See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325248874

Transformation of the post-Cold War International System: Trends and

Prospects

Chapter · May 2018

CITATION READS

1 8,172

1 author:

Nataliya Gorodnia
National Taras Shevchenko University of Kyiv
80 PUBLICATIONS 11 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nataliya Gorodnia on 19 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Nataliya Gorodnia
Transformation of the post-Cold War International System:
Trends and Prospects

// Rozwój społeczności międzynarodowej: przeszłość oraz nowe wyzwania,

Tom 2, R. Kordonski, O. Struk, J. Ruciński (red.),
Lwowski Uniwersytet Narodowy im. Iwana Franki, Lwów-Olsztyn 2016, 660 s. – P.15-22.

The paper studies global developments and world politics in the late 20th – early 21st
centuries that contributed to the post-Cold War transformations of international system. It argues
that the international system has undergone significant transformations for a short historical period,
and has shifted from a bipolar to unipolar and then to multipolar world order. The contemporary
multipolar world order is more unstable and unpredictable than its two previous forms. A further
direction of the international system development will be greatly determined by the global
community’s response on Russia and ISIS’ challenges.
Key words: international system, world politics, post-Cold War period, the U.S. global
leadership, regional integration, Ukraine crisis

For the last 25 years, the international system has undergone fundamental transformations.
The most evident of them include the end of the bipolar world order and shaping the new one, a
shift in the U.S. role in the global affairs, emerging of new centers of power, diffuse of power
among different state and non-state actors, regional integration processes, a growing role of leading
developing nations in the global economy and politics, a return to ideological confrontation and a
struggle between different developmental models, a rise of nationalism and untraditional security
threats, including terrorism and militant extremism. The speed of the transformations is
unprecedented, largely because of globalization process and dynamic technological changes that are
distinctive features of the present époque.
In modern and contemporary history, fundamental transformations of international system
proceeded from the results of great wars. Thus, the establishment of the Westphalia international
system was the result of the 1618-1648 Thirty years war, the 19th century Vienna system proceeded
from the allies victory over Napoleon, the Versailles-Washington system fixed the results of the
World War I as well as Yalta system played the same part for the post-World War II international
relations.
Contemporary transformations do not fit the scheme. They started in the late 1980s together
with M. Gorbachov’s reforms and the “new thinking” policy. These developments stopped
ideological, political and military confrontation between two – socialist and liberal democratic –
“camps”, and ended the Cold War in international relations, as well as diminished the threat of a
nuclear war between the two superpowers. They also resulted in a rapid disintegration of the
socialist “camp” and, unexpectedly, the USSR.
Initially the socialist “camp” and the Soviet Union’s collapse looked like a victory of
Western nations with liberal democratic values and market economies over communist ideology.
Instead of previous division of the world nations into the West (capitalist nations), the East
(socialist nations) and the Third World (developing nations), the new concept of the Global North
(developed nations) and the Global South (developing and new independent states with economies
in transition) entered into use.
1990s were the period of unprecedented American dominance and the triumph of Western
values. As the only superpower with unchallengeable predominance the United Stated felt a unique
moment in history to diffuse its values, including democracy as a form of government and market
economy, within the whole world to make it more prosperous and peaceful. The bipolar world
system of the U.S. and the Soviet Union ideological, political and military rivalry and confrontation
shifted to unipolar world with American leadership and dominance.
The U.S. President George H. W. Bush (1989-1993) famously defined the fundamental
transformations of the international system as a birth of “a new world order”. In the Preface to the
National Security Strategy of the United States, issued on August 1, 1991, G. H. W. Bush described
it as “an extraordinary possibility… to build a new international system in accordance with our own
values and ideals, as old patterns and certainties crumble around us”1. The next National Security
Strategy (January 1993) defined the U.S vision of “the new world order” as “a world of cooperation
and progress, not confrontation; a world no longer divided, but a community of independent and
interdependent nations joined together by shared values”, “the age of democratic peace”2.
Simultaneously both documents emphasized that “a new world order” was not a fact, and a new era
held both great opportunities and great dangers.
According to the next U.S. President Bill Clinton (1993-2001), ironically, many of the
factors that made the post-Cold War period a time of a great hope also made the world more
vulnerable to forces of destruction. “The disintegration of the Soviet Union eliminated the
preeminent threat but exposed many others: and increasingly tangled and dangerous web of
international terrorism, crime, and drug trafficking; the aggression of rogue states and vicious ethnic
and religious conflicts; the spread of dangerous weapons, including nuclear, biological, and

1
National Security Strategy of the United States, Washington D.C. 1991, p. v.
2
National Security Strategy of the United States, Washington D.C. 1993, p. 21.
chemical ones, and transnational threats like disease, overpopulation, and environmental
degradation”3.
The period of unprecedented American dominance did not last long. The collapse of the
USSR ruined the global balance of power. Many nations of the Global South or rivalry groups
within them lost their sponsor and were looking for the ways to survive. They mostly opposed
American dominance and Western political and cultural values, and considered them as a threat to
their own believes and the way of life. These perceptions generated forces whose destructive
activity influenced greatly on the further transformations of the post-Cold War international system.
Contemporary international transformations have been accompanied with a dynamic
acceleration of globalization. This process is inseparably connected with the end of the Cold War
and a technological revolution in communications that enabled the rapid movement of goods,
capitals, information, technology, ideas and people across the borders and around the world.
Globalization made the world much more integrated and interdependent, the global ties in different
spheres became stronger, more intense, and more influential. They were the most evident in the
economic and cultural spheres 4.
In the Global South nations globalization was widely seen as the U.S. project to diffuse
American culture and values and to get free access to their national markets. However globalization
was an objective process, independent on people’s will. It created both economic opportunities and
new challenges, including devastation of uncompetitive industries in developing countries and
deindustrialization of developed countries. Simultaneously, it made much easier to shape global
criminal and terrorist networks. In the new international environment many security issues acquired
transnational character, and went to the regional and global level.
The new international environment facilitated dispersion of power among different states
and emergence of new centers of power. Japan had become a successful competitor of the U.S. in
the Asia Pacific, China was on its rise, and Europe proclaimed its unification. Some other potential
regional centers of power took shape. The trend was shaping a multipolar international system.
A prominent American expert on International Relations Henry Kissinger predicted in 1994
that the new multipolar world order would have many similarities with the European international
system of the 18-19th centuries with several great powers pursuing their foreign policy, based on
their current competing interests. The competition between the new centers of power in the pursuit

3
B. Clinton, Between Hope and History. Meeting America’s Challenges for the 21st Century, New
York 1996, p.143.
4
On globalization find more in: N. Gorodnia, Globalization: Emergence and Evolution, “Global
South”. SEPHIS e-magazine 2009, Vol. 5, No.2 [online];
http://sephisemagazine.org/current/current.html
of national interests would make multipolar world more unstable and vulnerable than bipolar and
unipolar ones5.
More dangerously, the new centers of power included not necessarily great powers, but also
non-state entities such as Multinational and Transnational Corporations, NGOs, drug cartels,
terrorist networks, individuals-hackers etc. The most influential results of such developments were
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the U.S. which took 2977 innocent lives. They
dramatically changed the American society, the U.S. policies, and the whole world.
The U.S. global war on terror showed its overwhelming military superiority.
Simultaneously, the concept of preemptive strike on any potential threat to the U.S. national
security, outlined in the 2002 U.S. National Security Strategy (George Bush’s Doctrine), and
American unilateral actions in Iraq revealed vulnerability of any nation to its might. In such
circumstances the essential part of the world community regarded American domination as a threat
to its own security. Such developments caused a rise of strong anti-America’s moods globally,
including some of its allies and partners.
Another negative result of the prolonged U.S. wars, mostly in Afghanistan and Iraq,
included drain on the resources and disruption of American finance and economy. Finally, the U.S.
was heavily affected by a financial turmoil in 2008 which spread rapidly to become a global.
The global 2008-2009 financial and economic crisis had a significant impact on the
transformation of international system. It significantly weakened many nations, including the U.S.
and the European Union, and revealed a new role of emerging nations in the global economy and
politics. Unlike the previous crises, successfully managed by the developed nations (the G-7),
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, this time developed nations could not deal
with the crisis on their own. The financial support of other nations, foremost China and Saudi
Arabia, was crucial. That is why the G-20 as a group of nations with the largest gross domestic
product (GDP) was first convened in November 2008. It established a new forum of global
governance on financial and economic issues, which for the first time in history included both
developed and developing nations.
During the crisis, China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam managed to maintain relatively high
growth rates that confirmed the role of a “larger East Asia” as a center of global economic growth.
China invested heavily into the U.S. government bonds to save American financial system and
simultaneously its own export-oriented industries. The growing economic interdependence between
China and the U.S. a British historian Niall Ferguson coined as an emergence of “Chimerica”.

5
H. Kissinger, Diplomacy, New York 1994, p. 733, 736.
Increasingly important China’s role in the world finance and economy strengthened its regional and
global position. Zbignev Brzezinski’s suggestion about establishment of the G-2 (the U.S. and
China) got a great international response6.
An influential American political expert Farid Zakaria in his famous book “Post-American
World” argued that the Iraq war and the 2008-2009 crisis weakened America and coincided in time
with the “rise of the rest”. The latter was an economic phenomenon, but it also had political,
military and cultural consequences, including a rising self-confidence of emerging nations and their
different position on international arena7. If previously any nation of the world had to make a choice
between integration into Western world order and becoming a rogue state, as a result of the crisis it
could join the world order on its own terms and transform the system from inside. It could also form
ties with other nations bypassing the Western center8. These developments meant the end of global
American domination. The “Post-American world” was ruled from different centers and by many
people9.
A loss of America’s global leadership was a dangerous development as there was no other
center of power, which was capable to fulfill this crucial role, including the United Nations and
other international institutions. The concept of “non polar world”, proposed by Richard Haass,
expressed an idea of global disorder as a principal feature of the shaping international system.
Barack Obama’s administration came to office in 2009 with the goal to renew global
American leadership and largely reached the goal. It rejected unilateral actions and hard power
approach, “responsibly” finished wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, returned American economy on
track, resumed international allies and partnerships. B. Obama’s administration embraced the idea
that the U.S. could not be the only global leader. The U.S. leadership role was seen as a promoter of
rules and regulations for the new global architecture, and as a founder of international alliances,
capable to solve emerging regional and global problems. The key idea of the new global
architecture included engagement of the emerging nations into the new international system to
enable their influence and contribution.
The U.S. National Security Strategies of 2010 and 2015 underlined the idea of collective
leadership and the U.S. cooperation with regional leaders and any nation of the world to shape
various alliances and address collectively different issues of concern. The concept of “multipartner”
(instead of “multipolar”) world emphasized great powers’ common interests that promote their
cooperation instead of rivalry and confrontation among them.
6
Z. Brzezinski, The Group of Two that Could Change the World, “Financial Times” 2009, Jan. 13
[online]; http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d99369b8-e178-11dd-afa0-0000779fd2ac.html
7
F. Zakaria, The Post American World, New York 2008, p.17-18.
8
Ibid, p.10.
9
Ibid, p.28.
 All these developments represented fundamental changes in the international relations and
establishment of a multipolar world order with a new America’s role in it. However, the multipolar
international system appeared to be more unstable and unpredictable than previous ones. It was
proved by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the emergence of the Islamic State (ISIS) in the
Middle East. It was a new strategic environment of multipolar world order that enabled these two
new centers of power (a revisionist state and a terrorist organization) to act aggressively and reach
essential success.
Another important international developments of the new era included processes of regional
integration that were largely intensified in the late 20s – early 21st century. Globalization made the
nations of the world more interconnected and interdependent globally, however first of all it
enhanced their ties within regions. As a result a globalized world had become more regional-
centered.
Regional integration helped to enhance positive effects of globalization, and decrease the
negative ones, mostly in the economic realm. In some regions it went beyond the limits of economic
integration and covered other spheres – finance, politics, security, development, people-to-people
ties etc.
The process of regional integration can be described by two principal concepts of
regionalization and regionalism. Regionalization is run by market forces without deliberate
government policies. This trend was presented by a spread of Japanese foreign direct investments in
the East and South East Asia in 1970-1990s that contributed greatly to the “East Asian Miracle” of
the late 20th century. Regionalism concerns the ideas, identities and ideologies related to a regional
project. The concept includes deliberate government policies and establishment of regional
institutions – forums, organizations, free trade regimes etc. Its implementation has started in the
North America, Asia Pacific, Southeast Asia and Europe since the late 1980s.
In the North America the U.S. and Canada signed a bilateral Free Trade Agreement in 1988,
Mexico joined it in 1992. Their multilateral agreement – North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) – was ratified in 1993 and entered into force in January 1994. In Asia Pacific the inter-
government forum of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) was established to accelerate
regional economic cooperation and integration. In Southeast Asia a regional organization ASEAN,
created in 1967, set new goals and strengthened its structure, based on the specific “ASEAN way”
approach and a “soft” concept of integration. In the early 21st century the trend continued and
intensified. In Europe the Maastricht Treaty, signed in 1992 and entered into force on November
1993, created the European Union, which presented the highest level of regional integration. In
some cases regional integration embraced not all regional nations and not all parts of participant-
states but some of their areas and segments which formed different regional organizations and
“triangles of growth”.
Within regional regimes, forums and organizations it was much easier to address some non-
traditional security issues and transnational threats. The 1997-1998 Asian and 2008-2009 global
financial and economic crises revealed the importance of financial and economic security. Russian
“gas wars” against Ukraine presented risks for European energy security. All these challenges could
be addressed collectively much more efficiently.
Besides economic and security benefits, regional integration provides a tool for a defense of
middle and small nation’s interests against great powers. The effective model of interaction with
great powers is represented by the Southeast Asian (SEA) nations and their Association (ASEAN).
They managed to establish a regional group without any great power participation to make them
stronger as they spoke with one voice on the international arena. ASEAN enabled SEA nations to
use competition among great powers for regional influence in their own interests. As a result
ASEAN became an untraditional regional leader in the “greater East Asia”.
Disintegration of the Soviet Union contradicted the processes of regional integration.
Russian empire and then the Soviet Union formed a region on the basis on common form of
governance and ideology, interconnected economic ties, shared history etc. When a common
government and state borders didn’t exist anymore, the post-Soviet area constituted a region. As
any other region it was a subject of constant changes – integration, disintegration and reintegration.
In 1990s the post-Soviet area took a back seat in the processes of regional integration.
Russia was weak and underwent through hard democratic and market reforms. However, it still
could intervene in Moldova’s domestic affairs to create a frozen conflict zone on its territory.
Heavily affected by the 1997-1998 Asian financial and economic crisis, Moscow gradually
curtailed the reforms and established an authoritative form of government. The stabilization of
economy and a rise of world energy prices in the early 21st century contributed to Russia’s
economic growth and its entering into the group of influential emerging powers. Revived, it
initiated regional integration projects to reunite the post-Soviet area, except the Baltic States, as its
sphere of influence. The nations that chose another vector of regional integration were forced to
submit. The developments are confirmed by many violent actions, including Russia’s August 2008
war with Georgia, ”gas” and “trade” wars with Belarus and Ukraine, 2014-2015 aggression against
Ukraine.
When Russia reemerged as a great power, the nations of the post-Soviet area, unlike SEA
states, were unable to create a regional institution to oppose Russia’s domination. The nations that
had refused to integrate into Russia-leaded entities fell into the “grey zone” trap between two
regional blocks – existing (the EU) and emerging (the Eurasian Economic Union) with dramatic
consequences for their security and well-being.
Russian aggression against Ukraine was not the result of irrational thinking. On the contrary,
Russia’s leader deliberately exploited a contemporary international environment to reach his goals
and enhance Russia’s strategic positions in the international system. The 2008 war against Georgia
was a trial balloon of a new Russian foreign policy. The U.S. and Europe’s weak response on the
aggression encouraged Russia for further expansion. Historical experience warns that failure to stop
Russian aggression in Ukraine will result its further expansion. “Russian-speaking” people whose
rights Russian authoritative and historically expansionist state claims to defend, live not only in
Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine.
Do the international sanctions on Russia caused by its rude violations of fundamental
international rules and the political tensions mean a start of a new Cold War in the international
relations? American and European leaders deny the assumption. During presentation of the 2015
U.S. National Security Strategy in February 2015, the U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice
emphasized a different approach to Russia, compared with the previous document, issued in 2010.
However, she had to admit that there was “the second piece of it”, such issues as upholding arms
control obligations and collaborating in the P5+1 with respect to Iran, where the United States and
Russia had to work together. In her words, “Even as we necessarily increase the costs and deter the
effects of Russia’s actions, we will continue to cooperate where we can” 10. Similarly, some
European nations were ready to cooperate with Russia to defeat ISIS.
The situation reflects the complexity of the contemporary international relations in the
interconnected and interdependent global system. However, if ideology still matters as it was during
the Cold War period, Russia’s present rhetoric largely resembles the Soviet past. Official media is
blowing up an image of Russia as a besieged fortress, explains the annexation of Crimea by a desire
to avoid a potential allocation of NATO base at the peninsular, etc. So the Cold War mentality is
still alive. Today, as during Cold War period, NATO and Russia consider each other as strategic
rivals. If Cold War is defined as primarily ideological confrontation between nations with different
models of development, nowadays we are witnessing the battle of values, which is relevant in the
international relations again. The Ukrainian revolution, which Russian intervention turned into the
Ukrainian crisis, is the example of such struggle.
What does a majority of Ukrainian society stand for? It stands for the revolutionary changes
in Ukraine towards a rule of law and liberal democracy, effective and responsible government,

10
The Brookings Institution. The United States National Security Strategy. Washington, D.C.
February 6, 2015, p. 17 [online]; http://www.brookings.edu/events/2015/02/06-us-national-security-
strategy-rice
productive economy and a social state, for the values and models, represented by the European
nations and the U.S. It contests corruption, ineffective government and criminal schemes. It also
stands for the right of a choice of Ukraine’s place in the international system and for its real
sovereignty, and opposes Russian interference and pressure.
Growing interdependence of nations in a globalized world makes it more difficult to stop
aggression, especially as the aggressor is one of the great nations with nuclear weapons and a
permanent seat in the United Nations’ Security Council with the veto power. However, in spite of a
crucial importance of international cooperation to address the issues of the mutual concern,
aggression must not be tolerated. Concessions never made aggressors stop; they only encouraged
their further aggressive actions and made the situation much worse.
To sum up, for a short historical period the international system underwent significant
changes and shifted from a bipolar to unipolar and then to multipolar world order. The emerged
multipolar world more resembles a world disorder. The U.S. and European nations do not have a
dominant position in the global affairs as they used to. Power is distributed between new centers,
nations and non-state entities. There is no global leader acceptable for all centers of power. Such
strategic environment enabled Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its further aggression against
Ukraine in the form of a “hybrid war”, as well as ISIS’ crimes in Iraq and Syria.
At the end of 2015 the international situation continued to be very complex and dynamic.
The November 13, 2015 ISIS’ terrorist attacks in Paris, Russia’s interference into Syrian conflict,
its provocative actions in other parts of the world, including Turkey - the NATO member, its
attempts to split up the European Union and other destructive actions were increasing
unpredictability of the international system development. Its further direction will be largely
defined by the global community’s response on Russia and ISIS challenges.

Literature
Brzezinski Z., The Group of Two that Could Change the World, “Financial Times” 2009,
January 13 [online]; http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d99369b8-e178-11dd-afa0-0000779fd2ac.html
Clinton B., Between Hope and History. Meeting America’s Challenges for the 21st Century,
Random House, Inc., New York 1994.
Gorodnia N., Globalization: Emergence and Evolution, “Global South”. SEPHIS e-magazine 2009,
Vol. 5, No.2 [online]; http://sephisemagazine.org/current/current.html
Kissinger H., Diplomacy, Simon & Schuster, – New York 1996.
National Security Strategy of the United States, The White House, Washington D.C. August 1991.
National Security Strategy of the United States, The White House, Washington D.C. January 1993.
 The Brookings Institution. The United States National Security Strategy. Washington D.C. 2015,
February 6 [online]; http://www.brookings.edu/events/2015/02/06-us-national-security-strategy-rice
Zakaria F., The Post American World, W. W. Norton & Company, New York 2008.

View publication stats