Pcr 419 Course Title: International Politics of the Cold War (1945
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE COURSE CODE: PCR 419 COURSE TITLE: INTERNATIONAL POLITICS OF THE COLD WAR (1945 - 1991) 1 PCR 419 INTERNATIONAL POLITICS OF THE COLD WAR (1945 - 1991) Course Developer/Writer: Mathias Jarikre Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution School of Arts and Social Sciences National Open University of Nigeria Course Editor Course Coordinator Mathias Jarikre Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution School of Arts and Social Sciences National Open University of Nigeria 2 NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA National Open University of Nigeria University Village Plot 91, Cadastral Zone Nnamdi Azikiwe Expressway Jabi, Abuja Nigeria Lagos Office 14/16 Ahmadu Bello Way Victoria Island, Lagos E-mail: [email protected] URL: www.nouedu.net Published by: National Open University of Nigeria Printed 2017 ISBN: All Rights Reserved TABLE OF CONTENT Module 1 International Politics of the Cold War Unit 1 International Politics Unit 2 Polarity Unit 3 History of Cold War Unit 4 Chronicles of Cold War Unit 5 Causes and Consequences of the Cold War Module 2 Cold War as Social Conflict Unit 1 Approaches to Cold War Unit 2 Cold War as Social Conflict Unit 3 Iron Curtains Unit 4 Berlin Blockade and Airlift Unit 5 Berlin Wall Module 3 Cold War Strategies Unit 1 Marshall Plan Unit 2 Molotov Plan Unit 3 Containment Unit 4 Deterrence Unit 5 Detente Module 4 Military Alliances and Nuclear Weapons Unit 1 North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Unit 2 Warsaw Pact Unit 3 The Role of Nuclear Weapons Unit 4 Arms Race and Control 3 Unit 5 Cold War Treaties and Agreements 4 MODULE 1 Unit 1 INTERNATIONAL POLITICS Unit 2 POLARITY Unit 3 HISTORY OF COLD WAR Unit 4 CHRONICLES OF COLD WAR Unit 5 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE COLD WAR UNIT 1 INTERNATIONAL POLITICS CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Objectives 3.0 Main Body 3.1 Definition of International Politics 3.2 Basic Forms of International Politics: Imperial, Feudal and Anarchic Systems 3.3 The Nexus between Domestic and International Politics 3.4 Views of International Politics (Anarchic) 3.4.1 The Realist 3.4.2 The Liberalist 3.4.3 The Constructivist 3.5 Basic Concepts of International Politics: Actors, Goals and Instruments 4.0 Conclusion 5.0 Summary 6.0 Tutor Marked Assignment 7.0 Reference/Further readings 1.0 INTRODUCTION Today, there are nearly 200 countries in the international system, each can be self absorbed and continue to jealously guard their claim as independent and sovereign states. There are about 300 international governmental organizations, some are global (United Nations - UN), other are regional (European Union -EU, Africa Union – AU, etc) and more numerous are the international nongovernmental organizations (NGO) such as the Human Rights Watch, to the villainous (Al Qaeda) and Multinational corporation (MNCs). Some people are also important key players in their roles as 5 decision makers, protester, voters and other political participant in a state or international organization. 2.0 OBJECTIVES In this unit, students will • Develop a basic understanding of international politics • Become familiar with the forms of international politics and understand why nations behave the way they do in relations to another. • Examine the power politics and the balance of power and the various views about international politics • Improve their ability to synthesize information and think critically as they reflect on the decision making challenges and the choice of policies in relations to domestic or international politics. • Develop oral presentation and written communication skills. 3.0 MAIN BODY 3.1 DEFINITION OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS International politics in anarchical world is predicated upon countries pursing their self interest as far their power would allow them. This has remained the main thrust of international politics. Like individual citizen in domestic systems, States acts and recognize rules that orchestrate and govern its responsibility to the common good within a considerable freedom, to approach politic with a sense of collective responsibility and the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy. International politics and international relations are often used interchangeably. Though, there is a distinction in usage as international politics is used primarily to describe official political relations between governments acting on behalf of their state‖ (Hannessian Jr., 1966). While Interactional Relations, according to Hoffman (1960), ―is concerned with the factors and activities which affect the external policy and the power of the basic units into which the world is divided‖. The distinction between international politics and international relations is imperative because some inter – state relations is not only political and restricted to state actors only. International politics means different thing to different scholars and authors, therefore, let us consider some definitions of international politics. According to Palmer and Perkins, the study of international politics is essentially concerned with the state 6 system. For Hans J. Morgenthan (1966), focuses his analysis of international politics on political relation and on the problem of peace, he went further to state that international politics is straggle for, and use of power among nations. Padclford and Lincoln defined International Politics as ―the interaction of individual nation state in their pursuit of their perceived national interest and goals‖. While Strauzz-Hupe and Possnory conceived International Politics to ―include actions of citizens and the decision of political significant groups.‖ Prakash Chandra while adopting a working definition for his book International Politics defined International Politics ―as a process in which nations try to serve their national interest, which may be in conflict with those of other nations by means of their policies and actions. It will suffice that International Politics in its quintessential is heavily laced with the characteristics of classical world politics to the exclusion of war which has lost its primordial use for resolving international conflicts. Among other things the decisive principles of classical world politics include the acquisition, maintenance and use of power for war as a determinant and evidence of strength. But like salt when it has lost its taste and efficacy is cast away, war has lost its primacy and today, it is being questioned as an instrument of national policy. This is not to suggest the least that there is an end to war because we have not found an alternative to war, also like the use of salt to mankind. Besides, nation states have continued to increase the defense budgetary provision. Essentially, the power politics and the balance of power in world politics is all about Europe because it was all inclusive of the entire world space. Apparently, as the dominant power politics, there was no equals elsewhere in terms of power politics that th can be compared to what was obtained in Europe in the 19 century. The frontiers of European power extended to and dominated the East and the Pacific, South Asia, the East Indies, Indochina, Burma, India, Persia and the Middle East. Similarly, it was not limited to these areas only, but also from Cape Town to Cairo. America was not spared from Europe‘s domination as both south and north were part of European colonial extension and possession. In view of the above backdrop, European power projected throughout the entire world, therefore, the balance of power in Europe means balance of world power. Under this prevailing scenario, whatever political maneuvers and diplomacy employed in the balance of power in Europe involved the th rest of the world. By the end of the 19 century, there was a dramatic shift of events, with the emergence of United States of America and Japan as world power outside the Europe and became an anachronism to speak of balance of power in Europe because of it could no longer self contained. 7 3.2 BASIC FORMS OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS: IMPERIAL, FEUDAL AND ANARCHIC SYSTEMS There are three basic forms of world politics namely the imperial, feudal and anarchic system of states: IMPERIAL SYSTEM The imperial system is characterized as one dominant government over the th environment/states with which it has contact. The 1 century Roman Empire is a notable example in the western world. Similarly, Spain and France attempted to gain th th sovereign supremacy in west in the 16 and late 17 century respectively. Also, the th British Empire spread the globe in the 19 century even though it had to scramble for partition with other strong states. FEUDAL SYSTEM The feudal system is the second basic form of world politics and involves the local micro-level of authority whereby territorial boundaries is a determinant of human loyalty and political obligation. The feudal system was prevalent after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the medieval period. An individual is obliged in loyalty to local authority and lord as well as duty bound in service to another. For instance, the belief system in Christendom permits an individual loyalty to be extended to some Bishop/Lord or Pope in Canterbury and Rome. Political obligations were determined to a large extent by what happened to one‘s superior. The political authority in the very nature of the feudal system meant that sovereignty did not exist legally, but in fact, did exist. This is because commoners had little or no author as they were th considered as subject. However, by the 13 century, with the military technology and economic expansion the feudal system had began to wane with the emergence of a new political order with a dramatic transformation of the intentional system, based on territorially defined states whose sovereignty made them equals legally. (John J. Rouke, 2006). ANARCHIC SYSTEM The third basic from of international politics is anarchic system of state. It is made up of relatively cohesive states with no superintendent government over them.