The end of the Second World War culminated in the rise of two superpowers- United States(US) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR). The world was therefore divided into two ideological blocs- Eastern bloc led by the USSR and the Western bloc led by the US. This rivalry came to be known as the Cold war, a term first used by the English writer George Orwell in his article ‘You and the Atom Bomb’ published in 1945.
This essay aims to discuss the North-South relations and its importance during the Cold war. The analysis of this relation will further be explained by the lens of Realism, Liberalism in contrast to Realism and Constructivism, which constitute important theories of International relations.
The Cold war rivalry was a first of its kind since it remained an ideological power struggle. It was an attempt to maintain a balance of power but never resulted in a hot war between the two superpowers. The Western bloc, led by the US represented the ideology of liberal democracy while the Eastern bloc, led by the USSR thrived on the idea of socialism and communism. The impact of the Cold war was that it set all the other nation states into a path of arms race and there was a constant fear among them that the war can turn into a hot war at any point. The development and progress of the world was affected by the military interventions of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) and Warsaw Pact- the military alliances of the US and USSR respectively.
The terms North and South are used in the political discourse to describe the relationship between the developed countries on the one hand and the developing or the underdeveloped on the other. It was not until the end of the Second World War, where much of the old world order had been destroyed, was the issue of the development of the South undertaken by the North. In hindsight,it can be said that the rising influence of the anti-colonial struggle and the declining power of the European colonial states resulted in the strategic importance that the countries of the South got because of the Cold War competition.
While the countries of the South were put under one bracket, the fact is that they differed with each other tremendously in terms of their size, their cultural traditions, their geographies , as well as their political constitutions and beliefs. However, they all shared a common struggle- a struggle for independence from their former imperial powers. The Bandung Conference in Indonesia in 1955, marked the beginning of the rise of the South in International politics. It was at this conference, where leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Sukarno declared their will to play an independent role in world politics. The leaders of 29 independent Asian and African states gathered in Bandung in Indonesia for the Afro- Asian Conference. The states attending represented 1.5 billion people, around 60% of the world population at that time. The Bandung conference marked the end of colonialism, but it also marked the beginning of the Cold War in Asia and Africa. The main question addressed at the conference was the constitution of the new world order and the position held by different states in this order.Nehru, Sukarno, Nasser- all criticised their colleagues for participating in the military blocs of superpowers. Nehru’s account of the world order was different from a typical structural realist accord- the issue of military pacts represents a cleavage between the ‘big and powerful countries’ on the one hand and the ‘weak and small Asian countries’ on the other, where the former operated a ‘sphere of influence’ (Kristinsson 2012, p.43).
The kind of impact the countries of the South had on the Cold War is evident with the reaction of the US regarding the Bandung conference. Prior to the conference, the US had made efforts to counter the influence of neutral countries such as that of India and also offered guidance to their allies like Pakistan, Turkey and Philippines. Their main worry with regard to the conference was that they feared being excluded from what they thought would develop into an effective forum, might emerge as a solid bloc at the United Nations( UN) led by China and India but most of all this development threatened to restructure the international society.
At Belgrade in 1961, the first conference for the Non-Aligned movement(NAM),it was established that the countries that were a part of it will stay independent from both the Eastern and the Western bloc. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was founded in 1964, following the demands of the South for establishment of a new institution concerned with the regulation for the North-South exchange. With the formation of the Group of 77(G-77), UNCTAD marked the beginning of a steady cooperation of the developing countries whose membership rose to 131 countries in 1995. NAM played a crucial role in establishing the position of the South in the world through various ways. First, it called for the United nations to be more democratised. It also showed support to the anti-colonial struggles that were still going on in the world, especially against the Portuguese in Africa. The most important contribution of NAM however was it’s call for the ‘New International Economic Order’ (NIEO).The NIEO included demands for the democratisation of global economic institutions, the regulation of foreign investment, better access for developing countries to the markets of the industrialised countries and the protection of ‘economic sovereignty’ (Kristinsson 2012, p.45). The G-77 pursued these objectives at the UN through the UNCTAD. The call for the NIEO was important since it garnered support from all over the Third World despite their Cold war alliances.
The intensity and frequency of the economic crises in the early 1970s gave an impetus to the demand of the Global South for the establishment of a ‘New International Economic Order’(NIEO).Global inflation, widespread unemployment, foreign exchange instability and wild fluctuations in raw material prices in recent years have been a clear reflection of the breakdown of the Western dominated postwar monetary and trade systems. (Amuzegar, 1976). An attempt to establish a new North-South partnership was taken by the United Nations Special Session on Raw Materials and Development(1974). They took a resolution for the establishment of a NIEO and designed a Program of Action to implement this resolution. These General Assembly approved these resolutions in December 1974 and put together a Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States. However, the West remained sceptical over this resolution, mostly on ‘ideological grounds’ but also because of misunderstanding about the intention behind the resolution. The North-South conflict seemed to take a more political rather than economic orientation. In order to develop economically, these countries needed political support.
The brewing North-South struggle, had its first climatic manifestation in the 1971-72 negotiations between the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the multinational oil companies for a higher crude oil price (Amuzegar, 1976). The geo-economics of petroleum was brought to the forefront of world politics with the success of OPEC in its first bargain with the companies. One of the most apparent obstacles to balanced economic growth and the stability of world politics was the post-war economic relationship between poor countries of the South, most of them primary producers and their rich partners of the North, almost all industrialized. The disparities between the two groups in terms of their standard of living, technology, knowledge, productive capacity and bargaining power have not only been responsible for their political rift but also have resulted in one of the most forceful hindrance to a sustainable utilization of world resources for the benefit of the present as well as the future generations. The low return on their raw material exports, a key source of their livelihood and development has been identified as one of the primary reasons for the poor countries not being able to get out of the vicious cycle of poverty.
Realist and Liberal interpretation of the North-South relations
It was established in the conference at Cairo in 1962 that the North-South division between the haves and have nots was a more dangerous division than the East-West division that the Western countries had otherwise been concerned with. The realists had previously not given much importance to the North-South division. An example of this is that Friedrich List stated the importance of adopting protectionist policies for the Britain by US and Germany but didn’t pay attention to the industrialization for the South. He claimed that the countries of the North are suited for manufacturing but the South states should provide them ‘colonial produce in exchange for their manufactured goods’ (Cohn 2016, p. 69). However, in the 1970s, the realists started paying more attention to the South. This happened mainly because of their interest in the Least Developed Countries(LDCs) that posed a challenge to the hegemony of the West. They also started paying attention to OPEC. When the demand for NIEO was supported by G-77 in the UN, the realists started to examine it’s possible impact. They also started examining the challenges posed by the emergence of BRICS economies and on resource nationalism of the OPEC countries.
In contrast to the realists, the liberals look at the North-South relations from a different lens. Whereas liberals see LDCs as seeking wealth and prosperity, realists argue that they in fact seek increased power as well as wealth. The realists believe that the weak international position of the South is a problem along with the problem of under-development. However, the realists acknowledged that during the period of the Cold War, the South states attempted to decrease their vulnerability by engaging in collective action, eg- G-77 has played an important role in putting pressure on the North. They have also made attempts to alter international economic regimes and organizations such as demanding for an NIEO at the UN. Both liberals and realists, accept capitalism as the most desirable system for conducting international economic relations.
Constructivist’s interpretation of the North-South relations
Constructivism, an important theory of International relations seeks to study the world politics and how it has been ‘socially constructed’. As a theory, it primarily focuses on issues of identity in global politics. According to the constructivists, the North-South relations during Cold War were affected by a state’s pluralistic identities. Gender, ethnicity, nationalism, sexuality and religion form a variety of identities which directly affect the actions a state takes internationally and domestically. According to J. Ann Tickner, this had a direct influence on the North-South relations. She further explained this analogy by stating that the ‘contemporary West is creating a masculine understanding of itself which is leading it to portrayal the South with a feminine character of ‘emotionalism and unpredictability’ (Marilli, 2011). The constructivists aim to engage with such problems by seeking to determine a state’s identity and predicting it’s actions that will affect the North-South relations.
Another aim of the constructivists in terms of understanding their relations better was to promote the idea of culture and domestic politics in International Relations theory. In this manner, they attempted to uncover those characteristics of domestic society that have an impact on a state’s identity and action in global politics. Constructivists believe in international and transnational institutions that they play an important role in promoting shared normative beliefs of a liberal civic culture to non-liberal community regions. (ibid, 2011). They place a great amount of faith in international and transnational actors and assign them with extensive autonomy as major agents of change and norm diffusion. Therefore, they supported the UN forum to talk about the North-South divide and also to look for solutions to curb the problem of under-development of the South states.
They focus on the process of identity creation, particularly with regard to how non liberal states socialize into the Northern society (ibid, 2011). They stated the requirement to create new communities of identities, moving beyond the general two-fold characterizations of identities defined by the divide between the liberal and communist orders. The North-South relations according to them should be discussed with regard to their interaction with the security communities.
The constructivists mainly believed that regions within which actors share liberal values and in general, common understandings should be looked at, which will establish predictable patterns of action. Instead of states, transnational and international organisations should pledge to encourage and spread normative beliefs of a liberal civic culture, directed at creation of security communities among non-liberal states. They presume then that the North-South relations would thus be looked at not as liberal or non-liberal states but as communities that share not only their identities but also consensus on ideas of peace and conflict resolution.
Conclusion
The North-South relations played an important role during the Cold War era. Both the ideological camps- US and USSR had common interpretations of the causes of the underdevelopment of the South but differed in terms of their solutions to resolve this problem. The importance of the 1955 Bandung Conference is that it helped sow the seeds for a change in the international society, especially in two ways. First, it called for the members of the South to have an equitable representation in international decision making, basically highlighting the need to take the principles of international justice seriously. Secondly, it also called for a more accommodative, peaceful problem solving approach that was based on consensus or compromise. These principles were regarded as an important alternative to the power politics that had been the basis of colonialism and was also present in the world of superpower bloc politics of the Cold War. The NAM showcases the importance of the South in the Cold War era. NAM was not a neutrality movement, it just meant that the members stayed away from the power bloc politics and maintained relations with both the superpowers. Also, as stated by Jawaharlal Nehru, one of the main architects of the movement, NAM did not forbid cooperation or allying with a superpower, as long as it was done by cooperation not coercion. To conclude- realism, liberalism and constructivism- three major theories of International relations were used to describe the importance North-South relations played during the Cold War era.
2018-11-12-1542060328