Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Dumbrell, John
1997.
American Foreign Policy.
p.
129.
Article contents
Rethinking the End of The Cold War
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 October 2009
Extract
Like nuclear weapons, the literature on the end of the Cold War continues to proliferate. Much of this work it has to be said has been limited in its depth (if not range) by the simple fact that the structure of the new international order has yet to assume a finished form. Writing meaningfully about a constantly evolving subject is no easy undertaking. There is also the added problem of perspective. In many ways we are still living too close to recent events to say much that is particularly profound about them. Finally, understanding the new world has been made all the more difficult by the sheer scale of the changes that have occurred since 1989. Because of the triple collapse of communism as an ideology, the Soviet Union as a European power, and the USSR as a united country our known political universe has fallen apart. Making sense of the global results is no easy job; indeed it is turning out to be an extraordinarily difficult task—one for which we may not yet have the proper conceptual tools.
- Type
- Review Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © British International Studies Association 1994
References
1 See Shaw, Martin, ‘State theory and the Post-Cold War World’, in Banks, Michael and Shaw, Martin (eds.), State and Society in International Relations Theory (New York, 1991), pp. 1–17Google Scholar.
2 The literature on the post-Cold War period is already impressively large. Two of the more useful overviews (with a distinctly American bias however) are Hogan, Michael (ed.), The End of the Cold War: Its Meaning and Implications (New York, 1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Gaddis, John Lewis, ‘International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War’, International Security, 17, no. 3 (Winter 1992-1993), pp. 5–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 See also Kratochwil, Friedrich, ‘The Embarrassment of Changes: Neo-realism as the Science of Realpolitik without Polities’, Review of International Studies, 19, no. 1 pp. 63–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Cockburn, Patrick, Getting Russia Wrong: The End of Kremlinology (New York, 1989)Google Scholar. For my own thoughts on the subject, see Cox, Michael, ‘The End of the USSR and the Collapse of Soviet Studies’, in Co-existence (Summer 1994Google Scholar, forthcoming).
6 See, for example, Steel, Jonathan, The Limits of Soviet Power: The Kremlin's Foreign Policy Brezhnev to Chernenko (Harmondsworth, 1984)Google Scholar
7 See, for example, Pipes, Richard, Survival Is Not Enough: Soviet Realities And America's Future (New York, 1984)Google Scholar.
8 The argument that Reagan's policy of ‘revitalized containment’ led directly to the collapse of communism is articulated in: Dolan, Anthony R., Undoing the Evil Empire: How Reagan Won the Cold War (Washington, 1990)Google Scholar; Herf, Jeffrey, War by Other Means: Soviet Power, West German Resistance, and the Battle of the Euromissiles (New York, 1991)Google Scholar. and Glynn, Patrick, Closing Pandora's Box: Arms Races, Arms Control and the History of the Cold War (New York, 1992)Google Scholar. For my own, not entirely consistent perspective, see Cox, Michael, ‘Whatever Happened to the “Second” Cold War? Soviet-American Relations: 1980–1988’, Review of International Studies, 16, no. 2 (April 1990), pp. 155–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Radical Myths and Superpower Relations’, Paradigms, 6, no. 1 (Spring 1992), pp. 158–69Google Scholar; and ‘Radical Theory and the New Cold War’, in Bowker, Mike and Brown, Robin (eds.), From Cold War to Collapse: Theory and World Politics in the 1980s (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 35–58Google Scholar.
9 See Evangelista, Matthew, ‘Sources of Moderation in Soviet Security Policy’, in Philip Tetlock et at.,, Behaviour, Society and Nuclear War, 2 (New York, 1991), pp. 255–354Google Scholar.
10 See McGwire, Michael, Perestroika and Soviet National Security Policy (Washington, 1991)Google Scholar.
11 See Davy, Richard (ed.), European Detente: A Reappraisal (London, 1992)Google Scholar, and Mastny, Vojtech (ed.), The Helsinki Process and the Reintegration of Europe: Analysis and Documentation (New York, 1992)Google Scholar.
12 On the new European security ‘architecture’, see in particular: Freedman, Lawrence (ed.), Europe Transformed: Documents on the End of the Cold War (London, 1990)Google Scholar; Shea, Jamie, NATO 2000: A Political Agenda for a Political Alliance (London, 1990)Google Scholar; Hyde-Price, Adrian, European Security Beyond the Cold War (London, 1991)Google Scholar and Pugh, Michael (ed.), European Security Towards 2000 (Manchester, 1992)Google Scholar.
13 For an early attempt to theorize the transition to the market in Eastern Europe, see Kornai, Janos, The Road to a Free Economy: Shifting From a Socialist System (New York, 1990)Google Scholar.
14 On the crisis in the former Yugoslavia see inter alia Cviic, Christopher, Remaking the Balkans (London, 1991)Google Scholar; Glenny, Misha, The Fall of Yugoslavia: The Third Balkan War (Harmondsworth, 1992)Google Scholar; Gow, James, Legitimacy and the Military: The Yugoslav Crisis (London, 1992)Google Scholar; and Zametica, John, The Yugoslav Conflict (London, 1992)Google Scholar.
15 See Cox, Michael, ‘After Stalinism: The Extreme Right in Russia, East Germany and Eastern Europe’, in Hainsworth, Paul (ed.), The Extreme Right in Europe and the USA (London, 1992), pp. 269–285Google Scholar.
16 Mearsheimer, John, ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War’, International Security, 15, no. 1 (Summer 1990), pp. 5–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Why We Will Soon Miss The Cold War’, The Atlantic Monthly, August 1990, pp. 35–50Google Scholar.
17 See the debate between Keohane, Robert, Hoffmann, Stanley and Mearsheimer, John, ‘Back to the Future Part II: International Relations Theory and Post-Cold War Europe’, International Security, 15, no. 2 (Fall 1990), pp. 191–9Google Scholar. See also Synder, Jack, ‘Averting Anarchy in the New Europe’, International Security, 15, no. 3 (Winter 1990/1991), pp. 104–40Google Scholar; Evera, Stephen Van, ‘Primed for Peace: Europe After the Cold War’ International Security, 15, No. 3 (Winter 1990/1991), pp. 193–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Russett, Bruce M., ‘Back to the Future Part III’, International Security, 15. no. 3 (Winter 1990/1991), pp. 218–19Google Scholar.
18 Thurrow, Lester, Head to Head: The Coming Battle Among Japan, Europe and America (New York, 1992)Google Scholar.
19 The term ‘new world order’ was first used by Bush on 11 September 1990 to justify US policy against Iraq and was last deployed by him in his Preface to National Security Strategy of the United States in August 1991. For an official guide, see The New World Order: An Analysis and Document Collection (London, United States Information Service, 29 July 1991)Google Scholar.
20 Given its short life span, it is extraordinary how many articles carried the term ‘New World Order’ (or a derivative of it) in their title between 1990 and 1991. For longer works, see: Bergner, Jeffrey T., The New Superpowers: Germany, Japan, the U.S. and the New World Order (New York, 1991)Google Scholar; Brandon, Henry (ed.), In Search of a New World Order: The Future of US-European Relations (Washington, 1992)Google Scholar; Tucker, Robert W. and Hendrickson, David C., The Imperial Temptation: the New World Order and America‘s Purpose (New York, 1992)Google Scholar; Allison, Graham and Treverton, Gregory (eds.), Rethinking America's Security: Beyond Cold War to New World Order (New York, 1992)Google Scholar; Jowitt, Ken, The New World Disorder (California, 1992)Google Scholar; and Rabie, MohamedThe New World Order: A Perspective on the Post-Cold War Era (New York, 1992)Google Scholar. For an American evangelical Protestant perspective, see Robertson, Pat, The New World Order (Dallas, 1991)Google Scholar. For a Catholic point of view, see Weigel, George, A New Worldly Order: John Paul II and the Structure of Human Freedom (Lanham, 1992)Google Scholar.
21 Henry Kissinger, ‘What Kind of New World Order?’, The Washington Post, 3 December 1990.
22 For radical critiques of the New World Order, see: Bresheeth, Haim and Yuval-Davis, Nira, The Gulf War and the New World Order, (London, 1991)Google Scholar; Chomsky, Noam, Deterring Democracy (London, Books, 1991)Google Scholar; and Panitch, Leo and Miliband, Ralph (eds.), The New World Order (New York, 1992)Google Scholar.
23 Chace, James, The Consequences Of The Peace: The New Internationalism and American Foreign Policy (New York, 1992)Google Scholar.
24 See: Burnham, Walter Dean, Phillips, Kevin and Salinger, Pierre, ‘The Homeward-Bound Electorate’, New Perspectives Quarterly, Summer 1992, pp. 40–45Google Scholar; and Ornstein, Norman J., ‘Foreign Policy And the 1992 Election’, Foreign Affairs, 71, no. 3 (Summer 1992), pp. 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 For brief guides to the theory and practice of the New World Order, see Cox, Michael, ‘The New World Order’, Politics Review,, 2, no. 4 (April 1993), pp. 7–9Google Scholar, and ‘Whatever Happened to the “New World Order”?’, Critique, no 25 (Spring 1993), pp. 95–107Google Scholar.
26 One of the more thoughtful works on US foreign policy after the Cold War is Kegley, Charles W. and Wittkopf, Eugene R. (eds.), The Future of American Foreign Policy (New York, 1992)Google Scholar.
27 Clinton emphasized there would be no return to isolationism under his Presidency. ‘Retreating from the world is wrong for the country’, he noted ‘and sets back everything else that Democrats hope to accomplish’. See Clinton On Foreign Policy Issues (London, United States Information Service. Fall 1992).
28 See Krauthammer, Charles‘The Unipolar Moment’, Foreign Affairs, 70, no. 1 (1991), pp. 5–33Google Scholar. For a critique, see ‘World Cop?’, The Economist (London), 19 December 1992, pp. 11–12Google Scholar.
29 See Stephen Gill, ‘Restructuring Global Politics: Trilateral Relations and World Order After the Cold War’. Preface to the Japanese edition of his American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission (Cambridge, 1992)Google Scholar.
30 See Borrus, Michaelet ai, ‘Mercantilism and Global Security’, The National Interest,, Fall 1992, pp. 21–9Google Scholar, and Luttwak, Edward, ‘From Geopolitics to Geo-Economics’, The National Interest, 20 (Summer 1990), pp. 17–23Google Scholar.
31 On the economic challenges facing the United States after the Cold War, see: Prestowitz, Clyde V. (ed.), Powernomics: Economics and Strategy After the Cold War (Lanham, 1991)Google Scholar; Reich, Robert B., The Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves For 21st Century Capitalism (New York, 1991)Google Scholar; and Garten, Jeffrey E., A Cold Peace: America, Japan and Germany, and the Struggle for Supremacy (New York, 1992)Google Scholar.
32 Thus confirming the prediction made by Paul Kennedy in the most influential book on world politics published in the eighties. See his The Rise and Fall Of The Great Powers (New York, 1988)Google Scholar.
33 A good example of this new post-Cold War orthodoxy can be found in Beatrice Heuser‘s attempt to rehabilitate NSC-68. See her ‘NSC 68 and the Soviet Threat: A New Perspective on Western Threat Perceptions and Policy Making’, Review of International Studies, 17 (1991), pp. 17–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See my reply, ‘Western Intelligence, The Soviet Threat And NSC-68: A Reply To Beatrice Heuser’, Review of International Studies, 18 (1992), pp. 75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
34 For the best guide to the new material on the Cold War emanating from ‘the other side’, see Cold War International History Project Bulletin, Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, Washington D.C.
35 Lynch, Allen, The Soviet Theory of International Relations (Cambridge, 1987; pbk edn, 1989)Google Scholar.
36 The Cold War Is Over-Again (Boulder CO, 1992)Google Scholar.
37 Schapiro, Edward S., ‘Responsibility for the Cold War: A Bibliographical Review’, The Intercollegiate Review, 11 (Winter 1976/1977), pp. 113–20Google Scholar, and Stover, Robert, ‘Responsibility For The Cold War-A Case Study In Historic Responsibility’, History and Theory, II (1972), pp. 145–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
38 Leffler, Melvyn, A Preponderance Of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration, and the Cold War (Stanford, 1992)Google Scholar. Gaddis, John in his influential study, The United States and the Origins of the Cold War: 1941–1947 (New York, 1972)Google Scholar agrees that the United States would not have been so insecure after 1945 ‘had it not been for the Soviet Union's continued commitment to an ideology dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism’ (p. 354).
39 See Halliday, Fred, The Making Of The Second Cold War (London, 1983)Google Scholar. For my first attempt to come to terms with Halliday's influential work, see ‘In Search Of The Second Cold War’, Irish Slavonic Studies, no. 5 (1984), pp. 205–12Google Scholar.
40 For two accounts of the winding down of the Cold War, see Michael Cox, ‘From Super Power Detente to Entente Cordiale? Soviet-U.S. Relations: 1989–1990’, in George, Bruce (ed.), Jane's NATO Handbook, 1990–91 (Surrey, 1990), pp. 277–86Google Scholar, and ‘East-West Relations in a Year of Uncertainty’, in George, Bruce (ed.), Jane's NATO Handbook 1991–92 (Surrey, 1991), pp. 329–35Google Scholar.
41 Fukuyama, Francis, ‘The End of History’, The National Interest, no. 16 (Summer 1989), pp.3–18Google Scholar, and his The End of History and the Last Man (New York, 1992)Google Scholar.
42 A view propounded in Kanet, Roger and Koldziej, Edward (eds.), The Cold War as Cooperation in Regional Conflict Management (Baltimore, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
43 The idea that the ‘Cold War’ had come to an end before 1989 is not an entirely original one of course. As Lynch himself points out, a wide range of authors-including Halle, Louis J., The Cold War As History (1967)Google Scholar, Shulman, Marshall D., Beyond the Cold War (1965)Google Scholar, Stillman, Edmund and Pfaff, Willian, The New Politics: America and the End of the Postwar World (1961)Google Scholar, and Andre Fontaine, History of the Cold War (1970)-all agreed ‘the “cold war” had clearly come to an end, or was significantly attenuating, by the mid-1960s (p. 13).
44 Waltz, Kenneth, ‘The Stability of a Bipolar World’,Daedalus, 93, no. 3 (Summer 1964), pp. 881–909Google Scholar.
45 Kaldor, Mary, The Imaginary War: Understanding the East-West Conflict (Oxford, 1990)Google Scholar.
46 Steel, Ronald, Pax Americana (London, 1968)Google Scholar.
47 See Cox, Michael, ‘From the Truman Doctrine to the Second Superpower Detente: The Rise and Fall of the Cold War’, Journal of Peace Research, 27, no. 1 (February 1990) pp. 25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
48 As one writer has pithily observed, ‘before we conclude that the Cold War has ended, it might be well to decide which Cold War is under discussion’. Walter Lafeber, ‘An End to Which Cold War?’ in Hogan (ed.), The End of the Cold War: Its Meanings and Implications, pp. 13–20.
49 Kennan quotes with approval a statement made by a colleague that ‘if the [Soviet threat] had not existed, we would have had to invent it, to create a sense of urgency we need to bring us to the point of decisive action’. Cited in Gellman, Barton, Contending With Kennan: Toward a Philosophy of American Power (New York, 1985), pp. 97–98Google Scholar.
50 For a more elaborate discussion of the point made in this paragraph, see Cox, Michael, ‘The Cold War As A System’, Critique, no. 17 (1986), esp. pp. 24–33Google Scholar.
51 The strategy of using Western economic contact with communist countries as a means of undermining their ‘socialist’ character was originally termed ‘peaceful engagement’. The policy of building bridges to the East was first fully articulated by Brzezinski, Zbigniew, ‘The Challenge of Change in the Soviet Bloc’, Foreign Affairs, 40 (April 1961), pp. 430–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Brzezinski, Zbigniew and Griffith, William E., ‘Peaceful Engagement in Eastern Europe’, Foreign Affairs,, 40 (July 1961), pp. 642–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
52 ‘Nixon and Kissinger changed the instrumentalities of containment, they did not reject its assumptions. They both considered the Soviet Union an expansionist, revolutionary power that understood only countervailing power’. See Richter, James G., ‘Perpetuating the Cold War; Domestic Sources of International Patterns of Behaviour’, Political Science Quarterly, 107, no. 2 (Summer 1992), p. 295CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
53 See Garthoff, Raymond, Detente and Confrontation: American-Soviet Relations From Nixon To Reagan (Washington, 1985), pp. 36–53Google Scholar.
54 See Litwak, Robert S., Detente and the Nixon Doctrine: American Foreign Policy and the Pursuit of Stability, 1969–1976 (Cambridge, 1984)Google Scholar.
55 See Nixon, Richard, The Real War (London, 1980), pp. 279–90Google Scholar.
56 A point well made by Maresca, John J., To Helsinki: The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 1973–1975 (Durham, 1985)Google Scholar.
57 On US refusal to accept the ‘loss’ of Eastern Europe see NSC 20/1, NSC 20/4, NSC 58 and of course NSC/68; all conveniently collected in Etzold, Thomas H. and Gaddis, John Lewis, Containment: Documents On American Policy and Strategy, 1945–1950 (New York, 1978), pp. 173–224Google Scholar, 385–42.
58 See Cox, Michael, ‘From Detente to the “New” Cold War: The Crisis of the Cold War System’, Millennium, 13, no. 3 (Winter 1984), pp. 265–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
59 See Brandt, Willy, A Peace Policy for Europe (New York, 1969)Google Scholar.
60 See ‘Helmut Sonnenfeldt: The Sonnefeldt Doctrine Revisited’, A Conversation With Michael Ledeen, Washington Quarterly, no. 1 (April 1978), pp. 41–51Google Scholar.
61 On the influence of ‘The Committee On The Present Danger’ upon the Reagan administration‘s foreign policy, see Sanders, Jerry W., Peddlers of Crisis: The Committee On The Present Danger (London, 1983)Google Scholar.
62 See Reagan's famous June 1982 speech to the British Parliament, ‘Promoting Peace and Democracy’. In Realism, Strength, Negotiation: Key Foreign Policy Statements of the Reagan Administration (Washington, May 1984), pp. 77–81Google Scholar.
63 As the Soviet leadership recognized only too clearly at the time. The Reagan policy was characterized by one Soviet official as being an offensive strategy aimed ‘against the socialist countries and those states which have chosen the progressive road of development’. See Volsky, Dimitri, Neo-Globalism: A Threat To Humanity (Moscow, 1987)Google Scholar.
- 1
- Cited by