Did the structure of international security fundamentally change with the collapse of communism?

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

This paper will explore whether the structure of international security fundamentally changed as a direct result of the collapse of communism. To do so what will be examined are the reasons why communism collapsed, the impact of communism on the international security infrastructure, the way in which national interests and ideologies affected the structure of international security at the time and the various methods in which the collapse of communism affected such factors.

This paper will also seek to explore the present day security environment and how it differs from the one seen prior to the collapse of communism.

How Did Communism Collapse?

Focusing on the issue of industrial innovation and entrepreneurship, the subsequent decline of the economies of the U.S.S.R and China from the 1950s to the 1980s can primarily be attributed to the fact that in order for any economy to thrive it is necessary for certain factors to be in place: there must be a variety of small, medium and large enterprises, there must be competition between different producers and finally entrepreneurship and innovation must be encouraged in order to facilitate positive changes within a given industry.

What must be understood is that the proliferation of small, medium and large enterprises results in more jobs being present for people within particular communities (Bergesen 1992). This results in more people having money to buy goods or utilize services and this in turn ramps up demand which necessitates further expansion thus providing more jobs and more money for people.

This current climate is also improved with the presence of entrepreneurship and innovation which facilitates new means of doing business which further improves the economic climate resulting in economic prosperity within a given country. All of these factors are what was lacking in the case of China and the Soviet Union since in effect their centralized means of production killed off the possibility of innovation, entrepreneurship and the development of more high paying jobs within their respective countries.

This created severe stagnation within their economies which led to a subsequent decline in their industrial potential. The end result was an unsustainable system that inevitably could not sustain itself given its inherent limitations. This was in stark contrast to the case of the U.S. wherein through capitalism the production of goods and services has become more efficient and thus cheaper, which resulted in more jobs available for people that wanted them (Hollander 1992).

Such a system encouraged innovation and entrepreneurship which further helped local economies and at the same time it helps to ensure that the economy of the U.S. continued to be productive due to its profit based orientation.

It was only when China modified its communist policies to encourage the creation of businesses, the introduction of foreign investments, private ownership and a variety of other changes that made its current economic system a hybrid of communism and capitalism that it was able to become the second largest economy at the present.

Understanding the Impact of Communism on the International Security Infrastructure

In order to understand how the presence of communism dictated the structure of the international security framework at the time, it is important to first examine the concept of foreign policy creation, ideologies, and national interests and how such factors influenced the security environment prior to the collapse of communism by early 1990s.

Through this particular method of examination it can be expected that the importance of communism as a bulwark for policy decisions at the time will be revealed and how its absence resulted in a drastically different international security environment in terms of changes that occurred in the ideological and national interests of the U.S. who was the main opponent of communism.

Foreign policy is often defined as a set of strategies that have been chosen by the state in the interest of self-preservation through the implementation of national interest strategies within the greater whole of the international community. In a way it can be considered a set of rules by which a state limits itself to when interacting with other states.

As such, in order to understand what motivates a country to perform a certain action, on the international stage so to speak, it is important to take note of its foreign policy directives and how it relates to events as they occur. For example, in the case of the U.S. its foreign policy objectives during the Cold War period was to prevent the expansion of the USSR into Eastern Europe, prevent the spread of the communist ideology and promote the spread of democracy as the de facto “best/ideal” method of governing a country (Buzan 1984).

In this particular instance it can be seen that the development of America’s foreign policy goals were inherently connected to the concept of national interest due to the underlying threat of a potential Soviet invasion. It must be noted though that America’s foreign policy objectives at this time were also inherently dictated from an ideological standpoint.

Michael Hunt in his book, “Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy”, explains that from an ideological standpoint the relatively hostile relationship between the U.S. and the Soviet Union was a direct result of the U.S seeing the Soviet Union and the concept of communism as a threat to the idea of America’s “destiny” to guide the world due to the success of its great experiment (referring to the creation of a multicultural society) and the tenets of democracy which it bases itself on.

From this particular perspective it can be seen that communism acted as a focal point from which the U.S. and its allies based their international security decisions on (Fonte 2003). The reason behind this, as explained earlier, was due to an inherent divergence in ideologies which created an international security environment where two competing ideologies sought dominance on the basis of proving which one was right.

Both saw the other as a threat to their national interests and as a result took steps in order to prevent the encroachment of external actors within their spheres of influence (Fiammenghi 2011). This can be seen in the strategies implemented by the U.S. during the Cold War period wherein it utilized foreign aid as a method of implementing its security agenda as well as the formation of various strategic alliances such as NATO so as to contain the U.S.S.R and the spread of communism. (DiPaolo 2005)

The U.S.S.R on the other hand also formulated its own strategic alliances with countries such as China, North Korea, several Eastern European countries and began significant arms buildup which was reciprocated by the U.S. As it can be seen, one aspect of the international security environment at the time was that the militaristic actions of one state that represented a particular ideology were in turn reciprocated by the other creating a system which was quite similar to “The Great Game” (1813 – 1907), a term used to describe the strategic rivalry and jostling for regional supremacy between nations (at the time it was between Britain and Russia), and was thought to have gone into subsequent decline as a direct result of trends in globalization and regional cooperation.

It is based on this that the prevalent attitude at the time was one where it was assumed that in order to for the state to survive (which is of course one of the cornerstones of national interest) it was necessary to reciprocate the actions of its rivals so as to create a balance within the international system to prevent the possibility of one ideology overwhelming the other.

This particular way of thinking was particularly apparent in the case of the U.S. and, as described by Howorth & Menon (2009), constituted the main bulk of its national interest strategy since it viewed the spread of communism as a distinct threat to the safety and security of its borders (Howorth & Menon 2009).

National Interests

The concept of national interest is often defined as a country’s inherent goals in relation to the pursuit of particular economic, military or cultural objectives. This is reflected in various foreign policy mandates in relation to the creation of trade unions, military alliances and other means of achieving mandated state goals (Morgan 2004).

What must be understood is that based on the theory of realism in international relations the pursuit of national interests is one of the primary goals of the state and thus helps to shape its foreign policy in order to achieve certain ends. This is not to imply that national interests are the primary reason behind the shaping of foreign policy but rather create the need behind the policy in the first place.

For example, if a country finds that it is surrounded by hostile states its national interest would be the preservation of the state from outside incursion which would impact its foreign policy in dealing with those particular states. This was seen in the case of the U.S.S.R and the U.S. during the Cold War period wherein its foreign policy objectives were influenced by its encirclement by pro-U.S. allies within NATO.

On the other end of the spectrum the foreign policy objectives of the U.S. were also influenced by the prevailing national interests at the time which was the preservation of the “American way of life” which was being threatened by the concept of communism as well as the significant buildup of nuclear arms by the U.S.S.R.

It is based on this that it can be seen that the national interest strategies of both countries in effect created an international security infrastructure of mutual distrust, fear, and apprehension which would create a dynamic wherein each would try to counteract the other within the international stage (Minogue & Shtromas 1993). One way in which this was accomplished was through the spread of various ideologies which were used to great effect in promoting the agendas of either actor at the time.

Impact of changing ideologies on the Structure of International Security

Ideologies in general refer to a proposed set of ideas that are created by a group within society with the main goal of soliciting social change, adherence to a new set of ideals or even a new way of thinking (i.e. white man’s burden, the concept of German racial superiority during World War 2 etc.).

As such it can also refer to the way in which a person portrays themselves in an argument, in a sense that it is a method in which persuaders present an “image” to people that they are attempting to persuade. What must be understood though is that ideologies are in fact “artifice”, meaning that it is created, manufactured, made, constructed etc. It can be considered a type of surface image which may in fact have an entirely fictitious relationship to what is actually true.

The 3 Categories of Influence

It must be noted though that national interests are just one of 3 categories of influence which dictate the creation of foreign policy objectives for states. The following is an elaboration on the 3 categories of influence and are to be utilized in understanding the distinct changes in the structure of international security that occurred as a direct result of the collapse of communism.

The 3 categories of influence are as follows:

1.) Global Influence

2.) National Interests (sometimes referred to as local interests)

3.) Individuals/ Personalities of decision makers

Global influences take the form of various events that drive the interactions between states. These can entail the resulting influence of global economic markets on local economies, wars, natural disasters, trade agreements and a variety of other factors which occur on an international level. What must be understood is that foreign policy objectives are not static but are considered to be a dynamic response to a combination of global events in relation to a country’s national interest.

For example, the U.S. at the present is no longer pursuing a foreign policy strategy of isolation against communism, similarly Russia, as a transitional state, no longer possesses a foreign policy that is distinctly hostile against the U.S. but is focusing more on expanding its influence in the region not through military expansion but through resource allocation and distribution as seen in its use of petrol politics (the denial of resources particularly oil or gas in order to gain political or economic concessions) in its relationship with various countries in Eastern Europe who are dependent on Russian exports of natural gas (Nikitin & Petrovsky 2009).

As it can be seen through these examples foreign policies change over time not only through inherent national interests but as a direct result of global influences which change national interests. In fact it can even be stated that global influences play a distinct role in changing national interests (as seen in the case of the U.S. and international terrorism) which further shows how national interests cannot be considered the only means of directly influencing foreign policy decisions and objectives (INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2005).

From an international security perspective it can be seen that through the dynamic changes in American and Russian foreign policy this has in effect changed the overall structure of international security since the two primary actors which were behind the abrasive and often times hostile environment during the Cold War period have in effect altered their national interests due to the absence of ideological, economic and militaristic conflict (Buzan 2003).

Russia has embraced globalization and has become a powerhouse in terms of industrial production and energy supply in the form of its natural gas deposits. In turn the U.S. is no longer actively trying to undermine Russia and has even established numerous trade partnerships with the state.

These changes in the international dynamic have altered the national interests of either state to the point that neither looks at the other as a direct enemy, but rather views the other in context of “just another” competing state within the international arena (Delahunty & Yoo 2009).

This has resulted in a gradual arms reduction over the years, the implementation of programs related to nuclear disarmament and a surge in the global influence of the U.S. The international security environment is no longer composed of two competing spheres of influence backed by nuclear arms and strategic resources but has now changed to a point that there are numerous spheres of influence which have been created through the regional integration of interests (seen in the case of the E.U., A.S.E.A.N and the African Alliance) with the U.S. at the forefront and often considered as the most powerful international actor within international relations at the present (Kowalewski & Rybinski 2011).

Individuals/ Personalities of decision makers

The last categories of influence in creating foreign policy are individuals and their inherent personalities from which the concept of ideology comes into play. What must be understood is that individuals who are the decision makers of the state (i.e. presidents, prime ministers, congress, senate etc.) have access to and are inherent facilitators of the policy making process that creates foreign policy.

They take into account national interests and global influences and formulate foreign policy as a direct response to these two influences (Hoogensen 2005). What must be understood is that similar to the case of national interests being influenced by global events, decision makers are also influenced by various ideologies which dictate how they formulate foreign policy decisions in relation to national interests and global influences.

This occurs as a direct result of a prevailing social idea or concept which influences how that particular society thinks which in turn influences decision makers who must conform to the prevailing ideologies within that society (Weinrod 1993).

People are inherently influenced by particular ideologies (as mentioned in earlier sections) which not only results in certain situations which negatively impact national interests but result in detrimental actions for the state which does not comply with the view of states as rational actors (as seen in the realist theory of international relations and the rational model of foreign policy creation) due to the apparently irrational nature of the foreign policy created by individual actors or groups (Šedivý, J. 2004).

This was seen in the case of the U.S. wherein the various types of propaganda against communism created a type of irrational exuberance which actually led to the Cold War lasting more than it should have.

This in turn created a security environment wherein the leaders of both factions were not predisposed towards implementing some form of peaceful reconciliation of differences (which would have logically been the best path and is often utilized at the present) but rather due to the influences of their respective ideologies and the adverse portrayal of the other within their societies this created a predilection towards indifference regarding a peaceful settlement of disputes and instead resulted in heightened observance with the possibility of nuclear war on the horizon.

One of the most well known examples of an influential ideology affecting state decisions is the concept of the white man’s burden wherein various western countries were under the belief that they had the “responsibility” to educate the “lesser” races due to their “inherent” superiority.

Michael Hunt in his book, “Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy” even goes on to state that the concept of the white man’s burden and the resulting white racism of the American elite that followed was actually one of the principles that had motivated American foreign policy since the beginning.

In a way, it can be said that ideologies can affect how national interests are formulated resulting in distinct changes to a state’s foreign policy

(Kramer 2003). For example, the ideology of creating a strong German nation and gaining back its lost pride after World War 1 that was advocated by Hitler during his rise to power resulted in distinct changes to Germany’s national interest. This distinctly resulted in foreign policy initiatives that were distinctly expansionary, focused on the elimination of the Jewish people and were generally hostile to the states that Germany had invaded.

Other examples of ideologies affecting foreign policy can be seen in the case of the U.S. itself wherein ideologies related to the supremacy of the American system, the supposed divinely ordained destiny of the U.S. as well as aspects related to the distribution of the tenets of democracy resulted in the U.S. changing from its stance of isolationism (period before the start of World War 1) towards global interference in the affairs of other states (period after World War 2).

Structure of International Security at the Present – The War on Terror

One of the most recent examples of the use of ideologies in influencing foreign policy was the 2001 declaration of “the war on terror”. The ideology created at this point in time was one which focused on ensuring the safety of the U.S. through the elimination of global terrorist threats.

What must be understood is that based on the documentary “The Power of Nightmares” by Allen Curtis it is explained that the threat of radical Islamism as well as the portrayal of Al Qaeda as globally spanning organized force was in fact a myth created by various politicians in several global governments. Its purpose was to help unite and inspire people under the power of a perceived threat so as to find justification for the development of several foreign policy objectives.

The most recent actions of the movement based on their ideology helped to change the America’s foreign policy initiatives to such an extent that it resulted in the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq based on reports created by the Neo-conservatives which indicated Osama Bin Laden was hidden in an extensive cave complex (which was proven to be false and inaccurate) and that there were weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq (also proven to be false and inaccurate).

As it can be seen ideologies are used to directly influence public perception which in turn affects national interests resulting in distinct changes to foreign policy. At the present this has manifested itself as a completely different international security environment as compared to what existed prior to the collapse of communism.

Structure of International Security at the Present – Development of Economic Alliances

Going back to the example of China, it can be seen that during the latter half of the 1900s China underwent extensive internal changes as a direct result of new policies involving economic reform, innovation and the encouragement of foreign direct investments.

During this particular transition period in China’s history its national interests underwent a drastic change from previously extolling the evils of the global economic system that was created by democratic states to openly embracing it resulting in the development of new economic reform programs, trade agreements and the encouragement of local entrepreneurship.

The impact this had on its foreign policy created a 180 degree turnabout in the way it interacted with other states, particularly the U.S. China increasingly entered into various trade agreements, sided with the U.S on varying issues and increasingly integrated various aspects of its own economy into U.S. markets.

China’s national interest at this particular period of time was to establish itself as global power by remaking itself into an economic powerhouse in which it was arguably very successful as evidenced by its current ranking as the world’s second largest economy.

It is based on this particular example that it can be seen that national interests do play a distinctive role in influencing the foreign policy of transitional states since it acts as a type of springboard from which foreign policy goals and objectives are created and implemented as evidenced by China’s behavior at the time towards creating an increasing amount of connections in terms of trade and assistance between it and the U.S.

Conclusion

Based on the various facts and arguments presented in this paper it can be concluded that the structure of international security has fundamentally changed with differing ideologies, national interests and entirely new methods of interstate interaction dominating the current international landscape.

There are no longer two spheres of ideologies and interests but rather the international environment is now composed of several spheres of influence which have developed as a direct result of growing interconnectivity and the need to better integrate economic, political and military partnerships. Not only that, the focus of the global international security agenda at the present is no longer a fight against communism but rather one which focuses on combating terrorism.

Reference List

Bergesen, A. 1992. Communism’s collapse: a world-system explanation. Journal Of Political & Military Sociology, 20(1), 133-151. Available from: www.EBSCOhost.com

Buzan, B. 1984. Economic structure and international security: the limits of the liberal case. International Organization, 38(4), 597-624. Available from: www.EBSCOhost.com

Buzan, B. 2003. Implications for the study of international relations. global responses to terrorism: 9/11, Afghanistan & Beyond, 296-309. Available from: www.EBSCOhost.com

Delahunty, R. J., & Yoo, J. 2009. Great Power Security. Chicago Journal Of International Law, 10(1), 35-54. Available from: www.EBSCOhost.com

DiPaolo, A. 2005. Battle for state control. World Affairs, 167(4), 163. Available from: www.EBSCOhost.com

Fiammenghi, D. 2011. The Security curve and the structure of international politics. International Security, 35(4), 126-154. Available from: www.EBSCOhost.com

Fonte, J. 2003. Homeland politics. (cover story). National Review, 55(10), 27. Available from: www.EBSCOhost.com

Hollander, P. 1992. Sociology and the collapse of communism. Society, 30(1), 26-32. Available from: www.EBSCOhost.com

Howorth, J., & Menon, A. 2009. Still not pushing back: Why the European Union is not balancing the United States. Journal Of Conflict Resolution, 53(5), 727-744. Available from: www.EBSCOhost.com

Hoogensen, G. 2005. Bottoms Up! A Toast to Regional Security?. International Studies Review, 7(2), 269-274. Available from: www.EBSCOhost.com

International relations. 2005. Political Studies Review, 3(1), 130-150. Available from: www.EBSCOhost.com

Kowalewski, O., & Rybinski, K. 2011. The hidden transformation: the changing role of the state after the collapse of communism in Central and Eastern Europe. Oxford Review Of Economic Policy, 27(4), 634-657. Available from: www.EBSCOhost.com

Kramer, M. 2003. The collapse of East European communism and the repercussions within the Soviet Union (Part 1). Journal Of Cold War Studies, 5(4), 178-256. Available from: www.EBSCOhost.com

Minogue, K., & Shtromas, A. 1993. Ideology of the collapse of communism. Political Studies, 41(4), 4-20. Available from: www.EBSCOhost.com

Morgan, P. M. 2004. Regions and powers: the structure of international security,. contemporary security policy, 25(2), 365-368. Available from: www.EBSCOhost.com

Nikitin, A., & Petrovsky, V. 2009. WMD proliferation in Asia and broader context: North East Asia multilateral security regimes. Lessons To Be Learned From Non-Proliferation Failures & Successes, 48(1), 126-138. Available from: www.EBSCOhost.com

Šedivý, J. 2004. Regions and powers: the structure of international Security. Journal Of International Relations & Development, 7(4), 460-464. Available from: www.EBSCOhost.com

Weinrod, W. 1993. The U.S. role in peacekeeping-related activities. World Affairs, 155(4), 148. Available from: www.EBSCOhost.com

White, S. 2001. Communism and Its Collapse. New York: Routledge. 452 p.

Click Here To Order Now!