The Significance of the End of the Cold War for US Foreign Policy - Essay Example

What is the significance of the end of the Cold War for US Foreign Policy? In the history of international relations, the end of the Cold War has crucial importance in terms of evoked core transformation in international system and the short period of all the outcomes to become visible for the contemporary people. In the given circumstances, the impact of the USSR collapse on the foreign policy of USA has no doubt, since these two states were the main actors that formed the previous world order. In fact, US foreign policy currently face numerous opportunities and challenges. Furthermore, it is crucial to comprehend all of them, because the U.S. inevitably should address different situations all over the world on a regular basis. Thus, the given essay aims to represent both positive and negative aspects of the appeared transformation of international regime for the United States. In the context of advantages, the paper determines the stability of American internal processes in the new circumstances as a basis for its claims on hegemony and strengths in both realist and liberal terms. At the same time, it acknowledges the dangers of prevalence of numerous not dual powerful interests and American economic weakness, which limit its current prominence. In short, it turns evident that the end of the Cold War encourages the US foreign policy to simply accustom already existing principles to the new international conditions. On the one hand, the beginning of Cold War period evoked the completely new agenda setting for the USA; in this context, the rapid collapse of the USSR meant only the elimination of real threat not the end of the already launched processes. For instance, the Grand Strategy of NSC-68 seems not sustainable in the contemporary security matters due to its age. Notwithstanding this, the ground idea of the organized security policy is still valid and determining the U.S. foreign policy1. Moreover, the lying principle of containment policy to “lay chiefly in preventing the coming together of potentially hostile states”2 sounds reasonable and up-to-date even in the new circumstances. Because of this, it is possible to state that USA has a long-term experience of managing the world in order to maintain its complexity and separateness. Therefore, the post-Cold War appearance of the U.S. foreign policy does not require the new approach but simply encourages to modify already existing strategies in the new international system. In fact, the elimination of one of the members in a pair international dominance rivalry creates an opportunity for the winner in this race to turn into the global hegemon. In fact, Kraufhammer determined this phenomenon as “the unipolar moment,” by stating that Cold War resulted in the fact that “the center of world power is the unchallenged superpower, the United States, attended by its Western allies”3. In other words, the Soviet collapse meant that USA obtained a chance to gain global leadership. For this aim, the remaining superpower had enough resources collected in previous race. In general, USA can be characterized as “the country in the best position to take advantage of globalization”4. In detail, the end of previous era in international relations has left the United States with all necessary attributes, meaning “first-class military potential, political, economic, and cultural strengths, demonstrated lack of territorial ambitions”5. In this case, the point is that no other country has enough forces to date to catch up contemporary USA, which has prominent positions in all the dimensions of the state on global arena6. In the given circumstances, the very idea of unipolarity as a short-term but obligatory result of bipolarity collapse sounds reasonable. In particular, the defenders of both realist and liberal positions agree on the prominent position of USA in contemporary world politics. In realistic terms, this state has a wide arsenal of attributes to guarantee its strength on international arena. Among the main advantages that the United States currently enjoy, Drew and Nitze strongly stress on the fact that it is the owner of the major part of world nuclear weapons7. As a consequence of previous bipolar world, the maintenance of the greatest nuclear arsenal still equals the maintenance of the greatest power in international relations in current belief system8. After being in balance with Soviet arms only9, the U.S. military capacity faced the new reality where no state has the same advantage. Moreover, current behavior of US public officials means certain encouraging of these strengths extension. In 2003, the US sum of expenditures on the defense left behind the combination of the next 20 states in overall military means10. In general, current military capacities of USA make it possible for it to claim for hegemony11. Hence, the current ambitions of certain countries to gain nuclear weapon reflects the U.S.-formed belief in “’arsenal of democracy’ concept–the idea that the United States could most effectively contribute toward the maintenance of international order by expending technology not by manpower”12. In this context, liberal relying on the role of international institutions also serves as manifestation of the U.S.-based ideological system in the post-Cold War world. In particular, Graeber discusses the dominant position of this actor in the main international institutions, meaning the United Nations, GATT, and World Bank13. Even though the Cold War had ended, these institutions that had had the authority as the third party in their relations remained and strengthened their previously established positions. These days, USA tends to continue playing “its dual role as the world’s banker and global policeman”14 on the behalf of these bodies. In return, this reliance made international institutions become incapable and ineffective. Since the American influence is too evident in global governing for everyone in the world, it causes the lack of trust to all the multilateral platforms15. However, all these facts in sum enable Krauthammer’s definite positive answer to the question, “Can America support its unipolar status?”16. In the new world order, any country has the same combination of strengths in both realist and liberal vision as post-Cold War USA does. On another hand, the new global environment forces the creators of the US foreign strategy to compare the main strengths of their country with the greater number of international actors they were accustomed to do. In this context, the United States for the last decades relied on its policy of containment, as “a series of attempts to deal with the consequences of that World War II Faustian bargain”17. In fact, the core feature of this policy meant dealing with the clear enemy and building the strategy based on enlargement of defense expenditures. However, the new world order caused by the loss of Soviet Union encourages the discussion of other influential actors; above all, they are Germany as a representative of Western European states, Japan and China18. Due to this, many authors claim that the new multipolar international system is not good for contemporary America. For instance, Graeber defends such a neorealist approach by stating, “…the policy of containment … proved an effective means to manage foreign policy”19. On the contrary, the breakdown of Soviet Union has created the more complex and unstable environment the U.S. have to deal with. In other words, the Cold War system was more preferable for the United States than a new world order, because the current world has lost its predictability and stability. As Deutsch and Singer prove, the additional number of actors increases the range of possible decisions and relations and complicates the internal structure of global system20. As a result of this transition, the spread of unresolved issues significantly challenges contemporary US foreign policy. This difficulty is inevitable, since each state has its own national interest and cannot have equal preferences with USA in all the questions21. As Drew and Nitze write, “The end of the Cold War has seen the proliferation of new conflicts around the globe. These conflicts can be dangerous”22. In short, all this means that the new world order has created new challenges for the US foreign policy, since the threat is no longer connected with one clear enemy but dispersed around the globe. Because of this, US foreign policy inevitably needs to react on different crises around the globe (like interstate conflicts)23, which increases the level of responsibility for the mistakes in its national strategy and enlarges the extent of outcomes for each decision far beyond its continent’s borders. Previously, it was possible to blame the enemy in wrong actions, but the contemporary world order makes these accusations impossible. Among the main weaknesses of contemporary America, Drew and Nitze stress on the economic troubles of USA that have danger to stop its global leadership. In their own words, “our troublesome budget and balance of payment deficits, hamper our ability to act to help others”24. For neoliberal scholars, this weakness is also severe, since “trade and money, not tanks and missiles, have become the prevailing measures of power”25. In the given circumstances, the stakes of economic instability are high. In fact, unsustainable state of national economy automatically means the loss of both unipolar moment and all of previously obtained global privileges for the U.S.26. In the opinion of McCormick, the economic conditions are so hard that it is relevant to claim that both American and Russian superpowers had lost in front of the U.S.-led Germany and Japan27. Because of this weakness, there appears the discussion on the role of China as the new superpower in international means due to its growing economic potential and the similar ideology to the former Soviet Union 28. In sum, it turns evident that even the only weakness of USA means a lot for the state of its foreign policy, since its prominent position is challenged by the growing tendency to multipolarity within the international system. In order to sum up, the presented essay shows that the collapse of Soviet Union left not only the path to global leadership but also enabled numerous obstacles to appear in this way for the United States. On the one hand, the USSR collapse automatically left USA in front of the whole world with much weaker states. In the given circumstances, the US foreign policy demand on global hegemony, as this state has resources in terms of any dimension presented in contemporary international theory. In particular, American arsenal includes both technological potential and the strong positions in international institutions, which its officials can use as a tool in the achievement of diplomatic goals. In other words, the previous era made the global world change possible to develop according to the rules that were in favor to the US foreign policy in its current state. Hence, containment heritage makes it easier for contemporary USA to deal with the world. On another hand, the time of enjoyment the dominance was short for the U.S., because the new conditions enabled the plenty of national interests to enter the stage and determine global agenda setting. Moreover, American state of economy evokes concern in scholars, since it can limit the potential of this actor to remain superpower. Notwithstanding all these challenges, the main point is that USA still has better starting conditions than any other country in the post-Cold War world order; thus, it is possible for US foreign policy creators to think of global hegemony for the first time. In short, the end of the Cold War is a great opportunity America should not miss, even though global dominance means not only rights but also obligations. In fact, freedom of choice on the global arena is the privilege that is worth taking certain responsibilities. References: Brooks, Stephen G. and Wohlforth, William C., ‘American Primacy in Perspective’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 81, no. 4, 2002, pp. 20-33. Deutsch, Karl W. and Singer, David J., ‘Multipolar Power Systems and International Stability’, World Politics, vol. 16, no. 3, 1964, pp. 390-406. Drew, S. Nelson and Nitze, H. Paul, NSC-68 Forging the Strategy of Containment, Washington, DIANE Publishing, 1994. Gaddis, John L., Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy during the Cold War, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1982. Graeber, Daniel, ‘Containment, Neo-Realism and US Foreign Policy during the Cold War’, in Robert J. Paulty (ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to US Foreign Policy, Farnham, Ashgate, 2010, pp. 85-140. Krauthammer, Charles, ‘The Unipolar Moment’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 70, no. 1, 1990, pp. 23-33. McCormick, Thomas J., Americas Half-Century: United States Foreign Policy in the Cold War and After, Baltimore, JHU Press, 1995. Posen, Barry R., ‘Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of US Hegemony’, International Security, vol. 28, no. 1, 2003, pp. 5-46. Waltz, Kenneth N., ‘The Emerging Structure of International Politics’, International Security, vol. 18, no. 2, 1993, pp. 44-79. Read More