how even those who are on lower rungs of the ladder could severely impact the outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Although Kennedy and his inner staff wished to avoid a war at all costs, his military staff, on the other hand, had different intentions. The Kennedy administration ultimately avoided a war that would have resulted in nuclear destruction, and learned a valuable lesson as well, when it came to combating communism aggressively.

The biggest obstacle that the Soviets and Americans faced in dealing with this crisis was the added difficulty imposed by cross-cultural negotiations. This added burden further magnified the differences in thinking, feeling and behaving between the two countries. The table above illustrates the national style in negotiation faced by the United States and Soviet Union. Both the Americans and Soviets had to take into account each other style to eventually reach an agreement. Even though Cuba was at the center of this debate, it played a minor roll in the negotiations between the US and Soviet Union.

Neoclassical realism is not a reassertion of the primacy of human nature as a causal factor in explaining the aggression of states over and above the structural account of the conditions of anarchy. Rather, it attempts to synthesize elements of classical realism and neorealism by combining structure under conditions of anarchy with relevant factors arising from the internal dynamics of states, including ideology, personalities, perceptions, misperceptions and other factors which feed into foreign policy. It is, in effect, the joining of foreign policy analysis, which, by definition, accounts for domestic factors, with structural realism. In reviewing a collection of works described as neoclassical, Gideon Rose explains that they incorporate

The international system is anarchic. It is very important to notice that anarchy, according to Mearsheimer, does not mean chaos or disorder, but absence of centralized authority, that stands above states and protects

What was the Cuban Missile Crisis? Many people have heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and may have learned about it during school, but they do not know the nitty gritty details of the whole fiasco. The CMC was the first threat of a nuclear world war. The real “crisis” was between the United States and the Soviet Union and not Cuba. Cuba played a relatively small role in the grand scheme of it all and was basically the field on which the two powerhouses played on. The Cuban Missile Crisis was one of the most tense 13 days that the world has ever known and had the possibility of completely disintegrating the world we know today. In this paper we will learn exactly what happened.

Thirteen Days, by Robert Kennedy, is a portrayal of the drama surrounding the Cuban missile crisis, and an analysis of the ordeal. There are two sides to this conflict which was played out in the post-World War II era. On one hand you have the Communists of the Soviet Union, whose desire to bring all of Europe under their heel would nearly spark a war that would annihilate the human race. On the other stands the Americans who wished the "vindication of right" and to prevent the further spread of Communism.

Realism is a theory which believes that sovereign states are the primary actors in the international system. It also believes that the international system has always been anarchic due to the nature of states not trusting each other and each state seeking to gain or maximize its own power capability. The Realist approach to the Cold War was also that of an “anarchical constitutive” and had seen the Cold War as something that was not out of the ordinary. The realists believed that states are always competing to maximize their own power, “the basic premise of its understanding is that the Cold War was not historically unique. the Cold War rather reflected in general terms the ongoing logic of inter-state conflict derived from the anarchical constitutive nature of the international system, and the ‘power maximization’ policies of states” R.Saull (2001:7).

Realism is a theory that depicts world politics as a ceaseless repetitive struggle for power. In other words, political realism seeks to explain international relations between states in terms of power. Realist “views that nation-state as the most important actor…because it answers to no higher authority;” in other words, it is an anarchic system (Kegley, 27). Some traits of realism are that states are sovereign, non-cooperation among states, and the exclusion if morality in policies.

There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the ‘Great Debate’. Realism, offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self-interested

In order to understand the importance of the Cuban Missile Crisis in American history one must first understand the Cold War drama, Castro’s rise to power, and the American operations that set up the crisis. “The term Cold War refers

In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst

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 Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 is undeniably a major confrontation of the Cold War. Lasting for 13 days it is arguably the pinnacle of the Cold War. This crisis was a decisive factor in the United States’ (US) decision process of whether to engage in a nuclear war with the Soviet Union (USSR). However the essential fault of both state leaders (J. Kennedy and N. Khrushchev) which created the inevitable crisis was miscommunication. Today we recognise actions taken by both states during the crisis as consistent with a realist point of view. Realism holds great emphasise on the obstacles enforced by human nature and the non-attendance of an international government. Creating international politics an area focused on power and state-interest.

According to Jackson and Sorensen (2003), the leading contemporary neorealist thinker is undoubtedly Kenneth Waltz (1979). His starting point is taken from some elements of classical and neoclassical, such as independent state existing and performing in an anarchical international system. Waltz’s Theory of international Politics (1979) seeks to provide a scientific explanation of the international political system. A scientific theory of international relations leads us to expect the certain pattern that states to behave in predictable ways. In Waltz’s view the