transition and the us

8/10/2019 Transition and the US

1/8

MA Security and Diplomacy

A change in paradigms: the real victims of transition

- essay -

Student: Nsudeanu Ghinea Oana - Ria

Field of study: Theory of International Relations

SNSPA

Bucharest, 2014


2/8

2 Nsudeanu Ghinea Oana - Ria

Introduction

In this brief essay I would like to present the theoretical and material reasons which I

have identified to have triggered the shift in paradigm since 1990 until the present day, from a

negativist approach in International Relations to a positivist one and its consequences in

theoretical explanation of realities in the modern world. In doing so I will use the examples of

U.S.A. and Russia, two of the most powerful states in the international system and because of

this - great influencers of history and events, and put emphasis on war fought by the two

aforementioned, how it has changed, what has changed and what are the consequences.

Theoretical approach

Since the end of the Second World War European space and other parts of the world,

especially the Middle East, have seen a display of power politics that shaped the International

Relations paradigms through which security environment is analyzed today. Practicing sphere

influencing policies has become increasingly popular with U.S.A. and Russia, the two great

powers that affirmed themselves on the international arena1. Examples of these displays include

not only the spheres of influence in Europe to which we have all become accustomed to but also

in Africa where diffusion of ideology was trying to be forced onto new emerging states by

alternative means2. Also, the Middle East has seen American and Russian implication in

domestic affairs. Even though the period of the Cold War was one shaped greatly by realist

thought with its anarchic view of the international arena, the sovereign state that pursues only

goals for itself selfishly and non intervention rules posed even from the treaty of Westphalia, big

powers have found it legal and legitimate to intervene and influence.

After the end of the Cold War the world was left with new structures of cooperation,

attempts at peace, embodied in the United Nations and NATO primarily, and the emergingEuropean Union secondarily. The accent started to shift from power politics to softer means of

influencing outcomes outside ones borders when the discourse about human rights emerged and

1http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/46345.htm, accessed 1.02.2014, 13.28

2Kwabena O. AKURANG-PARRY, Africa and World War II, in: Toyin Falola,Africa, vol VI, The End of Colonial Rule:

Nationalism and Decolonization, Carolina Academic Press, North Carolina, 2002, pp. 49-62
http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/46345.htmhttp://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/46345.htmhttp://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/46345.htmhttp://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/46345.htm


3/8


gained power, transforming into a policy to be applied by all states, and intervention became the

expression of the desire to keep balance in the overall international system and prevent conflicts

from spreading3. Of course even the nature of conflict changed at this point, focusing from

expansionist objective to interstate conflict as we have the Kosovo situation, South Ossetia,

Yugoslavia, Macedonia, Somali civil war, and many other parts of the world. But belligerent

actors were not only portrayed in military troops but now transformed into terrorist groups that

were hard to differentiate from the civil population. Responses to intervention by outer states in

internal affairs of other states has caused ideological and religious groups to launch attacks not at

the site of the conflict itself, but at the home-land, and as example we clearly have 9/11. Terrorist

groups represent themselves a new type of non-state actor that has to be taken into consideration

at the international level as a sole body and threat.4

Because of these anomalies and the rising of the E.U. as an expression of cooperation

under anarchy with little more than security as its interest and by using policy, institutions,

economical cooperation and treaties to increase security rather than armament or military defense

mechanisms it is certain that a shift in paradigm is occurring and realist and neorealist

assumptions can no longer keep up with explaining the working of the system under certain

conditions that no longer exist5. Neoliberals, although very much closer to explaining why

certain forms of cooperation have emerged, cannot always explain why certain forms of

intervention by conflict still persist. A new current of thought does well in explaining how states

got to cooperation and why forms of interventionism (or legitimate influence politics practicing

in my opinion) have strived under current changing conditions of international cohabitation.

Constructivism presents a new set of ideas starting from the assumptions that the state is

not the main actor of international relations, but society is and it influences the behavior of state,

its perception of the other, and its forming of interests and assumptions based on this

observation. Also rules are the product of social interaction according to this line of thought,

therefore are socially constructed, and are mainly based on a shared sense of justice and how

things should work to preserve peace and prosperity for the group6. Constructivism also offers a

3Alexander WENDT, Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge UP, UK, 1999, pp. 2-10

4Mary KALDOR, New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2006, p. VIII

5Alexander WENDT, Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge UP, UK, 1999, p. 3

6Idem, p. 50-68


4/8


new approach to conflicts so as to be able to clarify the conditions in which these are held, how

they started, and in contrary to the realist assumptions of why they happen, to offer a new

explanation that better fits reality and helps grasp the theoretical essence of the matter in order to

make policies fit accordingly. Deriving from the English School primarily that has at its basis a

combination between realism and liberalism, constructivism complements the new paradigm, a

positivist one, by filling out the theoretical gaps in order to create a solid ground on which the

functioning of the system can be observed, understood, predicted.7

An important observation to be made is that current theoretical research has pointed out

various solutions for the anarchy problem that seems to be causing wars, or the societal element

that is triggering conflicts; all of these answers, be it collective security, security regimes or self-

help through cooperation, have in common the fact that states must be willing to cooperate and

must want to preserve the status-quo of peace, in other words, collective security isnt for

revisionist states.8Revisionism can also be described as the will to change the current state of

events.

Global trends

As I mentioned earlier U.S.A. and Russia have the richest history in practicing influence

politics through soft or hard politics, depending on how each considered necessary to carry out

its influence. Since 1989 although the Cold War has ended we can still observe the same

behavioral pattern only with another facet. To clarify this statement there are many examples of

U.S.A. intervention in many parts of the world with the stated reason to promote democracy, as

in Iraq (although the war was started as a preemptive one due to the risk of terrorism after 9/11),

Israel (American military troops are present there), Yugoslavia, Africa (Liberia, Congo),

Afghanistan, and many more9. Also, Russian interventions made with the purpose of assuring

regional stability and same as U.S.A. to promote democracy, as in Transnistria, Abkhazia,

Checynia, Georgia and South Ossetia, Syria, and many more

10

, and also keeping close relations

7Nilfer KARACASULU, Elif UZGREN, Explaining Social Constructivist Contributions to Security Studies, in

Perceptions, Turkey, 2007, pp. 29-338There is also a third solution, balancing of power, but due to its result in the First and Second World War, I will

not mention its traits here.9http://www.globalpolicy.org/us-westward-expansion/26024.html, accessed 1.02.2014, 13.40

10http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/21/us-georgia-russia-border-idUSBREA0K1V020140121,

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/01/russia-backs-syria-chemical-weapons-plan-
http://www.globalpolicy.org/us-westward-expansion/26024.htmlhttp://www.globalpolicy.org/us-westward-expansion/26024.htmlhttp://www.globalpolicy.org/us-westward-expansion/26024.htmlhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/21/us-georgia-russia-border-idUSBREA0K1V020140121http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/21/us-georgia-russia-border-idUSBREA0K1V020140121http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/21/us-georgia-russia-border-idUSBREA0K1V020140121http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/01/russia-backs-syria-chemical-weapons-plan-2014131114210216142.htmlhttp://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/01/russia-backs-syria-chemical-weapons-plan-2014131114210216142.htmlhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/21/us-georgia-russia-border-idUSBREA0K1V020140121http://www.globalpolicy.org/us-westward-expansion/26024.html


5/8


with Ukraine and influencing greatly some of its decisions recently, as becoming the only gas

supplier for Ukraine.

As all these wars are asymmetrical wars there is a very blurry line between legitimate and

illegitimate intervention. Since the U.N. and the E.U. have placed maximum focus on human

rights and the right to intervene in foreign affairs, making them responsibilities of each country,

the argument has largely transformed into a tool of exercising influence with the help of

securitization11

12

.

Both the U.S. and Russia are part of United Nations permanent five13

which means

extensive influence over international legality. This aspect gives both parties space to maneuver

but also restricts an expansionist agenda, which does little to their ability to influence the world.

Their size and strength make them the most eligible candidates in efforts to stop wars, the flaw is

that this happens mainly by war and influence over the conflicting area is a bonus of the help that

they provide.

In my opinion todays belligerent areas can become tomorrows models of democracy or

new cultural centers of the world. This potential is brought on by the unexploited political and

economical resources of the country which with advancing technology and the appropriate

support can become satellites with much to offer to whomever gains influence. Also these proxy

wars have high visibility because of the media, but also regional, so the element of public

opinion helps shape the view of the people on the conflict itself14

.

In this spirit even the E.U. strives, working on a different level. Its cooperation politics

and non-violent settlement of any disputes combined with financial aid for members, and

political involvement in almost every belligerent area of the world. Its actions bring its members

together by dividing sovereignty at the European decision making level and construct models of

2014131114210216142.html,http://www.cbsnews.com/news/political-turmoil-in-yugoslavia/,

http://www.policymic.com/articles/36619/russia-chechnya-conflict-a-quick-guide, etc., accessed 1.02.2014,

14.00-15.0011

Concept of making an issue a security issue through discourse, thus giving it special policies and actions.12

Paul WILLIAMS, Security Studies: An introduction, Routledge, UK, 2008, p.15713

www.un.org, accessed 1.02.2014, 15.3014

See Israel-Palestine war and war literature, very vast, very discussed.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/01/russia-backs-syria-chemical-weapons-plan-2014131114210216142.htmlhttp://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/01/russia-backs-syria-chemical-weapons-plan-2014131114210216142.htmlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/news/political-turmoil-in-yugoslavia/http://www.cbsnews.com/news/political-turmoil-in-yugoslavia/http://www.cbsnews.com/news/political-turmoil-in-yugoslavia/http://www.policymic.com/articles/36619/russia-chechnya-conflict-a-quick-guidehttp://www.policymic.com/articles/36619/russia-chechnya-conflict-a-quick-guidehttp://www.un.org/http://www.un.org/http://www.un.org/http://www.un.org/http://www.policymic.com/articles/36619/russia-chechnya-conflict-a-quick-guidehttp://www.cbsnews.com/news/political-turmoil-in-yugoslavia/http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/01/russia-backs-syria-chemical-weapons-plan-2014131114210216142.html


6/8


democracy as well through mutual development and collaboration15

. Its influence is not to be

discarded as both U.S.A. and Russia work closely with it and receive help as well through

various treaties such as N.A.T.O. , for example Romanian troops in Afghanistan and Italian

troops in Iraq for U.S.A16

, thus not even the peaceful E.U. misses out on the armed activity in the

world, but offers something more than soldiers: a theoretical and institutional framework of

democracy, thus a place to start.

As an observation, because of all the activity presented above there is a theoretical

concept now that rules over any argument when dealing with the state, that is sovereignty is not a

guarantor of strict borders but rather of national identity and self-determination. In this idea it is

worthy to mention also that if before, until the World Wars and after the decolonization process

wars war fought for independence, today less and less wars are started in this spirit and more

wars are started because of cultural and ethnic clashes. Theorists call these wars state-

dismantling wars and give a clue about the future of the international system with the state as its

main actor, as borders are becoming less rigid and nationalismmore fundamental.17

My hypothesis

Taking the facts and fitting them into the theory that has already been explored can often

give an unexpected result. Seeing what has been presented so far theory-wise, I can only draw

three conclusions: in the last two decades the perception has shifted from state and institution to

social networks and human rights, cooperation is seen as an option, a possibility, rather than an

anomaly, and preserving peace is the main argument in any action undertaken when dealing with

involvement in internal affairs of other states.

Reality-wise, trends have shifted as well, from: interstate wars to intrastate wars, from

regional to proxy (at least as far as Western countries are concerned, most of them), and fromstate building to state dismantling.

15Simon COLLARD-WEXLER, Integration Under Anarchy: Neorealism and the European Union, in European

Journal of International Relations, SAGE Publications, UK, 2006, vol. 12, pp.397-41216

http://www.ziare.com/articole/trupe+romanesti+in+afganistan,

http://www.repubblica.it/2005/e/sezioni/politica/nuovacdl/finiprl/finiprl.html, accessed 1.02.2014, 15.5017

Mary KALDOR, Elaborating the New War thesis, in Rethinking the Nature of War, Jan ANGSTROM, IsabelleDUVENSTEIN, Frank Cass, NY, 2005, pp.211-217
http://www.ziare.com/articole/trupe+romanesti+in+afganistanhttp://www.ziare.com/articole/trupe+romanesti+in+afganistanhttp://www.ziare.com/articole/trupe+romanesti+in+afganistanhttp://www.repubblica.it/2005/e/sezioni/politica/nuovacdl/finiprl/finiprl.htmlhttp://www.repubblica.it/2005/e/sezioni/politica/nuovacdl/finiprl/finiprl.htmlhttp://www.repubblica.it/2005/e/sezioni/politica/nuovacdl/finiprl/finiprl.htmlhttp://www.ziare.com/articole/trupe+romanesti+in+afganistan


7/8


Since U.S.A. and Russia are still proliferating influence actions by the conflicts they are

involved in, and since they are still promoting democracy through conflict intervention, it can be

argued that the policy they follow is a residual doctrine of the Cold War. Since E.U. has adapted

so well at the emphasis put on society and societal constructs in its policy making and

cooperation programs, it can be said that it is the closest to achieving peace and the ideal

collective security theorists are hoping for. The cases of U.S.A. and Russia are not the same

because of lack of ideology change, as I demonstrated before they follow the same ideology in

external policy conducting, and will probably, at some point, be left behind in terms of

international system rearrangement and influence.

Conclusion

Even if the international system and its actors are changing in so many ways and so

rapidly, the nature of U.S.A. and Russian response is a clear indicator of how much they are

behind from a doctrinaire point of view. A weak response to cultural demands and the growing

networking between countries are the two elements that will eventually take a toll on the two

system-changing forces leading to their own change instead of them changing and rearranging

the system. Also in light of the conditions for proposed solutions to cooperation under anarchy,

neither U.S.A. nor Russia can be seen as status-quo keeping states since their actions are

revisionist in conformity to the presentation of facts above. Therefore the logical question arises:

in the efforts to maintain peace, are not the peacekeepers the ones who endanger peace the most,

on the principle that the objective justifies the means?


8/8


Bibliography

Articles:

AKURANG-PARRY, Kwabena O., Africa and World War II, in:Africa, vol VI, The End of Colonial

Rule: Nationalism and Decolonization,Toyin Falola, Carolina Academic Press, North Carolina,

2002

COLLARD-WEXLER, Simon, Integration Under Anarchy: Neorealism and the European Union, in

European Journal of International Relations, vol.12, SAGE Publications, UK, 2006

KALDOR, Mary, Elaborating the New War thesis, in Rethinking the Nature of War, Jan

ANGSTROM, Isabelle DUVENSTEIN, Frank Cass, NY, 2005

KARACASULU, Nilfer, UZGREN, Elif, Explaining Social Constructivist Contributions to Security

Studies, in Perceptions, Turkey, 2007

Books:

KALDOR, New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2006

WENDT, Alexander, Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge UP, UK, 1999

WILLIAMS, Paul, Security Studies: An introduction, Routledge, UK, 2008

Web resources:

www.aljazeera.com,

www.cbsnews.com,

www.globalpolicy.org,

www.reppubblica.it,

www.reuters.com,

www.polycimic.com,

www.state.gov,

www.un.com,

www.ziare.com
http://www.aljazeera.com/http://www.aljazeera.com/http://www.cbsnews.com/http://www.cbsnews.com/http://www.globalpolicy.org/http://www.globalpolicy.org/http://www.reppubblica.it/http://www.reppubblica.it/http://www.reuters.com/http://www.reuters.com/http://www.polycimic.com/http://www.polycimic.com/http://www.state.gov/http://www.state.gov/http://www.un.com/http://www.un.com/http://www.ziare.com/http://www.ziare.com/http://www.ziare.com/http://www.un.com/http://www.state.gov/http://www.polycimic.com/http://www.reuters.com/http://www.reppubblica.it/http://www.globalpolicy.org/http://www.cbsnews.com/http://www.aljazeera.com/

transition and the us

Documents