2.

2 Cold War versus Globalization

          An ideology can be defined as “a system of widely shared ideas, patterned

beliefs, guiding norms and values, and ideals accepted as truth by a particular
group of people. (emphasis supplied).   Ideologies offer individuals a more or less
coherent picture of the world not only as it is, but also as it ought to be. In doing so,
they help organize the tremendous complexity of human experience into fairly simple,
but frequently distorted, images that serve as guide and compass for social and
political action.”(Steger,2003)
 
The Causes of the Cold War. One group of scholars, called traditionalists, claimed
that the cause was the former Soviet Union because it did not take the United Nations
very seriously. It wanted to expand and dominate its own sphere of influence in
Eastern Europe. After the war, the United States demobilized its troops, whereas the
Soviet Union left large armies in Eastern Europe. And despite an agreement with
Britain and US, Stalin did not allow free elections in Poland. Soviet expansionism
was further confirmed when the Soviet Union was slow to remove its troops from
northern Iran after the war. Eventually, they were removed, but only under pressure.
In 1948, the communists took over the Czechoslovakian government. The Soviet
Union blockaded Berlin in 1948 and 1949, trying to squeeze the Western
governments out. And in 1950, communist North Korea’s armies invaded South
Korea. These events gradually awakened the United States to the threat of communist
expansionism and launched the Cold War. (excerpted from Nye & Welch, 2017)
        Another group of scholars, called the revisionists, argued that the Cold War was
caused by American rather than Soviet expansionism. Their evidence is that at the
end of World War II the world was not really bipolar. The Soviets were much
weaker than the United States, which was strengthened by the war and had nuclear
weapons, whereas the Soviets did not. The Soviet Union lost up to 30 million people
during World War II, and industrial production was only half its 1939 level. One
subgroup of these revisionists claimed that Roosevelt’s death in April 1945 was a
critical event, because U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union became harsher after
President Harry S. Truman took office. In May 1945, the United States so
precipitously cut off the lend-lease program of wartime aid that some ships bound for
Soviet ports had to turn around in midocean. At the Potsdam Conference near Berlin
in July 1945, Truman tried to intimidate Stalin by mentioning the atomic bomb.
        In 1948, Truman fired Henry Wallace, his secretary of agriculture, who urged
better relations with the Soviets. At the same time, James Forrestal, Truman’s new
secretary of defense, was a strong anticommunist. These revisionists say that these
personnel changes help explain why the United States became so anti-Soviet. The
other subgroup of revisionists, however, see the problem not in individuals, but in the
nature of U.S. capitalism. They argue that the U.S. economy required expansionism
and that the United States planned to make the world safe not for democracy but for
capitalism. American economic hegemony could not tolerate any country that might
try to organize an autonomous economic area. (excerpted from Nye & Welch, 2017) 
They further argued that the Marshall Plan of aid to Europe was simply a way to
expand the U.S. economy. With the fast economic reconstruction and rehabilitation of
Western Europe (Eastern Europe rejected the aid), it became a trading partner of
America which emerged as the richest country after World War II, having not been
affected by the two world wars that were centered in continental Europe, home of the
earlier world powers.
 
        The third group, called the post-revisionists, claimed that in 1939, there was a
multipolar world with seven major powers, but after the destruction wrought by
World War II, only two superpowers were left: the United States and the Soviet
Union. Bipolarity plus the postwar weakness of the European states created a power
vacuum into which the United States and the Soviet Union were drawn. They were
bound to come into conflict; therefore, it is pointless to look for blame. They also
noted that the Soviets and the Americans had different kinds of goals at the end of
the war. The Soviets were more concerned with securing control of territory - both
home territory and a buffer sphere of influence - whereas the United States was
primarily interested in setting up a liberal, rule-governed international order.
American milieu goals, in other words, clashed with the Soviets’ tangible possession
goals.  (excerpted fromNye & Welch, 2017)
 
        The United States promoted the global UN system; the Soviets worked to
consolidate control of Eastern Europe. But these differences were no reason for
Americans to feel sanctimonious or self-righteous because the United States benefited
from the United Nations and, with a majority of allies voting, was not very
constrained by it. The Soviets may have had a sphere of influence in Eastern
Europe, but the United States also had a sphere of influence in the Western
Hemisphere and Western Europe. The United States and the Soviet Union were
both bound to expand because of the age-old security dilemma of states in an anarchic
system. Neither could allow the other to dominate Europe.  In other words, in an
ideological bipolar world, a powerful state would use its military power within its
sphere of influence to reshape other societies in its image to ensure its own security.
As Roosevelt wrote in a letter to Stalin in the fall of 1944, “In this global war there
is literally no question, political or military, in which the United States is not
interested.” Given this bipolar structure, a spiral of hostility set in: Hard lines in one
country bred hard lines in the other. (excerpted fromNye & Welch, 2017)
 
None of the three groups of scholars has the absolute explanation for the causes of the
Cold War as they viewed the phenomenon from varied perspectives and levels of
analysis. What matters is in citing their varied arguments, you were given a
background information about the Cold War that divided the world into two spheres.
In terms of international trade, a country’s relations with other states were primarily
confined within the sphere or bloc (America or Soviet Union) where it belongs, that
is, socialist states traded with one another as the allies of America traded also with
each another.
 
The end of the Cold War. When the Soviet Union did not use force to support the
communist government in East Germany and the Berlin Wall was breached by
jubilant crowds in November 1989, the Cold War could be said to be over. But why
did it end? One argument is that containment worked. It was argued after the end of
World War II that if the United States could prevent the Soviet Union from
expanding, there would be no successes to feed the ideology, and gradually Soviet
communism would mellow. New ideas would arise, people would realize that
communism was not the wave of the future and that history was not on its side. There
is little doubt that U.S. military power kept the Soviet Union on its heels and that the
soft power of American culture, values, and ideas eroded communist ideology.
(excerpted from Nye & Welch, 2017)
       Another possible explanation is “imperial overstretch.” Historian Paul Kennedy
has argued that empires expand until overexpansion saps their internal strength. With
more than a fourth of its economy devoted to defense and foreign affairs (compared
with 6 percent for the United States in the 1980s), the Soviet Union was
overstretched. But Kennedy went on to say that none of the over expanded
multinational empires in history ever retreated to their own ethnic base until they had
been defeated or weakened in a great power war, and the Soviet Union had
not. (excerpted from Nye & Welch, 2017)
        A third explanation is that the U.S. military buildup in the 1980s forced the
Soviets to surrender in the Cold War, quite simply because they could not keep up.
It is certainly true that the Soviet economy had difficulty supporting an expensive
arms race, particularly when, in the early days of what at the time people called the
“revolution in military affairs,” the Soviet Union was falling further and further
behind the United States technologically. But with very few (and short-lived)
exceptions, the United States had always been ahead of the Soviet Union
technologically, its economy generally outperformed that of the Soviets, and arms
races had been the norm rather than the exception throughout the Cold War.
(excerpted fromNye & Welch, 2017) The arms race was a costly competition that fed
on the financial resources of the Soviet Union. Added to this is the Soviet Union’s
self-imposed obligation of extending foreign aid to its satellite states.
        The reformist policies of the last leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail
Gorbachev, resulted to the downfall of his country and therefore precipitated the end
of the Cold War. Mikhail Gorbachev wanted to reform communism, not replace it.
The reform, however, snowballed into a revolution driven from below rather than
controlled from above. In both his domestic and foreign policy, Gorbachev launched a
number of actions that accelerated the existing Soviet decline and hastened the end of
the Cold War. When he first came to power in 1985, Gorbachev tried to discipline the
Soviet people as a way to overcome economic stagnation. When discipline was not
enough to solve the problem, he launched the idea of perestroika, or “restructuring,”
but he was unable to restructure from the top because the Soviet bureaucrats kept
thwarting his orders. To light a fire under the bureaucrats, he used a strategy
of glasnost, or open discussion and democratization. Gorbachev believed that airing
people’s discontent with the way the system was working would put pressure on the
bureaucrats and help perestroika work. But once glasnost and democratization let
people say what they were thinking and vote on it, many people said, “We want out.
There is no new form of Soviet citizen.
 
       This is an imperial dynasty, and we do not belong in this empire.” Gorbachev
unleashed the disintegration of the Soviet Union, which became increasingly evident
after a failed coup by hard-liners in August 1991. (excerpted from Nye & Welch,
2017)
        By December 1991, the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Gorbachev’s foreign
policy, which he called “new thinking,” also contributed to the end of the Cold War.
This policy had two very important elements. One was, rather than try to build as
many nuclear weapons as possible, Gorbachev proclaimed a doctrine of “sufficiency,”
holding a minimal number for protection. The other dimension was his view that
expansionism is usually more costly than beneficial. Soviet control over an empire in
Eastern Europe, and its expensive subsidies to faraway client states such as Cuba, was
costing too much and providing too little benefit.
      The invasion of Afghanistan proved to be a particularly costly disaster. Gorbachev
believed that there had to be some way to provide for Soviet security other than to
impose and maintain “friendly” communist states on Soviet borders or elsewhere.
Thus, by the summer of 1989, Eastern Europeans were allowed a greater degree of
freedom. Hungary permitted East Germans to escape through its territory into Austria.
This exodus of East Germans put enormous pressure on the East German government.
Additionally, Eastern European governments no longer had the nerve (or Soviet
backing) to put down demonstrations. In November, the Berlin Wall was pierced in a
dramatic conclusion to a crescendo of events occurring over a very short period. It can
be argued that these events stemmed from Gorbachev’s miscalculations. He thought
that communism could be repaired, but in fact, in trying to repair it, he punched a hole
in it. And as if through a hole in a dam, the pent-up pressures began to escape, rapidly
increasing the opening and causing the entire system to collapse. (excerpted from Nye
& Welch, 2017)
 
            The fall of the Soviet Union and the subsequent democratic transition in the
governments of Eastern Europe and most of the former republics of the Soviet Union
allowed varied states to negotiate for diplomatic and trade ties which were limited
during the Cold War. The Post Cold War period realized the essence of
“globalization” as relationships between and among states as well as the operation of
big corporations are no longer limited to a specific part of the globe. Table 1 gives
you an overview of the differences between these two periods of Cold War and
Globalization. As you go over the entries in the column for Cold War, try to identify
the events/info from the video about the Cold War that may illustrate the given
entries.
 
         The Cold War period  (1945-1989) was a battle of two ideologies ,
communism and dictatorship for the Soviet Union vs. capitalism and democracy for
the United States.  The Post-Cold War that is defined by international trade is
witnessing an economic competition between America and China After the fall of the
Soviet Union, the ideology of neoliberalism is what the Global North is now
promoting. But before discussing what neoliberalism is, there is a need to have an
overview of the comparison between the Cold War and Globalization and which
comparison is tabulated below.
 
Table 1

BASES COLD WAR GLOBALIZATION

Cultural homogenization on a
regional scale, like the
Russification of Eastern and
Largely but not entirely the
Central Europe, or in an earlier
Dominant spread of Americanization – from
time, the Turkification of the
Culture Big Macs to iMacs to Mickey
Ottoman Empire, the
Mouse
Hellenization of the Near East
and the Mediterranean under the
Greeks

Integration through its defining

technologies: computerization,
Defining
Division miniaturization, digitization,
Perspective
satellite communications, fiber
optics and the Internet

A wall (the Berlin Wall) which World Wide Web which unites
Symbol
divided everyone everyone

Defining
The “treaty” The “deal”
Document

Speed – the speed of commerce,

Defining Weight – particularly the throw
travel, communication and
Measurement weight of missiles
innovation

How fast is your modem?

Countries that are most willing to
let capitalism quickly destroy
inefficient companies, so that
Most Frequently money can be freed up and
How big is your missile? directed to more innovative ones,
Asked Question
will thrive in an era of
globalization unlike those which
rely on governments to protect
them from such creative
destruction.

Defining Fear of annihilation from an Fear of rapid change from an

Anxiety enemy you knew all too well in a enemy you can’t see, touch or
world struggle that was fixed and feel – a sense that your job,
 community or workplace can be
changed any moment by
stable anonymous economic and
technological forces that are
anything but stable.

Hotline for the White House and

the Kremlin – a symbol that we
What We Reach Internet – a symbol that we are all
were all divided but at least
for connected but nobody is in charge
someone, the two superpowers,
was in charge

Radar – to expose the threats

Defining X-ray machine – to expose the
coming from the other side of the
Defense System threats coming from within
wall

Rapid acceleration of the

movement of people from rural
areas and agricultural lifestyles to
Demographic
Limited urban areas and urban lifestyles
Pattern
more intimately linked with
global fashion, food, markets and
entertainment trends

Defining Built exclusively around nation- Built around 3 balances that

Structure of states, and it was balanced at the overlap and affect one another
Power center by two superpowers: the
US and the Soviet Union Traditional Balance between
nation-states. US is the sole and
dominant superpower and all
nations are subordinate to it. The
balance between US and the
others still matters, like the
expansion of NATO against
Russia …

Between nation-states and global

markets. The global markets are
made up of millions of investors
(called “the Electronic Herd”)
moving money around the world
with the click of a mouse, and
this herd gathers in key global
financial centers, such as Wall
Street, Hong Kong, London and
Frankfurt (called “the
 Supermarkets”). The herd and the
supermarkets can destroy a
nation-state by downgrading the
bonds offered by these nation-
states.
Between individuals and nation-
states. Because globalization has
simultaneously wired the world
into networks, it gives more
power to individuals to influence
both markets and nation-states.

Source: Chapter 1, Friedman, T.L. (2000). The lexus and the olive tree. New York:
Anchor Books
 
Key Terms:
Neo-liberalism -- the market-oriented reform policies such as

 eliminating price controls

 deregulating capital markets
 lowering trade barriers (import quota and reducing import duties or tariffs) 
 reducing, especially through privatization and austerity, state influence in the
economy

Global North --- refers to the industrialized, advanced, relatively rich countries of the
Northerh Hemisphere (European, North American countries)
Global South----located below the equator, the states that relatively poor, less
developed and developing countries
X-ray Machine --- in globalization era this refers to the gadgets, instruments for
monitoring people/consumers
Electronic Herd -- the "faceless"  investors of the stock market, coming from all over
the world  and who transact business thru the internet
Supermarkets --- huge stockmarkets of the world,  examples:  Wall Street ( New
York Stock Exchange  or NYSE); Hong Kong Stock Exchange 
_____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________
 
View this link for a short overview of the Cold War Period:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF3u8Ju9aAg