The Influence Of Realism In The Clash Of Civilization

As tensions continued to augment profoundly throughout the latter half of the Cold War period, they brought forth a movement from a previous bipolar conflicting course, to one of a more multipolar nature. These tensions were now not only restricted to the Soviet Union and United states, but amongst multiple other nations of the globe. It became a general consensus that a notion of ‘peace’ was sought globally, hence, the emergence of détente. The nature of this idea in the short term conveyed itself to be an act of change for the conflicting nations, however, in the long term it proved to be a blatant continuity, ultimately acting as a ‘mechanism for domestic fortification’ which prompted a more divisive tone. It became apparent that by the prime 1970’s Cold War countries were now seeking a state of relaxation in political and international tension, détente, through measures of diplomacy and negotiation. Actions, influences and treaties such as the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the establishment of SALT 1, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 and the Shanghai Communique of 1972 evidently help reinforce that the concept of détente brought a period focused on lessening the tensions of international relations and ultimately achieve political relation for the future of the Cold War, although the success and impact of this era is abhorred by many historians who have concluded that détente didn’t activate any positive changes to the cold war, and was conclusively a failure.

The Cold War, a period of sustained political and military tension between the USA and the USSR, resulted in various viewpoints concerning the cause of the tension emerging. Until today the question remains unresolved, even after the 1991 release of Soviet archives. The main point of disagreement relates to the roles that ideology played in the events between 1945 and 1949. Was it the strongly opposing ideologies, capitalism and communism, or power and material interest that drove both superpowers to the decades of struggle for global supremacy.

“conflict occurring between individuals or social groups that separated by cultural boundaries can be considered “cross-cultural conflict.” But individuals, even in the same society, are potentially members of many different groups, organized in different ways by different criteria” (Avruvh, 1998, p.6).

When one can truly understand and uncover the meaning behind these articles and how they fit into one or more of the ‘boxes’ we call paradigms and perspectives. In order to dissect and analyze the case of the Cold War, especially its origins, one must not only skim through the text and uncover main ideas, but also must also relate the readings to these paradigms and establish one’s own ideals and opinions regarding the study of international relations. Personally, I believe the articles associated with the origins of the Cold War along with Professor Katzenstein’s lecture on the topic provide strong arguments for the use of a ‘middle fish’ perspective and a ‘big fish’ paradigm: domestic politics and realism, respectively. Through George Kennan’s personal accounts, experience and analysis at both the time of the Cold War’s inception and forty-plus years later after the fall of the Soviet Union, a point is made regarding the nature of Soviet expansion as an offensive maneuver, which he believed must be contained by a defensive strategy. This point of conflicting strategies by the U.S. and (especially) the Soviet Union provides the reader with a realist argument and perspective. Also, in his second piece, which details remarks made to the Council on Foreign Relations in 1994, Kennan explains that instead of whole-heartedly adopting

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

Realism is one of the most dominant international relations theories in the academic world. But within Realism, Realists are split on a number of issues. A perfect example of which being the rise of China. Over the past 30 years China has increased not only in population and power, but has also achieved one of the strongest economies in the world. The rise of China is seen as problematic by many realists. Since the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has enjoyed a position of hegemony in the unipolar power structure of the world. Many fear that the rise of China could upset the current balance of power. One such individual is a prominent realist scholar, John Mearsheimer. He believes that war with China is inevitable and “calls for the US to do whatever it can to slow China’s rise.” Another political theorist Jonathan Kirshner wrote this paper to counter many of Mearsheimer’s claims, stating that Mearsheimer’s offensive realism “is wrong, and dangerous”. Kirshner suggests that instead of using offensive realism we should look instead to the theories roots in classical realism to analyse the rise of China.

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).

After December 26 1991, when the Soviet Union fell, the bipolarity of the international system was effaced. In the post- Cold War era, the United States faced the problem, without a defined enemy, to adopt a new foreign policy. To begin to analyze the political foreign policy of the United States, one must first understand the international system. According to Political Realism, a theory of international thought, the state is the key unit within the acts within the system. These states act according to their key norms, which are allowed by the system. However, these sates are also affected the domestic and external factors which control how they act. The domestic factors include political culture, their economic system, the leadership

Reacting to the theory of Fukuyama, Samuel P. Huntington resumed the expression "Clash of civilizations" in 1993 and speculates that it is mainly cultural and religious identities

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.

Realism, as a way of interpreting international relations has often been conceived to be closely tied to the Cold War. Realism, rooted in the experience of World War II and the Cold War, is said to be undergoing a crisis of confidence largely because the lessons adduced do not convincingly apply directly to the new realities of international relations in the twenty-first century (Clinton 2007:1) Worse still, if policymakers steadfastly adhere to realist precepts, they will have to navigate “the unchartered seas of the post-Cold War disorder with a Cold War cartography, and blind devotion to realism could compromise their ability to prescribe paths to a more orderly and just system.” (Kegley 1993:141). This paper will demonstrate that

This realist fundamental greatly aids in the miscommunications of states, as seen with the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power

Samuel Huntington, the author of the clash of the civilisations believes that the World will eventually divide in accordance with cultural lines, and not political lines. According to Huntington, “the thriving East Asian and Muslim societies will soon challenge Western dominance, and the United States being the World leader will need to reevaluate its policies on foreign invention and domestic immigration to remain a major player.” During the Cold War, the world was divided into the First, Second and Third Worlds. Huntington views these ties as insignificant now and states that the remaking of the World order will be based upon cultural similarity. The different thriving civilisations according to him today are the Western civilisation comprising of North America and Western Europe, the Muslim civilisation, the Orthodox Civilisation led by Russia, the Chinese civilisation, the Hindu civilisation, the Japanese civilisation, the Latin American civilisation and the African civilisation. Huntington’s proposition of the division of the World according to cultural lines has been backed by the use of various examples by him; examples of events that have taken place in the past.

Culture and ideologies shape relationships, in which both define to whom one associates with. The question arises about which has more influence in international relations. Is it cultural factors such as customs, language or societal norms or political polices and philosophy. In 1996 Samuel P.Huntington published “The Clash of Civilizations” which the author gave a geo political theory that cultural differences between civilizations rather than ideological differences would be the primary source of global conflict in the post-cold war. This essay will focuses on the argument in Huntington’s book about how it presents the world, the problem and the proposal for a solution.