Diplomacy during Cold War
I. Introduction
a. Background of study
Conflict, per se, had always been present in the International realm. Consequences of past
major war tragedies like World War I and World War II had critically contributed to the
contemporary skirmishes, title holdings and relations of nation-states in the International
arena. Arsenal developments, blocs, allies and ideological missions also contribute to the
presence of much specific internal and external problems that continue to shape power
and influence.
This study is all about the discussion of the what, when, where, how and why of the
relation of Diplomacy and the emergence of the forty years, Cold War. It will discuss the
rise until the conclusion of the war while taking into account Diplomacy. Also, it will
further discuss and determine the role and effects of Diplomacy and other causal
variables that had underwritten the expediency of Diplomacy during the war. This study
will not discuss and elaborate on the Diplomatic momentum, the role of both the
Embassies of the United States and the Soviet Union, Consular functions, the diplomats,
and the treatise, arrangements and agreements of both state actors with other states after
the war. It will limit its scope on the duration of the forty years war and Diplomacy in
general matter.
b. Statement of the Problem
This study aims to discuss the role of Diplomatic intercourse during the Cold War. Specifically,
it seeks to answer the following questions:
1. Who are the state actors that caused the Cold War?
2. What instigated the transition of Cold Peace to Cold War?
3. Why did the Cold War not conclude with World War III?
4. When can the presence of Diplomacy be felt in the setting?
5. How did diplomacy wield its role during the war?
6. What is the relevance of Diplomacy in the war?
c. Theoretical Framework
Security itself is ever present in nation-states’ internal and external priorities. The
absence of a central governing body in the International arena builds tensions among the
nation states resulting in alliance cohesion and total wars in some parts of the world that
can be traced from some aspects of Diplomacy.
Neorealism, also known as structural realism for its attempt to develop a scientific and
systematic approach to Realism, incorporates the International distribution of power or
distribution of capabilities among states of the same bloc, and its central principle on
Security. It is an ideological departure from Hans Morgenthau's writing on classical
realism and is immensely based on the writings of Kenneth Waltz, the founding father of
the neo classical school of Realism.
According to Waltz and his views on Power in the framework of the neorealist theory,
since there is no Global leviathan that would rule among nation-states, and that would
give these states the protection they need, the significance of Self-help is extremely
highlighted to survive in the International realm and to evade security threats, both on a
nation’s internal and external scope. Although security issues can be already traced in the
major maxims of Thucydides in his writings in the History of the Peloponnesian War,
Waltz focuses his causation in the Anarchic international system on the nation’s purpose
for its struggle of power and the forming of alliances rather than the fear on Rival that
inspired nation-states to form coalition that is based on Thucydides.
Another thing is that Waltz emphasized the manifestation of a systematic and scientific
calculation of the Neorealist theory in quantifiable variables. Thus, his definition of
Power is also limited to the tangible aspects. These are the “size of population and
territory, resource endowment, economic capability, military strength, political stability
and competence” (Waltz, 1979: 131). The Neorealist framework attempts to form and
construct a more rigorous approach in the International politics that would best explain
the patterns and trends that had undergone through the empiric process.
Neorealism, like all strands of realism, cores its level of analysis on States as the
principal actors in the International affairs.
In the context of war, the lapses on the evolution of diplomatic intervention after the
World War II had fueled the emergence of the Cold War. Formidable and challenging
circumstances after the ideological confrontation of the United States and of the Soviet
Union had intensified the ideological rivalry which led to another major war in history.
In Neorealism’s distribution of powers, the milieu of the cold war can be outlined from
Bipolarity. Since both parties wanted its Economic and Political anchored ideologies to
be a hegemon and still wish to preserve their Security, no outbreak of disastrous actions
was articulated, thus, the Cold War.
Neorealism is not a theory of Foreign Policy, but a theory on International politics
nevertheless its connection with Diplomacy in the setting of the Cold War calls for its
underlying principle on Security.
II. RRL [800 words, 10 books/journal minimum]
III. Finding [1000 words]
IV. Conclusion/Analysis [1200 words]
