Post-Cold War Diplomacy and Peace Processes - Essay Example

Explaining Post-Cold War Diplomacy and Peace Processes: An International Relations Perspective Among the many significant historical episodes that the entire world witnessed in the current century, the Cold War remains one of the most remarkable as well as particularly baffling chapter. Over the years, a host of varying and dissenting opinions and explanations is offered by historians, journalists, academics and sociopolitical critics. In this essay, however, the author attempts to examine the different peace processes and conflict resolution methods undertaken by nations after the Cold War and their impact to the present set-up of the global arena. Promise of Peace The ideal state of freedom, security and happiness among peoples and nations in the world perfectly outlines the concept of world peace, which has been extremely elusive to humankind since the dawn of a competitive civilization. Non-violence, understanding and cooperation among countries as well as their leaders signify the essence of this universal aspiration, which for many is a seeming Utopian dream. But, in theory and practice, peace is never impossible.1 While it is believed that it is already embedded in human nature to be violent and adversarial, it is also factually acceptable that war is only man-made and could be prevented through a firm resolve and humane freewill. Immanuel Kant in his classical treatise entitled Perpetual Peace, upheld that the epitome of humanity only occurs when there is a total cessation of hostilities and not just a temporary suspension of conflicts.2 It should be noted, however, that Kant did not imply that there should be a total absence of disputes and conflicts before peace is attained. Theoretically, the stress was only placed on the term ‘hostilities’ and that it also implied the polite way of handling issues and settling differences. There has been a wide-ranging scope of theories and conjectures about the idea of peace. Various interpretations were already offered and at times disputed. According to Kacowicz, there is a threefold typology of peace.3 First is precarious peace, which is the temporary absence or armed conflict between nations (some Arab states and Israel). Second is conditional peace, where one or both sides see the necessity of deterrent activities to avoid war (United States and Soviet Union during the Cold War). Third and lastly is the stable peace, which neither side employs force or make a threat of force in any of its disputes (United States and United Kingdom during the 1956 Suez Canal Crisis). As an ongoing and dynamic process, stable peace involves the process of achieving a continuum of absence of war resulting from a balance of power, deterrence to conflict resolution and consolidation of societal security. For most part, stable peace is the one denoted by historicists and written about by romanticists. Beginning and End of the Cold War Dubbed as a war on ideology, the Cold War (1947-1941) was a period of tension, conflict and competition between the capitalist West and the socialist East. Spearheaded by world superpowers, the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic ventured into a prolonged political and military struggle that also involved other countries, called satellites (Eastern block) and allies (Western block). The rivalry for influence in the Third World and dominance in the military force was said to be the major germ that caused the war.4 A considerable mix of calm and high tension appeared in the international stage during this period. The Berlin Siege of 1948, the Korean Civil War in 1950-1953, the Berlin Crisis of 1961, the Vietnam War in 1959-1975, the Missile Attacks in Cuba (1962) and the Soviet-Afghanistan War in 1979-1989 all accounted for the terrible lethal strikes that occurred within this span of time. An imminent nuclear war precipitated by the Able Archer 83 Exercises of NATO was also documented. Nevertheless, the fear of a guaranteed mutual destruction engendered by their own sophisticated nuclear weapons served as a reason for a series of detente and martial deterrence between the two factions.5 The severed economic conditions of the Soviet Union in the 1980’s under Mikhail Gorbachev and the rapid modernization of the United States under the Reagan administration facilitated the end of the Cold War, leaving the latter as the victor. Moreover, most historians view the downfall of the Soviet Union as basically due to its domestic problems, its strained ties with China and its loss of popular support from most of its satellite members.6 December of 1991 marked the gradual collapsed and the eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union, wherein Russia possessed most of the nation’s nuclear arsenal. Innuendos and Negotiations In 1956, after Soviet Union’s first General Secretary Joseph Stalin’s death, successor Nikita Khrushchev expressed his views on the ideological contradictions between imperialism and communism, that the two could coexist without war.7 This positive development was reinforced during the 1959 Camp David Summit where US president Dwight Eisenhower discussed with Khrushchev the possibilities of collaborative spirits between the East and the West. Subsequently in 1963, both nations inked trust and confidence compacts. While in 1967 under Lyndon Johnson’s stint in the White House, agreements on cooperation and arms control were also signed. Furthermore, the healthy relations between the two nations were strengthened once again when Gorbachev rose to power in 1985. Series of international summits that aimed for weapon reduction among nations were actively participated in by the Soviet Union that somehow led to a growing sympathy even among radical leaders of the East. In fact, subsequently, the socialist nation readily agreed to withdraw its nuclear installations and military bases in Cuba, while the United States signified a halt in its missile attacks in the area.8 Fortified Diplomatic Relations The conclusion of the Cold War can be summed up by stating the principles of conflict prevention and resolution, and peacekeeping and peace-building.9 Since the end of this prolonged tension, the international community has embraced these concepts in the field of diplomacy and has worked hard to achieve its meaning and purpose. Generally, countries who had experienced the unforgettable horrors of the war within the century, all envision to attain a state of peace and harmony through the workings of development, secured and safe environment, responsible reaction to terrorism, and effective resolution to cultural and gender issues.10 Studying the concepts and ethics of dialogue and intervention incited most nations to behave in accordance to the ‘rules of engagement’ and in harmony with international policies. Fortunately, the emergence of mediators and third parties has created an avenue for a wider reception for negotiations and peace talks.11 World leaders and other respected individuals and nations who have proven their neutrality and nil of interest in the issues where two conflicting countries were involved were also seen to be very effective in the resumption of open-dialogue and other intervention means. In the case of the highly controversial and sensitive Arab-Israeli conflict, a shift towards bilateral agreement and resolution was seen in the offing, as nobler gestures of statesmanship of their leaders and diplomacy were observed.12 Although there were seriously stressful times in the geographical borders of these nations, it also cannot be denied that the peace effort of the international community spearheaded by the United States has already done a tremendously respectable achievement. More so, the governments of the world superpowers and the peaceful positions taken by their authorities were projected to make a lasting contribution to the restoration of peace in the so-called ‘Holy Land,’ where three of the world’s most powerful religions sprang forth. Additionally, some international relations experts are also looking at the ways where settlement of religious differences and ideological disparities can be obtained. Instead of instantly resorting to violence, most economic titans would first issue economic and financial sanctions to nations who are ‘misbehaving’ or are not following the rules set by the international community.13 This way, the avoidance of force can be guaranteed and a healthy peace dialogue can be ensured. This recent development has become the trend for most countries and their diplomatic envoys acknowledge the virtue of these protocols. Ensuring Peace and the Future “Peace work is work to reduce violence by peaceful means.”14 Hence, the assurance of zero-violence should be emphasized in the works of peacemakers. Learning from the works of Gandhi would really not hurt. Focus on the equal power relationships and respecting a nation’s sovereignty are robust means in forestalling future conflicts. Agreement on ethical considerations would also uphold reconciliation and understanding between adversaries. Nonviolent techniques that avoid provocation and oppression are also seen as successful tools when conflicts break out in the future. The founding of the League of Nations, now the United Nations and other regional organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, African Union, Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, among others, were premised and rationalized on the value of conflict resolution. Theoretically, conflict resolution that comprises the areas of conflict containment, conflict settlement and conflict transformation serves as a procedural feature in international relations and in the diplomatic sphere.15 Conclusion The rise of democratic ideals over communistic tenets in the post-Cold War world triggered for the shift toward healthy and humane dispute settlement, conflict resolution and peace processes. Valuable concepts and policies governing the international community in confronting the many challenges that occurred since 1991 facilitated for the achievement of peace, stability and development around the globe. Responsible and legitimate forms of negotiations and agreements blazed the path for understating and cooperation among nations that were once torn by ideological contradictions and political bickering. These impacted not only the governmental and economic set-ups of most nations but also influenced their outlook in the socio-cultural and religious realities of peoples. Above all, these circumstances are largely dependent upon the activities and initiatives endeavored by the international relations and diplomatic bodies of countries and several global associations. The task assigned to them is an uphill climb, if not an epic struggle. Thus, if they would uphold the vision and promise of peace since the ‘Berlin Wall collapsed’, they should always strive to educate and work about how human societies transcend and celebrate their differences. References Adolf, A., 2009. Peace: A world history. Cambridge, CB: Polity. Brown, A., 2007. Perestroika and the end of the cold war. Cold War History, 7 (1), pp.1-17. Foot, R., Macfarlane, S. N., & Mastanduno, M., 2003. U.S. hegemony and international organizations: The United States and Multilateral Institutions. Oxford: Oxford UP. Gaddis, J. L., 1998. We now know: Rethinking cold war history. Oxford, OX: Oxford UP. Galtung, J., 1996. Peace by peaceful means: peace and conflict, development and civilization. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Gleason, A., 1995. Totalitarianism: The inner history of the cold war. Oxford, OX: Oxford UP. Herken, G., 2007. At the abyss: An insiders history of the cold war (review). Journal of Cold War Studies, 9 (2), pp.148-150. Izadan, A. & Claremont Graduate University, 2008. The pillars of peace: Human development, democracy, relative political capacity and international organizations. Cambridge: ProQuest. Kant, I. & Ted, H., 2003. To perpetual peace: a philosophical sketch. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. Kacowicz, A. M., 2000. Stable peace among nations. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Newman, E. & Schnabel, A., 2002. Recovering from civil conflict: Reconciliation, peace and development. London: Routledge. Quandt, W. B., 2001. Peace process: America diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1967. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T. & Miall, H., 2005. Contemporary conflict resolution: the prevention, management and transformation of deadly conflicts. Cambridge: Polity. Russet, B. M., 1994. Grasping the democratic peace: Principles for a post-Cold War world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP Westad, O. A., 2005. The global cold war: Third World interventions and the making of our times. New York, NY: Cambridge UP. Read More