Did The Cold Wars Ending Cause Globalisation Politics Essay

Did The ratty contends Ending Cause Globalisation Politics searchWas landwideisation a realise or consequence of the annihilate of the low temperature war? Globalization is a concept that is difficult to define. Due to the equivocalness surrounding what globalisation actu anyy constitutes, diametric political theories bathroom cede different views on globalization. In reference to whether globalization was a cause or consequence of the end of the Cold War, it can be argued that globalization was both and cause and consequence, depending on what divinatory advent is return keyn by the unmarried, as this essay will demonstrate. Globalization is a recent confines which essentially encompasses a repress of different concepts to explain a widely distributed sense of interconnectedness. To understand globalization one needs to think of it as an extensive series of relationships which connect the frugal, social, technological and cultural aspects of our (and other peopl es) lives. essentially globalization refers to driving, specifically an awareness that these relationships are changing with increasing travel rapidly and volatility as a answer of the increasing aptitude for people, in bringation, goods and work and even ideas to transgress the globe with relative ease, resulting in the relative de-territorialisation of social, frugal and cultural activity and ideas within invokes. However, we must keep in mastermind that globalization is not homogenous and means a number of different things to different people.The Cold War (1939 1991) was a completion of assumed bout amongst the Soviet sum total (USSR) and the United States of the States (USA). Competition between the USSR and the United States was assumed because neither state directly engaged separately other in military conflict. However, each state was vying for the dominance of opponent social and value systems (Zimmermann 2003 20) which resulted in large increases in military pass for both countries, military coalitions with other nations (often resulting in proxy wars) and most resplendently a nuclear arms race (Duffield 2007 25-26). The result of this was uniquely bipolar world organised in terms of large-minded democracy versus left communism (Zimmermann 2003 11)The end of the Cold War (generally thought of as the period from 1985 1991) ended with the give way of the Soviet compass north, an event which can be contributed to a number of events (Spellman 2006 60). By examining the underlying factors for these events, from both a realist and liberalist perspective, we can get under ones skin to an understanding of how globalization can be argued to be both a cause for the end of the Cold War and a consequence of the end of the Cold War, depending on which viewpoint is taken by the various(prenominal).We are subject to use the tenets of realism to argue that, essentially, the end of the Cold War as well ended the bipolar grammatical construc tion of the world (which inhibits globalization) thereby allowing globalization to take place. realness holds the belief that the international system exists in anarchy gist that there is no higher power to enforce rules upon that state. The bipolar structure of the world can be considered to be an example of anarchy in the global system in light of the fact that during the Cold War, states reorient themselves with either the United States of America or the Soviet Union, according to whether they were more(prenominal) inclined towards socialism or democracy, (Zimmermann 2003 37) resulting in two distinct global axiss (eventually symbolised by NATO and WARSAW). A realist rock for this bipolarity could be that, in the absence of each meaningful international institution which could guarantee the security of state members, the pick of the state is its primary interest and comes above anything else. Consequently psyche states believed that supporting one of the two superpowers would guarantee them this security if their sovereignty was threatened by another state. It can therefore be argued that due to such multi-national alliances the structure of the world became very bipolar, inhibiting any form of globalization, which relies on the de-territorialisation and interconnectedness of states.Realism also proposes that international institutions are meaningless. At this snip the United Nations proved ineffective as it relied largely upon the continued goodwill and co-operation of the Soviet Union and the United States of America (Romero 2005 127). The end of World War II cut deterioration in relations between the USSR and the USA resulting in the Cold War which lead to the United Nations body (the at once meaningful overarching power) worthy insignificant. Since globalization, to an extent, relies on the co-operation of states with each other the inefficiency of the United Nations at this time symbolizes the neglect of co-operation between states, prev enting globalization from taking place.A realist could argue that the hegemony of the United States of America over the USSR lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the period in the lead up to the end of the Cold War the United States was able to triumph the Soviet Union diplomatically, economically and in terms of military specialty as illustrated by President Regans ability to unite the air jacketern world in a stance against the Soviet Union (Ronald Reagan Presidential ground 2008), the thriving U.S economy (compared to the USSR which was stuck in an widen period of stagnation) and the largest peace time military build-up in U.S history which the Soviets were unable to equal. (Zimmermann 2003 223) This domination had a number of consequences for the Soviet Union including worldly concern discontent, a call for change in the face of communism and a move towards the fundamental principles upheld by the west nationalism, individualism and free market capitalism (Spellm an 2006) which resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The end of the Soviet Union had the effect of fracture the bipolarity of the world structure by removing the barriers inhibiting globalization, thereby allowing globalization in the form of increased connectivity and concomitant dependency (Zimmermann 2003) to take place. In this realist context globalization is a consequence of the end of the Cold War.In contrast, the liberalist perspective is that globalization caused the end of the Cold War, predominantly through denationalisation of power, resulting in the collapse of the Soviet Union.The overall approach or aim of liberalist theories is to promote individual freedom, rational thinking and human progress by removing the barriers that obstruct equation. In 1985 the Politburo elected reform minded Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev as the General Secretary of the communistic Party of the Soviet Union. Unlike previous secretaries Gorbachevs view of the world include the desire to end the conflict between the United States and the USSR, however many a(prenominal) consider his reforms to have been extemporaneous, providing fewer and fewer tools to deal with the crises of the Soviet Union. In fact Gorbachevs policies accelerated these crises, (Romero 2005 86) and to have lead to the decline of the USSR. In an endeavour to bolster the Soviet Union and lift it out of a extended period of economic stagnation Gorbachev implemented a number of liberal proved policies such as glasnost (political policy of freedom) and perestroika (reconstruction) (Young 1999 109) thereby effectively removing barriers to individual freedom, realistic thinking and human development posed by the formerly oppressive policies of the socialist state. Gorbachevs policy changes can be argued to be in part, contributed to the effects of globalization, in the sense that Gorbachev had been influenced by western (non-socialist) principles when making his reforms which supports t he argument for globalization, that state interconnectedness de-nationalizes state power.Liberalist theory places emphasis on individual freedom and rights, it considers the existence of the state to solely promote and hold open the rights of its individual citizens an inability to do this will result in the breakdown of the state. Mikhail Gorbachevs glasnost and perestroika reforms had unplanned consequences for the authority of the communist state over its people. The reduction of communist go steady over the people under glasnost resulted in the Politburo losing control of the media. With new found freedom to speak out against the state, the media readily exposed the past and mystify inadequacies and failures of the USSR to the public and more importantly the rest of the world. For example the fields current economic difficulties, Chernobyl disaster and former endorsement of Adolf Hitler during World War II were all events which exposed the fault lines in an already weak sta te (Duffield 2007 53). The public became dissatisfied with the so called positives of soviet life as the negative aspects of the Soviet Union were brought into the spotlight, and readily expressed their dissatisfaction, threatening the existence of the USSR. Essentially the result of the glasnost and perestroika reforms made the Soviet Union more globalised in the sense that state power was de-nationalised and distributed among institutions (Zimmermann 2003 59-60) such as the free media which had the ability to spread ideas round the state amongst the public and people outside the Soviet Union, ideas which contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union and therefore the end of the Cold War.The inability of the Soviet Union to represent the best interests of the public resulted in an uprising against the USSR which was catalysed through globalization. In a notable incident in Poland the oppressed people of the Solidarity dejection were able to baulk the ban on Solidarity. Gorbach ev, through glasnost, had weakened the ability of the Soviet regime to impose its control over its republics, for Poland this meant no leading to restore central authority (Spellman 2006 192) which allowed the polish to protest without excessive oppression. To liberalists this can be considered to be an act of globalization in the sense that ideas of the Solidarity movement were able to transgress the territorial borders of the state enabling American chairperson Ronald Reagan to seize upon the opportunity to extend a hand of support to the millions do-nothing the iron curtain who looked to the west for help by placing economic sanctions of Poland to protest Solidarity resulting in Soviet non-intervention in the affair (Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation 2008) which in part contributed to the collapse of the USSR for the reason that other constitute republics followed Polands lead in a move away from socialism (Spellman 2006 87) mitigating the Soviet power baseLiberalists woul d consider the rise of the people against the socialist state as unavoidable due to the fact the only purpose of the state is to promote and preserve the rights of its individual citizens something which the predominately communist Soviet regime was not doing. Globalization as an ever increasing state actor acted upon the bipolar structure of the world, easy breaking it down as co-operation between states and an emphasis on freedom, equality and free market capitalism increased in the eastern bloc (Romero 2005 57-58) which resulted in domestic actors and structures within the USSR challenging the socialist regime of the country cumulating in a breakdown of the USSR and the end of the Cold WarAs demonstrated globalization can be considered both cause and a consequence for the end of the Cold War depending on the supposititious approach taken and which facets of that theoretical approach are applied to the situation. Considering this, the question of whether the globalization was a cause or consequence of the end of Cold War has no definitive answer when applied alongside political theoretical framework and merely constitutes an opportunity for the individual to appreciate the arguments of different theoretical approaches.