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

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 emerging
European 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
1

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

Kwabena 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
2

Nsudeanu Ghinea Oana - Ria

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 group 6. Constructivism also offers a
3

Alexander WENDT, Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge UP, UK, 1999, pp. 2-10
Mary KALDOR, New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2006, p. VIII
5
Alexander WENDT, Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge UP, UK, 1999, p. 3
6
Idem, p. 50-68
4

Nsudeanu Ghinea Oana - Ria

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 selfhelp 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.

Revisionism 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 more10, and also keeping close relations
7

Nilfer KARACASULU, Elif UZGREN, Explaining Social Constructivist Contributions to Security Studies, in
Perceptions, Turkey, 2007, pp. 29-33
8
There 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.
9
http://www.globalpolicy.org/us-westward-expansion/26024.html , accessed 1.02.2014, 13.40
10
http://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-

Nsudeanu Ghinea Oana - Ria

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,
14.00-15.00
11
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.157
13
www.un.org , accessed 1.02.2014, 15.30
14
See Israel-Palestine war and war literature, very vast, very discussed.

Nsudeanu Ghinea Oana - Ria

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 statedismantling 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 nationalism more 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 from
state building to state dismantling.
15

Simon COLLARD-WEXLER, Integration Under Anarchy: Neorealism and the European Union, in European
Journal of International Relations, SAGE Publications, UK, 2006, vol. 12, pp.397-412
16
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, 15.50
17
Mary KALDOR, Elaborating the New War thesis, in Rethinking the Nature of War, Jan ANGSTROM, Isabelle
DUVENSTEIN, Frank Cass, NY, 2005, pp.211-217

Nsudeanu Ghinea Oana - Ria

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?

Nsudeanu Ghinea Oana - Ria

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

Nsudeanu Ghinea Oana - Ria