HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Department of Political Science and Int. Relations

5th semester

WEEK 9: 27/11/2025

Begum Kurtulus Abdulhayoglu, PhD

Asst. Prof., Istanbul University
 WEEK 9:
THE END OF HISTORY
THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS
POST-COLD WAR ERA

Resources: Joseph Nye & David Welch, Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation
Globalization of World Politics, Chapter: 31, Chapter 32
Andrew Heywood, Global Politics, Chapter 9, Chapter 21
 The End of History or The Clash of Civilizations?

● With the end of the Cold War- a good deal of talk about the prospects of a
new world order

● the bipolar system established after the WWII had broken down- but how
would the new system be like? it was not clear

● in 1989, Francis Fukuyama published an article titled ‘The End of History’

(expanded into a book in 1992, The End of History and the Last Man)

● he argued that with the demise of the communism we have reached the
end point of ideological evolution- the emergence of Western liberal
democracy is the final form of human government

● while deep ideological divisions such as fascism, communism shaped

international conflict over the 20th century, over time liberal capitalism
have surpassed

● liberal capitalism proved more successful in producing a higher level of

welfare and citizen participation
● there is no longer one single competitor to liberal capitalism as an
overarching ideology

● the relations among rich democracies have been deeply transformed-

they do not expect or plan for war with each other- their complex
interdependence forms large islands of democratic peace in the world
today, in parallel with I. Kant’s predictions

● but in another sense, rather than the end of history, the post-Cold War
world could be described as the return of history

● it means more normal circumstances where a single ideological

division does not drive the larger conflicts in international politics

● China and Russia- use capitalism but neither is liberal nor is fully
capitalist

● religious fundamentalism challenges the norms and practices of liberal

capitalism
● In 1993, Samuel P. Huntington published an article (later a book) entitled
‘the Clash of Civilizations’

● a counter to Fukuyama’s vision

● the fundamental sources of conflict in the new world would not be

ideological or economic, but would be cultural

● Huntington divided the world into civilizations (Western, Latin American,

African, Islamic, Orthodox, Japanese, Sinic (Chinese), Hindu)

● he predicted conflict among those civilizations

● actually culture is not homogenous or static, but overlapping and fluid

● more conflicts happen within the large civilizations than between them

● some argue that 9/11 and Osama bin Laden’s call for Islamic jihad against
the West prove that Huntington was right

● but many moderate Muslims had more in common with moderate

Christians and Jews than with Osama bin Laden
● both Fukuyama’s and Huntington’s visions suffer from trying to fit the
post Cold-War world into one or the other pattern- but one size does not
fit all

● there are multiple cultures, there are also very different types of
states

● ethnic and cultural conflicts tend to rise when identities are

challenged by major social changes that accompany modernization and
globalization

● ethnic nationalism is increasing

● under communist rule in the East, nationalistic and ethnic conflicts

were frozen for half a century

● with the end of the Cold War, competition between Serbs, Croats,
Muslims and Kosovan Albanians turned into terrible war in Yugoslavia

● xenophobia- migration problems

 Post-Cold War Era
● the end of the Cold War deeply altered the international system- Post-Cold
War era

● the old bipolar Cold War order provided a stability

● conflict has not ended after the end of the CW, but it now has different
sources

● realists argue that wars arise from the efforts of states to acquire power
and security in an anarchic world- here order refers primarily to the
structure or distribution of power among states

● liberals and constructivists argue that conflicts and their prevention are
determined not only by the balance of power, but by the domestic structure of
states, their values, identities, cultures, and by international institutions for
conflict resolution

● liberals argue that institutions such as UN can help prevent conflict and
establish order by stabilizing expectations – order for liberals is tied to values
such as democracy, human rights and institutions
● world order: “The distribution of power between and amongst states and
other key actors giving rise to a relatively stable pattern of relationships and
behaviours.” (Heywood)

● It was Gorbachev who called the idea that the post-Cold War era would be
characterized by a ‘new world order’ for the first time- in a speech to the UN
General Assembly in 1988

● 1989 Bush and Gorbachev committed themselves to a shift from an era of

containment and superpower antagonism to one of superpower cooperation
based on new security arrangements

● 1990- Bush’s ‘Towards a New World Order’ speech to Congress- stress on

US leadership to ensure the international rule of law, a partnership between
the USA and the USSR, Soviets’ integration into the world economic bodies,
and the promotion of collective security, thus checking the use of force
● a new world order / a new world disorder?

● the release of stresses and tensions that the Cold War had managed to keep
under control

● ethnic, racial and regional conflicts

● some scholars: talk of a ‘new world order’ might be an ideological means to

legitimize the global exercise of power by the US

● Paul Kennedy- 1989- The Rise and Fall of Great Powers- military conflict
must be considered in the context of economic change- the rise and fall of
great powers is determined by the impact military conflicts have on their
economic strength as well as their ability to engage in long armed conflict

● imperial over-reach of the US- even before the end of the Cold War debates
started
● The Gulf War (1991) and the increasing trend in the 1990s towards
humanitarian intervention- the US’ willingness to become the ‘world’s police
officer’.

● 9/11 and the ‘war on terror’- marked the birth of the 21 st century

● the attack on Afghanistan was broadly seen as a form of self-defense

● Yet, Iraq War- controversial- legitimacy issues- Weapons of Mass

Destruction

● As the sole remaining superpower, the US has been portrayed as a ‘global

hegemon’- especially after the so-called ‘war on terror’ following 9/11- this
drew the US into deeply problematical military interventions

● debates on American hegemony / unipolarity / American empire

● history showed that rapid power transitions are one of the leading causes of
great power conflict

● for ex. Germany’s rise before each world war, the relative rise and resulting
rivalry of US and USSR

● the period after the CW was one of the rapid power transitions with the rise of
US and China and the decline of USSR

● there are debates about the description and magnitude of transitions

● one view- multipolarity

● some analysts- the world will be organized around three economic blocs-
Europe, Asia and North America- yet, multinational corporations and ethnic
groups will resist the capacity of these three blocs to constrain their activities

● in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War, some analysts- described the
international order as an American world empire- (also unipolarity or
hegemony) American economy and military is the largest in the world- American
culture serves as a magnet

●but it is a mistake to confuse the politics of primacy with the politics of empire
● today’s world- power is chaotically distributed- states, transnational actors
such as bankers, corporations and terrorists

● drug trade, epidemics, migration, global warming are multilateral and require
cooperation for their solution

● the current distribution of power is one of multilevel interdependence

● the world’s only superpower cannot afford to go it alone

● globalization is putting issues on the international agenda that not even the
most powerful country can deal with on its own- international financial
stability, global climate change, the spread of infectious diseases and
transnational drug, crime and terrorist networks
● Nye: the world after the Cold War is "sui generis"

● power is becoming more multidimensional, structures more complex, and

states themselves more permeable

● this complexity means world order must rest on more than the traditional
military balance of power alone

● the societal changes that have been slowly moving the world away from the
Westphalian system

● Nye- the evolution of a hybrid world order- traditional power politics coexist
with transnational threats and non-state actors, leading to a complex mix of hard
and soft power
● on one hand- we have sovereignty of states

● on the other- we have international law and institutions- the mechanisms

of collective security and intervention

● human rights violations all over the world- to mount an armed multilateral
intervention to right all such wrongs would be another enormous principle of
disorder

● Chapter 7 of UN Charter- in the case of internal violence and developments

of weapons of mass destruction are likely to spill over into a more general
threat to the peace in a region, the Security Council may act

● such definitions are elastic

● it is now not possible to make clear distinctions between what is domestic
and international

● New threats- states find themselves broadening their concepts of security

and defense

● information technology is leading to a diffusion of power away from

central governments

● information is now power

● governments of all kinds will find their control eroding during the 21st
century as information technology gradually spreads and costs continue to
decrease

● governments are losing their monopoly over foreign policy and they will
have to share the stage in world politics with the non-state actors
● international order or world order?

● international order concentrates on stable and peaceful relations

between states- mostly related to the balance of power- primarily about
military security

● world order focuses on other values such as justice, development, rights

and emancipation

● human rights have a much higher profile than in earlier historical

periods

● a tension between state-centered concepts of order and those that

concerns with individual values- for example, policies based on the
balance of power might head to back regimes with bad human rights
records
● 20th century- American century

● 21st century- Chinese century?

● 21st century world order increasingly has a multipolar character-

‘emerging powers’- notably China

● yet there are also wider developments, including the advance of

globalization and global governance and the growing importance of non-
state actors

● Heywood: Neorealists argue a multipolar diffusion of power amongst

global actors may create a tendency towards instability and even war-
However, multipolarity may promote multilateralism and collaboration and
lead to stability and order
Heywood: influential images of modern global politics have pointed out
some trends:

● declining significance of national borders

● the spread of democracy

● the growth of cultural conflict

● the rise of China

● the increasing importance of international community

● the emergence of the Global South

● the primacy of environmental issues- even a disaster?

● the democratization of international organizations

● COVID-19

● How will be the post-covid era in global politics be like?

● the return of the state?

● China’s rise?

● Russia?
● to understand the current world, we must understand both the realist and liberal
views of world politics and care about social and cultural changes that
constructivists stress

● We need to be able to take account of different ideal types at the same tim e-
Neither realism nor complex interdependence exist in pure form- both are abstract
models of the world

● The realist sees a world of states using force to pursue security- Reversing that
produces complex interdependence, in which nonstate actors, economic
instruments, and welfare goals are more important than security

● Those two views are at the opposite ends of a conceptual continuum on which we
can locate different real-world relationships

● different approaches and theories are helpful and necessary to understand

international politics in a changing world
THANK YOU!