The continuously developing conflict between the USSR and the USA became one of the most important aspects of the 20th century. The origins of this opposition could be traced back to the end of WWII when two allied states agreed to divide their spheres of influence and reorganize the world order in a specific way (Brower & Sanders, 2014). However, everyone understood that the given pattern was not able to satisfy all parties to the agreement. Their growing power and appetite resulted in the appearance of numerous claims to each other (Brower & Sanders, 2014). For this reason, their competing accusations were just a war of words introduced to conceal growing ambitions and the desire to enlarge the sphere of influence. Nevertheless, ‘isms’ that could be applied are fascism, imperialism, capitalism, liberalism, socialism which means that the causes of the Cold War could be related to these.
The fact is that the end of WWII meant a radical reconsideration of global relations and shifts of priorities in international relations. During the years of war, allies were united by the necessity to fight against Germany; however, radical differences in mentalities and perspectives on the further development of the world remained (Hong, 2017). Soon after the war, both USSR and the USA transformed into powerful superstates that had their spheres of interests all over the world. Moreover, they adhered to opposite ideologies that cultivated aggravation between countries and resulted in the emergence of numerous conflicts. In such a way, the desire to dominate, increasing power, and ideological differences became the central reasons.
One of the central reasons for placing ballistic missiles by the USSR at Cuba was the deployment of similar missiles by the USA in Italy and Turkey. These objects obviously threatened the security of the Soviet Union. Additionally, regarding the basic terms of the Cold War arms race, the power balance had to be observed. For this reason, the USSR used Cuba as the strategic location to place its nuclear weapon and create a particular threat to the security of the USA. At the same time, it was a potent political tool to exercise pressure on opponents by demonstrating power and readiness to preserve the USSRs positions and defend the country.
All these phenomena meant that the world was divided between two camps that adhered to different ideologies. The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were considered socialist states and allies in the struggle against the Western Camp (Park, 2013). At the same time, the USA created its own coalition and initiated the arms race aiming at expelling the USSR and holding the dominant position in the global policy. The U.S. policy was called ‘containment’ which meant that the country proclaimed its central role in struggling against the Soviet Union and the further spread of its influence (Brower & Sanders, 2014). Moreover, the principle of domino was also peculiar to that period of time as one action triggered another and resulted in an appropriate response.
One of the central reasons for America’s inability to accept the Bolshevik Revolution is its anti-capitalist ideology. The government of the USA and company owners was concerned about communism in their state. They considered their labor unions a potential threat to capitalism. For this reason, the state was not able to accept the ideas of the Revolution in Russia as it undermined the basics of Western society.
Martin Luther King took many ideas and inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi in his struggle against discrimination and segregation. Following these ideas, he gave rise to numerous non-violent campaigns which became part of the U.S. social life of the second half of the 20th century. His ideas altered peoples mentalities and cultures by demonstrating the new way to interact within society and to struggle for their rights. Later, numerous activists followed this approach.
References
Brower, D., & Sanders, T. (2014). The world in the twentieth century: From empires to nations (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Park, J. (2013). Forward to the future? The democratic peace after the Cold War. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 30(2), 178-194. Web.
Hong, S. (2017). Propaganda leaflets and Cold War frames during the Korean War. Media, War & Conflict. Web.
What were the major factors that led to the end of the Cold War?
The second half of the twentieth century was characterized by conflicts and wars among the world’s strongest nations. The main war during that period was the cold war. The United States of America and the Soviet Union were the two most powerful nations involved in the war. The leaders of these two nations also played a big role during the cold war and at the end of it. They were at the forefront in bringing the war to a stop. This essay will discuss the major factors that saw the cold war come to a stop.
President Ronald Reagan played the greatest role in bringing the cold war to a stop. In fact, he spent most of his time advocating for the end of the war. Reagan achieved this by using diplomatic means to persuade the Soviets to move away from war. He made them understand that the perpetual war would not only destroy the nation but also the entire world. He further emphasized that what was needed was concentration on other important issues.
President Ronald Reagan also pushed Gorbachev to make significant reforms that would turn the country’s attention from war. Reagan urged Gorbachev to use the economic system of the United States as a paradigm to set its new goals that would see it recover from the effects of war. Reagan even offered the advisory services of his secretary of state, George Shultz, to Gorbachev in a bid to instruct him on the significant steps that should be taken.
This was a step towards the implementation of free market economics in the country1. Furthermore, the speech that President Ronald Reagan gave at the Berlin Wall during the celebration of Berlin’s 750th birthday had a crucial impact on the cold war. During the speech, Reagan urged Gorbachev to tear down the wall of Berlin. Gorbachev actually saw the wall brought down, a move that marked the end of the cold war. President Ronald Reagan therefore played a great role in the efforts to end the cold war.
Another factor that contributed to the end of the cold war was the economic deterioration of the Soviet Union. It is estimated that towards the end of the cold war, Moscow had accumulated a military force that used twenty five percent of the gross national product of the Soviet Union. This high percentage of revenue was spent on maintaining the military forces at the expense of the common people. As a result, the living standards of the people deteriorated in what has been termed as the worst economic crisis to have ever hit the Soviet Union.
Too much expenditure on the upkeep of the military force also led to lack of savings among the civilians. Consequently, no significant investments were made by the citizens during the whole period of war. The civilians also avoided investing in the economy because of the high level of insecurity. The result of this was a dormant economy. In the year 1985, the Soviet Union suffered a slackened rate of economic that almost hit the zero mark. They are these hard economic times that obliged the Soviets Union to give up war and resolve on building a nation that had been torn apart by the effects of the war.
What were the lessons learned from the U.S. experience in Somalia?
The United States’ experience in Somalia during the 1992-94 operation serves to teach military forces all over the globe important lessons while carrying out their duties. The experience is also beneficial to any individual who is interested in seeing utter peace and food sufficiency restored to the surface of the earth. First and foremost, the operation gave a new meaning to peacekeeping missions. Prior to this operation, such missions were mainly war-oriented in all aspects. However, the United States’ military encountered people who were in dire need of humanitarian assistance in Somalia. The majority of the population was emaciated and starving to death.
The United States’ operation in Somalia therefore came as a wakeup call for the rest of the world to give priority to humanity in its list of preference. The operation emphasized the fact that fighting wars in a bid to maintain the peace and stability of a region will be futile if the inhabitants of that particular region lack basic needs. The military forces of the United States of America therefore served as an epitome to other military forces by airlifting medical supplies and food relief to thousands of Somali citizens who were on the verge of death2.
The operation of the United States in Somalia was also the first peace enforcement mission to be sanctioned by the United Nations. It served to test the usefulness and efficiency of such future peace missions. Although the United States did not fulfill the overambitious goals of the United Nations, the success of the mission gave way to subsequent peace missions in other regions. This operation therefore taught a lesson that peace can be restored using such missions.
Some believe The Patriot Act and U.S. actions at Guantanamo Bay violate traditional American values of liberty. Have Americans become less free in the Post 9/11 world?
Americans have become less free after the 9/11 attacks. A number of facts lend credence to this statement. First and foremost, Americans have been subjected to security checks in virtually every place they go. Elaborate security systems have been developed to safeguard the security of the state. There has also been an increased use of surveillance cameras in most commercial buildings.
All these security measures portend that the United States of America has actually become a fearful nation. The majority of Americans are always unsure of their security when in crowded places because such places are the targets for terrorism acts. Therefore, it is true that Americans have become less free in the post 9/11 period. The fact that the citizens cannot freely move from one place to another depicts this situation. The citizens have also limited their own freedom through their perpetual fear of insecurity3. Living in fear of an attack is tantamount to restricting oneself from freedom.
The introduction of The Patriot Act and the Guantanamo bay indicates the fear that the government has towards a repeat of the 9/11 attacks. These two measures are regarded as an overreaction towards the security threat in the nation. This overreaction creates the impression among citizens that their security is indeed at risk. To date, most Americans have their own misgivings when they are around any Muslim individual. These states of fear and desperate measures that have taken to ensure security have limited the freedom of Americans.
In conclusion, it is clear from the above discussion that President Ronald Reagan and the economic deterioration of the Soviets Union are the main factors that led to the end of the cold war. It can also be seen that the United States operation in Somalia had a lot to teach the world about such missions. Lastly, it can be comprehended from this essay that Americans have become less free following the 9/11 attacks.
Bibliography
Gaddis, Lewis. The Cold War: A New History. New York: Penguin Press, 2005.
Stafford, Smith. Bad Men. London: Phoenix, 2008.
Stewart, Richard. The United States Army in Somalia 1992–1994. Washington D.C.: United States Army Center of Military History, 2005.
Footnotes
Lewis Gaddis, The Cold War: A New History (New York: Penguin Press, 2005), 23.
Richard Stewart, The United States Army in Somalia 1992-1994 (Washington D.C: United States Army Center of Military History, 2005), 13.
Smith Stafford, Bad Men (London: Phoenix, 2008), 2.
The end of World War significantly shifted the balance of power in Europe and globally, leaving a void that both the United States and the Soviet Union sought to fulfill. In the months and years after WWII, both countries attempted to establish their presence and influence in continental Europe. While the United States did this through political and economic means such as the Marshall Plan that fueled economic aid to countries that were friendly to the US.
Meanwhile, the Soviet Union used force, increasingly building up military presence in Eastern Europe and attempting to isolate it from American influence. The biggest heated point was based in politics. The United States adopted the Truman Doctrine, aimed specifically at limiting Soviet and Communist expansion. Meanwhile, the Soviet ideology was strongly anti American as well. This clash of values, economic and military provocations, and failure of political resolutions led to the postwar heating of tension and ideological warfare known as the Cold War (Moss and Thomas 2012, 20-22).
Towards the end of WWII, both the United States and the Soviet Union restructured their industrial capabilities towards the production of military equipment. Furthermore, significant technological developments were made in the arms industry, particularly the creation and detonation of the nuclear bomb by the United States. As tensions escalated soon after the end of the war, both countries continued to expand their military capabilities, effectively beginning an arms race.
The Soviet Union, threatened by nuclear weaponry, began to develop its own nuclear and hydrogen weaponry, soon matching the United States nuclear arsenal. The primary strategy of the Cold War was nuclear deterrence, a principle that one country would not attack the other if there is a risk of nuclear retaliation and annihilation (Harding 2018). Therefore, both superpowers focused significant resources on building both conventional and nuclear militaries in a display of power.
2nd Prompt
When Truman came into office after the death of Roosevelt and his subsequent reelection in 1946, he sought to pursue a similar line of socially-friendly policies. Many from FDR’s cabinet remained and helped a relatively inexperienced Truman transition. Initially, Truman focused strongly on economics and labor, attempting to achieve a healthy transition from a wartime economy to a consumer-driven one. He created the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), a federal agency which guides Presidents on economic issues to this day. Truman attempted to remove price controls, but the low amount of consumer goods caused prices to skyrocket.
There was significant deficit initially, on even the basic commodities. He continued to make crucial errors in managing the economy. Another aspect Truman attempted to address, building off FDR’s legacy, is labor. He wanted to pass a legislation for a new public works program which guaranteed full employment and an increased minimum wage among other benefits. Truman’s objectives were not met as only the Employment Act of 1946 was passed, a legislation on full employment which had no enforcement ability. Many in Congress, including from Truman’s own party, opposed his socio-economic domestic policies (Hamby n.d.).
In his domestic policy, Truman also sought to address civil rights. As part of his labor legislation, he wanted to prevent discrimination of African Americans. In 1947, he openly voiced support of the NAACP and began to push civil rights legislation to Congress. He used his available resources and voice to advocate for civil rights in all aspects of life, ranging from employment and minimum wage to housing and health insurance. He was able to achieve some progress such as desegregating the military (Brown 2018). However, due to limited support, Truman’s civil right policies remained more rhetorical rather than practical as society was not ready to adopt such significant changes.
The liberals in the cold war held an optimistic perspective that is attributed to a number of causes. One of the most prominent causes of this optimism lies in the fact that the liberals mainly campaigned in the favour of liberal democracies and against the use of force.
The cold war was causing considerable losses and was motivating the country’s people and their perceptions against the incidence of such wars in the future. As a result, the liberals perceived that the termination of this cold war would place people in a state of mind where they would disapprove of the government if it took part in force-based measures (Risse-Kappen 1990). The liberals believed that the prevalence of this stance amongst the people would help create a positive springboard for the liberals’ movement.
In addition, the liberals also believed that the state has misinterpreted the threat from the Soviets. The liberals argued that the threat was not present in the form of the Soviets but in the form of the rigidity with which Stalin had chosen to conduct his reign (Risse-Kappen 1990).
The liberals were optimistic about their success following the end of the cold war, but they made sure that the need for protection and self-defence was not forgotten. However, even in this aspect, the liberals paid special attention to the victims of war and campaigned aggressively to highlight the damage caused by war. The liberals did not oppose the war effort outright and supported the need for a strong stance against the Soviet threat.
While the liberals were not highly appreciative of the Cold War itself, the liberals looked forward to the conclusion of the Cold War. It was believed that the Cold War would help to bring forth the face of aggression that the liberals campaigned to reveal to the general public.
The liberals did not approve of the war, but welcomed the end of the war because they believed that the war had had seriously diminished the probability of the regeneration of a Reich such as that against which the Allies fought. The liberals therefore believed that the victory in the Cold War was not that of military powers but represented the strength of liberal democracy (Risse-Kappen 1990).
Furthermore, the liberals also believed that the post Cold-War period would give way to liberal democracy and the lessons learned from the Cold War would help to support liberal democracy in the future. The liberals believed that the incidence of the Cold War would help ensure that the need for such a war would not arise in the future. It was perceived that the prevalence of liberal democracy would be stimulated by world leaders in an attempt to avoid the incidence of the same in the future.
The liberals believed that the incidence of the Cold War would enable political powers to realize the necessity for a balanced power and economic structure. The liberals also believed that the end of the Cold War would drive world leaders to adopt discourse driven policies rather than transgress to war.
Essentially, the liberals believed that the damage caused to the allies in the Cold War would clarify the stance of the liberals. They expected to acquire an increased support from the reaction of the people to the damage caused by the war.
List of References
Risse-Kappen, T. (1990) Predicting the New Europe. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , 46 (8)
Most scholars dealing with issues emanating from International Relations have indeed found the subject of state sovereignty to be of immense significance.
As a result, the debate surrounding the concept of sovereignty has had far reaching effects on global politics. Moreover, the geo-political system has also benefited a lot in terms of ideas generated from the sovereignty discourse.
Some of the landmark and remarkable historical occurrences that have fuelled the sovereignty debate include the rapid pace of globalization and termination of the Cold War era.
This kind of alteration was also proportional to the transformation of global society that was witnessed during the Cold War era.
Although some International Relations experts argue that this phenomenon has worsened the state of international affairs, it is vital to reiterate that all the changes that took place after the Cold War era have been beneficial to the global society.
Besides, the traditional understanding of conventional practices on the state sovereignty was significantly affected. It is definite that a positive change has been realized with the alterations meted on the state of sovereignty since the culmination of the Cold War era.
This essay will deduce that during the post-Cold War era, the state of sovereignty was greatly altered by key payers in world politics
In order to offer an in-depth analysis of this topic; this essay has been subdivided into four sections. To begin with, a discussion will be carried out on the impact of the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and how it played a significant role of reshaping the state of sovereignty especially after the end of the Cold War.
In other words, the fundamental application of the concept of sovereignty was embraced some centuries back and it is still being used in modern geo-political systems (Jackson 2007, p.367). In addition, the impacts of terminating the Cold War in regards to geo-political set up of key players in world politics will be analysed.
This area focuses on the emergence of weak or failed states across the world. The failed or weak states are known to have worsened the state of world peace due to the system of unipolarism that was invented by the United States. The latter also led to conflicts both internally and beyond the territorial borders.
Moreover, it will be imperative to note that lack of international order and peaceful co-existence was also instrumental towards setting up of the United Nations Organisation to oversee international peace. The world was indeed experiencing a fast-changing geo-political landscape.
Bush’s main attempt was to create a unipolar system that would control the whole world with much ease. Nonetheless, there were notable adverse effects occasioned by the aftermath of the Cold war.
For example, there were various failed and weak states such as in Southern Asia, Middle East, the Balkan region and some parts of Africa (Fukuyama 2006, p. 2). Moreover, other regions such as Kosovo, Bosnia and USSR were deeply absorbed with either intra-state or inter-state conflicts.
In the case of USSR and other states that were being led under communist ideals, much of the violence had already been suppressed towards the end of the Cold War.
The need to intervene for the sake of providing human needs also grew up at a very high rate especially after the end of the Cold War era. As a consequence, the state sovereignty was impacted greatly.
It is also worthy to bear in mind that it marked the period when realist ideas were quickly penetrating the geo-political systems in most states. However, this notion did not last for too long since the increasing movements mounted by global societies demanded for moral standing to be adopted in the management of world affairs.
Needless to say, a typical example of such drastic changes was witnessed way back in 1999 when NATO intervened in the affairs of Kosovo. NATO played a very significant role in this country.
The Extraordinary meeting that was held in April 1999 lead to the issuance of a statement regarding the Kosovo conflict. As a result, NATO took over the pacification of Kosovo in order to restore peace and order.
Furthermore, state sovereignty has been affected by the impacts of globalisation especially with reference to the end of Cold War period. It is imperative to note that when the Polycentric system of governance was preferred to Statist one, globalisation of international political affairs was given a major boost.
It is interesting that the actual understanding of the state sovereignty did not change remarkably even after the culmination of the Cold War era.
The state of sovereignty was coined back in the16th century and it remained as a formidable concept throughout the Cold War period in spite of several attempts to alter its meaning and significance.
In any case, most of the international pacts and treaties between states only supported the ideals of state sovereignty. For instance, the 1648 Peace of Westphalia that had been invented by Munsterand Osnabruck added value to the conventional ideals, notions and fundamental rules of state sovereignty.
These treaties have withstood the test of time even in the contemporary world politics. According to Wang (2004), the state of sovereignty still entails “absolute supremacy over internal affairs…absolute right to govern…people and freedom from any external interference….” (p. 473).
Therefore, the latter statement implies that no other internal or external authorities may supersede the fundamental principles of state sovereignty. Besides, states that have been declared sovereign are legally mandated to run their internal affairs without any undue interference from second or third parties.
For example, it is vital to mention that even in the contemporary political structures of sovereign states, the liberty to exercise internal self control (such as on matters regarding security and law enforcement) is fully guaranteed.
Brown (2002, p.64) elucidates that such provisions are recognised internationally and therefore, interventions are not permitted by other states.
Nevertheless, it would also be sensible to consider any latent changes that have occurred in the sovereign state since the closure of the Cold War even if those changes did not leave landmark changes to world’s geo-political systems.
There are scholars who posit that since the United Nations Charter broadly embraces and codifies the components of the Peace of Westphalia treaty, it would be erroneous to assume that the sovereign state has not experienced any changes.
The United Nations Charter that has embodied the aforementioned treaty notes that all of its members will be treated equally on binding matters of international affairs.
However, it is worth to mention that the Peace of Westphalia treaties did not contravene the fundamental provisions of the state of sovereignty since the differences that have been noted before are largely contributed by myriads of definitions of the term ‘state of sovereignty (Hehir 2008, p.87).
At this point, it would be perhaps instrumental to explore the application of the term ‘sovereignty’. According to Stephen Krasner, this terminology can be made use of in three unique ways. On the one hand, the effectiveness and structural composition of public governance constitute domestic sovereignty.
On the other hand, when the state is in a position to observe and control its borders in terms of the exchange of goods and people, such kind of liberty is referred to as interdependence sovereignty.
Ultimately, if other states can recognise the existence and power of a state to execute its will and also remain sovereign without external influence, it is referred to as international legal sovereignty.
After the end of the Cold War era, another grand vision dubbed the “New World Order” was crafted by George Bush who was the then President of the United States of America. It is worth to assert that at this time, the United States was the only superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union (USSR) in 1989.
The attempt by the United Nations Security Council to enhance law and order in weak and failed states was indeed a stark contrast to what used to happen before or eve during the Cold War era.
Most states had originally preferred resolving their wrangles using internal mechanisms without involving external players. However, this kind of state sovereignty had to be overstepped at some point after the Cold War era since the Realist stance adopted by some of the states would not have stabilized international peace.
Moreover, there was need for some form of international watchdog to oversee the increasing state of lawlessness accompanied by crimes against humanity.
In general, there was increasing enthusiasm to safeguard and champion all forms of human rights. This was to be achieved by embracing a common approach towards the moral governance of the global geo-political system.
This approach was arguably never going to be easy because some states were very rigid in terms of governance policies. It was against this backdrop of rigidity that Boutros Boutros-Ghali (the then UN Secretary General) warned that exclusive sovereignty among states would no long work since its time had passed long ago.
In other terms, the demands of the global political systems had presented hard reality that demanded humanitarian intervention at some point (Weiss 2011, p.105).
When the United Nations Security Council became operational, it was possible for it to achieve its major goals and objectives bearing in mind that the end of the Cold War provided a favorable political environment for the UN security organ because states were no longer fighting for technological, economic or military superiority.
In addition, the Council was determined to remain rational and partial in decision making without inclining towards certain ideologies that were being propagated by different states.
The Council’s remit was evident when it mandated about forty missions to maintain peace in war-torn areas during the early 19990s (The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, 2001).
The post Cold War era also witnessed the emergence of the need to safeguard the basic rights of citizens who belonged in other sovereign states. This responsibility was largely left on the docket of host countries.
Consequently, myriads of human rights rhetoric sprang up with increased demand for fairness among individuals from diverse nationalities. Although the state was left to guard against human rights from being abused, the post Cold War era has interestingly experienced unprecedented growth of civil society groups across the globe.
These groups have indeed taken over more proactive roles than the state in championing for human rights. Besides, the ideals behind Cosmopolitanism have inspired the global society movements in the sense that the former believes in giving priority to shared common morality and equality among citizens and non-citizens.
The realist ideology on the sovereign state was further hampered by the rapid growth of the global civil societies that fought for better methods of engagement when addressing human rights.
Moreover, in cases where lack of humanitarian intervention were prevalent among weak states, the human rights civil societies took very firm positions that overrode those of the state.
The human rights discourse that took a normative approach depicted that human rights could easily be violated in cases where there were no interventions by the state or political systems that preferred a realist approach.
It is also apparent that the normative discourse must have achieved far reaching goals as evident among authors like Thomas Weiss.
Most of the arguments presented by civil society groups during the post Cold War era were quite categorical that independence, population, authority and territory were the four major contentious areas of state sovereignty that needed to be followed strictly in protecting human rights.
In response, the United Nations came up with new resolutions that would adequately standardize and justify the globally accepted humanitarian interventions.
The Security Council has an express mandate of taking stern action against any country that may fail to protect its people (Weiss 2011, p.105).
After the Cold War era, there are several changes that have been witnessed on how wars are fought among states with territorial borders as well as sovereign states that may be harboring terror groups such as Al Qaeda.
Before the post Cold War era, terror groups were found within given states where they could launch internal attacks. A case example is the Irish Republican Army. However, the modern terror gangs are composed of individuals drawn across the world.
There are some International Relations scholars who posit that materialism and western liberal ideals are to blame on the rising cases of terrorism since some cultures feel threatened and therefore opt for violence as the best solution (Kiras 2011, p.370).
Although all international interventions by the United Nations have to be based on specific resolutions of the Security Council, it is imperative to mention that the sovereignty of a state may be interfered with by an international community since morality is given higher priority than sovereignty of a state.
This scenario was witnessed when the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) intervened in Kosovo. Furthermore, any other international law can also be superseded by the fundamentals of morality.
It is definite that the international legal sovereignty and the Westphalian treaties have been vastly degraded or altered with the involvement of the international community.
Globalisation rapidly took shape during the post Cold War era since global governance ended up adopting a polycentric system in preference to a statist system. Aspects such as terrorism, business and finance also took a global approach.
As a consequence, the Westphalian sovereignty and domestic sovereignty were greatly weakened. In 1999, the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan observed that international cooperation and forces of globalization were keenly redefining the state of sovereignty among states across the world (United Nations 1999, p. 37).
Such a move indicated that the global political arena would be vastly affected due the adoption of the pluralistic position in addressing human rights (Willetts 2011, p.45).
Actors such as Green Peace, Amnesty International, European Union, United Nations and Microsoft were interfering with some decision making processes and political thinking in different states.
The fiscal and credit policy as well as adequate control of money has been lost by many states due to the effects of transnatiolization coupled with the impacts of globalization (Brown 2002, p.121).
In addition, some states are currently finding it cumbersome to harness capital flow within their borders because the financial system has been significantly globalised. The Euro-zone debt crisis is one of the typical and latest case examples of how a globalised financial state of economy can impact state of sovereignty.
When the Republic of Ireland and Greece were compelled by the European Union to execute austerity measures that were fiscally severe, the impacts were financially devastating.
The economies of the affected sovereign states were eventually managed by the European Union. Hence, the action fully ignored the electorates and their leaders. This action contradicted the fundamental ideals of Westphalian, international, and domestic sovereignty (Scholte 2005, p. 123).
To recap it all, it is vital to reiterate that this paper has explored how the state of sovereignty has transformed since the end of the Cold War period. The paper has also offered an incisive look at whether the above discussed alterations were negative or positive.
After discussing the pre-Cold War era when the Westphalian sovereignty was adopted and also the consequent changes during the Post Cold War era (such as the upsurge of human rights and globalisation), it can be concluded that the state of sovereignty has undergone positive changes that are beneficial to human society.
References
Brown, C 2002, Sovereignty, Rights and Justice: International political theory today, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Fukuyama, F 2006, Nation-Building: Beyond Afghanistan and Iraq, The John Hopkins University Press, Maryland.
Hehir, A 2008, Humanitarian Intervention after Kosovo: Iraq, Darfur and the record of Global Civil Society, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire.
Jackson, R 2007, Sovereignty: Evolution of an idea. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Kiras, J 2011, Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations, Oxford University Press, New York.
Scholte, A J 2005, Globalization a critical introduction (2nd ed.), Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) 2001, The Responsibility to Protect: The Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, IDRC Books, Ottawa.
United Nations 1999, The Question of Intervention: Statements by the Secretary General, United Nations, New York.
Wang, G 2004, “The impact of Globalization on State Sovereignty”. Chinese Journal of International Law. Vol. 3 no. 2, pp. 473-484.
Weiss, T 2011, Thinking about global governance: why people and ideas matter, Routledge, Oxon.
Willetts, P 2011, Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations, Oxford University Press, New York.
This essay explains the developments in the relations between the United States and the Soviet Union during the cold war. The cold war was fueled by the actions of given leaders and the policies that were instituted or formulated by the leadership. This essay discusses how these leaders and policies shaped the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union.
By the end of the World War II, The US enjoyed hegemonic powers. It had the strongest economy estimated to have been roughly half the world’s GNP (Maier 228). The cold war was fueled by mistrust between the USSR and the U.S. At the end of the World War II, USSR was the only power centre that nearly equaled the U.S.
A power imbalance or vacuum had been left by the fall of Germany and Europe was too bruised as to only care about its wounds (Urwin 44). USSR and the U.S were keen on filling the power vacuum (Maier 335). Anchored on antagonistic ideologies, they did all they could to spread their influence all over the world. At the heart of the cold war were two ideologies i.e. capitalism was under the onslaught of communism. Both capitalists and communists wanted to sway in world affairs in their favor.
From the USSR, some of the influential leaders include Stalin, Nikita, Brezhnev and Constantine. Stalin was at the heart of USSR’s expansionist policies. The US had leaders such as Truman. Truman made a wise decision of affirming that geographical position was an important element of struggle rather than challenging the axis in the fight against communism. Truman helped towards economic aid for European nations to save them from communist onslaught.
One great post World War economic policy contributions of the U.S. was the Marshal plan. Others include initiating the Breton woods system and it’s joining the NATO alliance.
On the political plane, Lundestand (148) argues that anticommunism dominated U.S.’s post WWII political policies and campaigns across the world. Due to the cold war, the U.S supported and kept despotic regimes in place. This is clearer when one considers some regimes in Africa or say Spain.
Despotic leaders were supported basically because they opposed communism. In countries like Germany, need to deal with communism was given precedence to the interest to root out Nazism. Compromised elites were allowed to hold powerful offices in post war Germany so as to revive Germany against the onslaught of communism.
Economically, U.S.’s economic policies were anchored on understanding that economic freedom anchored on economic growth necessitates other freedoms especially political liberties (Lundestand 152). Therefore, it was expected that when nations prospered economically, they would also stabilize politically. Economic freedom of individuals or liberal market approaches drove the capitalist while social concern and equality drove the communists.
Security policies in both the U.S.A and the USSR advocated for indirect aggression e.g. economic sabotage, forming of alliances and arms race. The U.S joined the NATO alliance, which provided military security against the destabilizing interests of the socialist USSR. Without the U.S. there is a high likelihood; Stalin with his expansionist interests could have caused turmoil in Europe. NATO also helped curb intra-rivalries in Europe that traditionally resulted in warfare.
The U.S through the marshal plan gave crucial economic aid to Europe. The aid was important in enabling internal processes in Europe and initiatives that enabled trade especially with the U.S. itself. Through other tax stabilizing and opening up to trade initiatives build in and around the Breton woods system, Europe was helped to recover and act as a rebuff to Stalin’s expansionist interests.
Works Cited
Lundestad, Geir, “Empire by Invitation? The United States and Western Europe, 1945- 1952,” in Charles Maier (ed.), The Cold War in Europe: Era of a Divided Continent. New York: Markus Wiener. 1991: pp. 143-65.
Maier, Charles. “The Two Postwar Eras and the Conditions for Stability in Twentieth- Century Western Europe,” American Historical Review, 1981: Vol. 86, No. 2. pp 327-352.
Urwin, Derek. “Western Europe since 1945: A Short Political History”. London: Longmans, Green and Co. Ltd. 1968: pp. 27-50.
The US-Russia relations had their high and low points; they have been allies in war and at times coming very close to engaging each other in warfare. The Cold War (1947-1991), which seemed to be a struggle between capitalism and socialism, was one of the low points during their long relations. This article will examine the US-Russia relations all through the cold war.
Soon after the end of the Second World War, the signs of tensions and mistrust reappeared even though the two nations had been allies during the war and the US had even supplied Russia with military hardware and other items that aided it to push back the Germans.
The western democracies, in particular the US and the Soviets clashed mostly about the Eastern European take over by the Soviet Union. The increasing influence of the Soviets over Eastern Europe seemed to worry the Americans, who had stronger political and economic influence over Western Europe.
The US and Russia political and social ideologies were contradictory and the two competed along these ideologies. The US promoted the Marshal economic plan to its Western European allies and not long after, Russia countered with the Camecon plan (Vohra, 176). The Warsaw Pact (1955-1991) was Russia’s response to the western nations’ 1949 NATO treaty.
Joseph Stalin viewed the post-world wars world as divided into two camps namely the capitalist and imperialist camp and the communist and progressive camp. His US counterpart, Harry Truman also had the same view describing them as two opposing systems and portrayed the capitalist as free and the communist as bent on subduing other nations.
Nikita Khrushchev took over Russia’s leadership and in 1953 stated that capitalism and imperialism could coexist peacefully since he viewed the Communist system as having become stronger (Gaddis, 84).The 1955 Geneva summit and the 1959 Camp David Summit showed Presidents Eisenhower and Khrushchev had some willingness to cooperate on world issues.
The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis however, almost brought the two nations to direct engagement in a nuclear war (Scott, 188). This incidence was the lowest point of the US- Russia relations in the whole duration of the Cold War and was a result of the neck to neck arms race between the two. Russia had felt left behind and decided to build a nuclear base in Cuba, an action that was not taken kindly by the US. If not for the dialogues between the two camps, both formal and secret, they would have most definitely sparked of a nuclear war.
During Leonid Brezhnev’s regime (1964-1982), also known as the Russian stagnation period, the hostility between the two nations declined. The numerous negotiations between the two resulted in signing of agreements towards limitation of arms and summit meetings. The 1970s Russian invasion of Afghanistan however increased hostility between them and the US (Kirkpatrick, 250).
During the regimes of Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, the relations seemed cordial resulting in more summit meetings that led to a reduction of arms within the two camps. Both the US and Soviet Union announced the end of the Cold war on November 1989 and the two nations began warming up towards each other.
Conclusion
Even though Russia and the US never engaged each other directly in war, they indirectly fought through espionage, technological and economic competitions, proxy wars, arms race, mentioning but a few. Not only did the Cold War leave a legacy that cannot be easily erased but it also still seen to influence world affairs to date.
Works Cited
Gaddis, John Lewis. The Cold War: A New History. England: Penguin Press, 2005.
Kirkpatrick, Jeane. Legitimacy and Force: National and International Dimensions. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1988.
Scott, Leonard Victor. Macmillan, Kennedy, and the Cuban Missile Crisis: Political, Military, Intelligence Aspects. England: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999.
The Cold War is the term often used to describe tension-like situations amongst two nations or blocks not amounting to full-scale war or similar such measures. The Cold War era has been in existence for a couple of decades, even resulting in two major world wars, besides having its imprint on scores of political decisions of concerned nations. There was a time, before 1991, when the world community was divided into two major blocks namely the USSR block and the US block.
Those supportive of the policies of the USSR used to take cues from the policy announcements from Moscow while those supportive of the US policies used to plan their moves depending upon the statements from Washington. Quite often the world community appeared sharply divided into two different poles which resulted in a ‘bipolar world.’ Mastny (2008) underlines three critical components of cold war legacy namely;
Legacy of Western Diplomacy of the early Cold War years resulting into steps like the formation of NATO, EU, etc.
Arms control legacy, which deals with the relationship between diplomacy and military strength.
Multilateral diplomacy, resulting in several military campaigns around the world.
It is pertinent to note here that Kalantzis and Cope (2006) highlight the plight of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan by citing the huge investments done by the American government during Cold War days in consolidating its hold on the military arsenal. It has been emphasized that important milestones like winning of Second World War, and development of the Marshall Plan were possible due to considerable investments in the military power by the US during the cold war era (Kalantzis and Cope, 2006).
The fate of USSR, another pole in the erstwhile bipolar world, also led to far-reaching changes in the region when USSR disintegrated into several smaller nations like Russia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, etc. Such incidents are a pointer towards the peculiarities of cold war strategies. While regular diplomatic ties and differences are handled transparently, cold war strategists prefer to counter the apparent offensive from the competing blocks in a not-so-transparent manner.
Strategies are termed as Cold War because while on the face of it, there’s no war, the unease amongst both the blocks gives enough indications towards mutual bitterness amongst the two nations. While analyzing the 50 years of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the Western democracies, Knightley (2010) states that espionage missions were the integral components fueling the ferocity of cold war during all these years.
Espionage missions formed a vital weapon in the armory of ‘warring’ nations during the cold war period. With the help of inside information gathered from different sources, an idea was formed about the weaker links and accordingly efforts were made to damage the interest of rival nation/s. America’s CIA, UK’s SIS and USSR’s KGB happened to be essential partners in the hush-hush warfare being undertaken during the cold war period.
Influencing the economic interests of rival countries, providing fuel to dissensions and political unrest in foreign terrain happened to be key tools during the cold war period. During these days of liberalization and globalization, economic interests of countries are dependent upon the policies and interests of other countries, and the concerned economies often highlight these things, but during the days of Cold War, efforts are made by the concerned countries not to come out in public openly.
Putting an embargo on import and export of trade supplies from rival countries leads to damaging the economic interests of the concerned country. Pursuing friendly countries also to follow similar trade policies vis-à-vis the rival nations is an accepted principle of the cold war era.
Cold war era is also characterized by the formation of groups depending upon a whole range of factors like economic interests, political compulsions, vicinity with the leading country, geographical location, etc. The interests and the level of stakes also keep changing over some time. It was this transition which resulted in some former allies of WW-II becoming bitter critics of each other’s policies.
During the pre-disintegration era of the Soviet Union, the world community was sharply divided on many issues in two contrasting opinions. While the US block used to see the problems with the perspective of American interests, the Soviet bloc used to work towards ensuring its interests. It was during this period that the world community was divided into two poles. International bodies like the United Nations’ used to be a favorite platform for scoring points and trying to bring down the interests of rival nations.
During those days, the rivalry used to harm the functioning of the UN as well (UN, 2010). Some analysts have thought that, at times, the bipolar nature of the world also worked to the advantage of the world community in general and the smaller nations in particular.
After the demise of Soviet bloc, it has been opined that many countries were forced to adopt their policies on the lines of the strategies being adopted by the US, as it is considered to be the only superpower now.
For example, the campaigns of Iraq and Afghanistan by the allied forces and the resultant sanction of UN Security Council on these campaigns were seen as the international body’s following the authoritative rule of America in foreign affairs. A large number of UN member states did not want these campaigns to be carried out in this manner, but they had no choice as the US, and some of its allies were forceful in their submissions. It is another matter that the campaigns have take much longer than initially planned.
The original plans of the allied forces to go for incisive campaigns and then return the allied troops to their respective countries has not materialized till now. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars followed by subsequent efforts for enhanced security have been proving a big drain on the exchequer of US and allied nations.
The increasing amount of uncertainty and apparent restlessness on the faces of civilian and military leadership has made issues more complicated. These war campaigns remained high on the agenda even during the US presidential campaigns. The uni-polar decisions seem to have taken its toll with differences amongst the ruling combine as well. John McCain, the Presidential candidate from the Republicans’ clearly said, during the runoff that he opposed President Bush on the way the Iraq war was conducted (CNN, 2008).
These developments do indicate that even though the US is the only superpower amongst the comity of nations, there are forces which have been indicated of another power center around us. Besides the ongoing military campaigns, there are examples like the dominance of China in the Asia-Pacific region and the confrontationist stances taken up by China on many issues. Chinese authorities termed the stand of US in entering into defense trade with Taiwan as a big irritant in smooth relations with America (People’s Daily, 2010).
Similarly, the support extended to Google by the US administration during the recent confrontation of the company with the Chinese authorities also led to the decision being termed as influenced by the pre-cold war mentality (People’s Daily, 2010). Such developments do point out that the concept of bipolarity is indeed still alive and the cold war era is still quite apparent on many fronts.
After the Second World War the relationship between the US and Soviet Union was changed from anti Nazi partners to latent enemies. But because of the nuclear threats from both sides, the possibility of a real battle became very small and a new form of cold war known as the competition between military, economies, politics, diplomacy, ideology and so on started.
During the cold war both sides were trying to gain more international influence and power, so foreign policy became especially important. In term of the US and Latin America relation had changed a lot because of it. This essay is going to talk detailed about those changes and focus on countries like EI Salvador，Nicaragua and Guatemala .
During the Second World War the partnership relation between US and Latin American was very good and strong. For example, in the first two years of the war most Latin America countries were neutral as US, after US joining the war they stopped diplomacy with those fascism countries and claimed war against them Mexico and Brazil even sent troops to fight with US.
Other Latin American countries also had done a lot to provide many material supports to US (Zhu 2002 p19). After the war although US did a lot to deepen its influence in economic, political and military terms but because its interventions anti US sense was popular in those Latin American people. In 1959, the Cuba victory pushed this sense to a very high level and rang the alarm to US.
In 1960, US have changed a lot of its attitude to Latin America. The reasons are on one hand, the great fear to the Soviet Union catch up and expansion, on the other hand the fear of Cuba bring communism domino effect to the Latin America countries and finally surrounded by the red empire (Priestland 2010 p48).
From 1960, US launched a lot of actions to suppress communism and gain its power in Latin America. Firstly, the long term actions toward Cuba to intervene and subvert the communism government. One thing should notice is it was not an independent movement but a collective one, countries like Dominica and Guatemala also involved. (Priestland 2010 p48). The relationships between the US and Latin American countries divided into clear branches.
Secondly, ideology competition with communism accompanied with military actions. This movement was trying to reconcile the relationship through ideology penetration and economic aid and at the same time defeat the communism ideologically and physically. (Zhu 2002 p26) But outcomes are not all good as predicted because these ideologies also raised disputes between the US and authoritarian regimes in Latin America.
Thirdly, mainly after the 1980s besides dollar diplomacy to Latin American, the US gave more concentration to Central America and Caribbean area as their most urgent task and changed their military and political strategy to a low intensity one. Nicaragua and EI Salvador can be good examples to understand the policy. (Priestland 2010 p51)
Nicaragua is quite different from other communism country, the reform of the Sandinistas was relatively soft and did not rose much class conflicts maybe partly because the avaricious Somoza regime that only the Somoza family owned 20% of the country’s cultivable land. (Skidmore & Smith 2005 p386)And also the Sandinistas’ different attitudes to capitalist countries relatively friendly and their nonaligned foreign policy make sure at the very beginning of 1980 its relationship with US was not bad, it was still able to get financial help from US (Priestland 2010 p51).
But the implement of the Reagan doctrine changed the situation. US started to sanction Nicaragua economically and politically and fostering any anti Sandinista force to subvert the communism government (Skidmore and Smith 2005 p387-388). The action was brutal almost 1% of the population died in the contra war. Combine with many other factor it finally lead the Sandinista lost the election to weak but pro US candidate (Priestland 2010 p60).
In the EI Salvador case, even under very much domestic pressure, US had not stopped its military intervention. Unit any possible force within Latin American, gave economic aid and sent military advisor to support anti communism regime. (Nigel 1990 p103) Many criticisms had put Vietnam label on this time. This led to 12 years civil war responsible for more than 75,000 deaths (Skidmore and Smith 2010 p388). But the US attitudes changed from purge to negotiation.
Partly because the reform nature and the popularity among people of the FMLN or partly the weakening soviet power, two conflict regime under supervision of US finally ceased fire and lead the EI Salvador to a direction to democracy (Nigel 1990 p105). But the American influence seemed hard to get rid of, even in 2004 when the election seems to be a victory of FMLN, American warned right wing with possibility of economic and political sanctions (Skidmore & Smith2010 p385).
After persuading the Latin American countries with conciliatory policies before the World War II, Roosevelt’s administration had hoped to rally the Latin American countries to cooperate in defending the region. However, during the World War II and after the war, these nations found international military, political and economic relations with communist countries especially with the Soviet Union.
After the World War II, the US had problems containing the spread of communism in Latin American countries. The US policymakers attempted to control radicalism of social change as they argued that the US was encouraging the spread of democracy in these countries. It was difficult curbing the spread of communism and sometimes the US was forced to support undemocratic regimes like that of Anastasio Samoza of Nicaragua.
If at all the United States wished to record any improvements with regard to the alliance it was enjoying with Latin America, the Kennedy administration deemed it necessary to take on board Nicaragua and President Anastasio in all the ensuing economic development programs.
In the 1970s, the Marxist left demonstrated its unwavering support for both Cuba and the Soviet Union, in addition to the desire to create communist regimes in Guatemala, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. This implied that the Soviet Union was expanding power and spreading its communist ideology in America’s backyard.
However, there was sharp division in the Reagan’s administration as conservatives wanted the Marxist left to be defeated while liberals feared another Vietnam-like war between the US and; El Salvador and Guatemala and therefore they did not support any military aid to anticommunist governments or rebel forces.
The US and Nicaragua
The US used the Central Intelligence Agency to achieve most of its ambitions in these countries. In Nicaragua, between 1981 and 1990, particularly in the Reagan’s administration, the CIA carried out several activities to destabilize the government of Nicaragua. They planted mines in harbors mainly those used by the civilians and also sunk civilian ships.
They aided and trained the major rebel group in Nicaragua, the Contras Guerilla Insurgency which had its base in Honduras. The Contras insurgents waged guerilla war on the government and also carried out serious human rights abuse such as murder, torture, rape, kidnappings, arson among others aimed at destabilizing the government and eventually topple it and taking over power (The Catholic Institute for International Relations 11).
They even destroyed social amenities like health care centers and also assassinated the health care workers. According to Leogrande the CIA created the Unilaterally Controlled Latino Assets (UCLAs) group in 1983 to help the US in sabotaging ports, bridges, refineries.
This was part of the US deception strategy so that these activities would be perceived to be Contras sabotage activities. (Leogrande 1993 p340) The UCLA was responsible for the mining of the Nicaraguan harbors that saw many Nicaraguan boats sink and several foreign vessels damaged in January 1984 (Gilbert 1988 p167).
This led to the ratification of the Boland Amendment which barred the provision of arms support to the Contras insurgents (Gilbert 1988 pI67).
The amendment criminalized under the US law the supply of arms to any militant group. However, this did not stop the Reagan’s administration from supporting the Contras militants. Instead the hatched the Iran-Contra Plan which enabled them supply the Contras insurgents with arms.
The US had initially supported the Sandinista-dominated regime by providing economic assistance. US even helped the regime to take over power from the Samoza regime which was also doctorial. On the other hand, the United States government had to withhold its financial support when the conflict in Salvador came into the light.
Moreover, private diplomatic contacts had to be engaged by the US government in a bid to try and persuade the government in Nicaragua to suspend its apparent subversion (Wenchi 2002 p34). The US government also put economic sanctions on Nicaragua and even supported Nicaragua’s neighbors against Nicaraguan aggression.
In 1984, Nicaragua held presidential elections during the state of emergency that was meant to curb the Contras insurgents as well as the CIA-orchestrated bombings. The election was won by President Daniel Ortega. This government now leaned more towards the communist world and relied on the Central Committee of the Communist Party for approval of its activities (Kriele 1986 p56).
The US government maintained its arms support to the Contras insurgents so as to pressure the Nicaraguan government to revert its relations with the communist bloc (Kriele 1986 p57).
It also made regulations that required that any non governmental organization to submit its public statements to the Censorship Bureau before making it public (Chamorro 1988 p23). The continued insurgency by the Contras militants through the US support destabilized the Nicaraguan government and was finally overthrown in 1990 (Chamorro 1988 p25).
The US and the Contras militants forced the Sandinistas to agree to elections which were finally held in 1990 and saw the end of the Sandinistas regime as the election was won by the opposition despite Ortega having used all the resources available and the power he possessed (Chamorro 1988 p27).
The US and El Salvador
In contrast, the US supported the Salvadoran military government against the insurgents from the left-wing militia during this time that it supported insurgents in fighting Nicaragua (Burgerman 1998 p272). During the Salvadoran Civil War which was between the Salvadoran military government and the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) which comprised of five left-wing militias; the US provided arms and economic support to the Salvadoran government and also protected the centrist Christian Democrats as well.
The centrist Christian Democrats were the target of death squads which existed in Latin America (Francesca 2007 p32). In addition, even within the security forces in Salvador, divisions were apparent, with one part of the force affiliated to the reformists and the other part affiliated to the right-wing extremists. In an attempt to prevent the occurrence of an economic or political revolution, right-wing extremists had to rely on the death squad.
According to Francesca Carter’s administration had to intervene again and again to prevent right-wing coups, while Reagan’s administration had to constantly threaten the right-wing extremists with aid suspension so that they could put an end to their killings and acts of violence. (Francesca 2007 p32)
The US was determined to help El Salvador to overcome its bloody fighting since it wanted to ensure that the government did not lean towards the communist regime and that it achieved democracy. Consequently, following many years of involvement in the civil war, it was time now for the US military to intervene and attempt to assist the government contain the insurgence.
As a result, the rebels had no choice but to concede defeat. Since the US wanted the Salvadoran government to commit itself to democratic rule, it threatened the Salvadoran government with aid suspension unless it considered democratic transformations which the government accepted.
This led to the promulgation of a new constitution, reforms in the armed forces and establishment of the civilian police force. The new constitution guaranteed free and fair political participation and prompted the transformation of FMLN from a militia group to a political party and its members granted amnesty. These transformations enabled the Salvadoran government achieve democratic and peaceful environment.
The US and Guatemala
Guatemala was and is still characterized by dictatorial rule and repressive military activities. US provided military aid as well as training to Guatemala’s army in the 1960s and 1970s with an aim of helping it transform its army to be able to counter-insurgency forces (Burgerman 1998 p256). This was the origin of the death squads in Latin America. Government officials, army leaders and all those who supported the death squads had some close attachments with the US government.
The US’s objective was to establish a counterinsurgency base against revolutions which could destabilize the activities of US corporations and US landowners in Guatemala. The US used the CIA and the Guatemalan military to terrorize and eliminate guerillas, labor leaders, professionals and any other person who advocated to for revolution in the system of governance (Brody 1985 p71).
The CIA provided training for the army, the police and the death squads and also provided arms support. However, in 1970s, public reports revealed the Guatemalan military torture and killings which propelled human rights activists in the US to protest against the human rights abuse in Guatemala (Burgerman 1998 p267).
As a result, President Jimmy Carter halted open military aid to Guatemala in 1977. Military aid still continued through the CIA which still supported the atrocities committed by the military and the death squad in the President Lucas Garcia which began in 1978 (Burgerman 1998 p263). This regime set out to eliminate popular leaders in Guatemala.
The 1980s saw more repression and massacre of the native communities by the Guatemalan military supported by the US through the CIA (Burgerman 1998 p262). Again reports revealed the military violations of human rights in Guatemala which made President Reagan to change his open aid policy to Guatemala and to apply the controversial two-track policy.
The Reagan administration supported the military oppression in Guatemala while in public; it made pronouncements which supported human rights and the rule law in Guatemala. The US government still relied on the CIA to liaise with the Guatemalan security forces.
The US government did not intervene in the coup and the dictatorial rule of General Efrain Rios Montt which occurred between 1982 and 1983 (Burgerman 1998 p259). He killed and tortured Indians and those who survived escaped to Mexico. He used deception strategies to establish concentration camps for those who had survived the political genocides that had earlier been carried by the government and used the concentration camps to eliminate them.
His activities against the purported insurgents gave President Reagan the advantage to resume military support to Guatemala arguing that Montt’s counterinsurgency on the guerillas was working. CIA and the Guatemalan military activities did not even stop in President Vinicio Cerezo Arevalo’s regime who was elected in the in December, 1985 (Burgerman 1998 p268). The CIA still provided assistance to the military in its repressive activities.
Towards the end of Reagan’s administration, the government invented a new method for eliminating the indigenous Guatemalan population. The Guatemalan government supported by the US government sprayed toxic herbicides using the anti-drug helicopters (Burgerman 1998 p269).
This caused the death of many people, animals and plants. Those who had fled to remote areas in Guatemala were either killed through the bombings that were carried out in these areas or captured in the pretext of the fight against drugs by applying its anti-drug policy. Those who were captured were tortured and killed.
The Bush administration also continued with Reagan’s two-track policy. In 1989, the Bush administration sent humanitarian aid to Guatemala particularly in areas most occupied by the guerilla movements. This was to convince the public that it supported human rights while the National Guard units which had been sent to provide medical services did more interrogation than provision of medical services.
An American businessman, Michael Devine, was kidnapped and killed in 1990 for having information on Guatemalan military’s drug-trafficking activities. Although President Bush publicly announced an end to Guatemalan military aid, his administration continued to support the Guatemalan military through the CIA.
The activities of the US in Guatemala were driven by the need to protect the United Fruit Company among many other US investments in Guatemala as well as its trade with Guatemala. This company owned about 42% of Guatemala’ land and in addition, the company was exempted from taxes as well as import duties (Burgerman 1998 p266).
Most of those who were involved in this company were in the US ruling circles. This is arguably the reason as to why the US supported the authoritarian regime in Guatemala which was renewed by the inauguration of President Reagan in 1981 while on contrary; they fought the authoritarian right-wing regime in Nicaragua.
Summary
The US relation with Nicaragua was the most conspicuous among Central American countries (Burgerman 1998 p273). The US relations with Guatemala and El Salvador were the exact opposite of its relations with Nicaragua.
While the US government supported the Salvadoran and Guatemalan governments against insurgency forces, it openly supported insurgent forces against the Nicaraguan government. Carter’s administration tried to influence the new government which entered power in 1980 through economic assistance for emergency aid and reconstruction.
However, Reagan entered power in 1981; he halted all the economic support to Nicaragua since Nicaragua pursued communist ideology. Economic sanctions as well as trade embargo were imposed on Nicaragua in 1985 and even convinced Nicaragua’s neighbors to impose trade embargo on Nicaragua.
The US government went to the extent of lobbying the World Bank and the IDB against providing loans to Nicaragua. CIA activities included bombings of the transportation and storage facilities such as pipelines, oil tanks as well as launching helicopter assaults on its mining harbors among other activities. According to Burgerman, the US Congress later on reversed its ban on provision of military support to the Contras militants in 1986 to provide military assistance approximately US$100 million. (Burgerman 1998 p273).
Conclusion
The US policymakers were very much concerned about the US’s national security especially after the World War II and therefore set out to expand its power and influence in Latin America. It was necessary for them to overcome global political and economic instability, and these are issues that presented a lot of risks to its prosperity and security. To them, the Soviet Union was the source of the economic and political instabilities that they were faced with.
The US intervention in any given country was determined by its national interest and ideology and was based on liberalism, its mission and anti-communism. As a result of the cold war the US was desperately trying to gain power and influences in Latin American. And this was showed to the world by the agreement between the US and Soviet Union about recognizing Latin America as the US’s sphere of influence.
Based on different features and conditions of different Latin American countries, US had made different measures and policies to achieve its goal in different time. Different policies have different outcome and impact, and then lead to different effect on bilateral relation among different countries or with one country at different time, so the cold war to a very big extent shaped and influenced the relation between American and Latin America.
Reference
Brody, Reed. Contra Terror in Nicaragua. Boston: South End Press, 1985. Print.
Burgerman, Susan. Making Peace Perform in War-Transition Countries: El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. Boston: South End Press, 1998. Print.
Chamorro, Cardenal. La Prensa, A Republic of Paper: Freedom House. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc, 1988. Print.
Francesca, Davis. El Salvador in Pictures. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century Books, 2007. Print.
Gilbert, Dennis. Sandinistas: the party and the revolution. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988. Print.
Kriele, Martin. Nicaragua: Das blutende Herz Amerikas. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986. Print.
Leogrande, Leonard. Making the Economy Scream: US economic sanctions against Sandinista Nicaragua. Third World Quarterly,17.2(1993).
Nigel, Thomas. Central America WAR 1959-1989. London: Osprey publishing Ltd, 1990. Print.
Priestland, David. The Red Flag. London: Penguin books press, 2010. Print.
Skidmore, Smith. Modern Latin America. London: Oxford university press, 2005. Print.
The Catholic Institute for International Relations. Right to Survive: Human Rights in Nicaragua. London: The Catholic Institute for International Relations, 1987. Print.
Wenchi, Zhu, The communism movement in Latin America. Beijing: DangDaiShiJie Press, 2002. Print.
The international system after the Cold War changed the appearance of the world order drastically. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States of America remained the most powerful country in the world. Thus, the post-Cold War era is characterized by the so-called unipolarity.
The dominant position of the United States is a distinctive feature of the post-Cold War period. The relationships between the US and the Middle East underwent significant modifications too. The shift from bipolar to unipolar international system gave the USA possibility to promote the peaceful coexistence of countries in the Middle East, but the failure to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict and the terrorist attacks on 9/11 made the USA prove its supremacy as a superpower.
The International System during the Cold War
The aim of the essay is to evaluate the impact of the shift from bipolar to the unipolar international system on the Middle East. Consequently, it is necessary to provide an overview of the Cold War period first. The Cold War commenced after the end of the Second World War. The timeframe of this period is 1945-1989. After the overthrow of the Nazi’s Germany, the whole world expected to enter the era of democracy.
Nevertheless, the most devastating human war gave rise to the next conflict. The principal feature of the Cold War world was the rivalry between the United Stated of America and the former USSR (Phillips 2001). One should understand that the Cold War was not a conflict only between the USA and the USSR. The whole world was divided into two parts. It was the conflict of ideologies.
Several reasons preceded the development of the world order during the Cold War. The role of the USSR in the Second World War predetermined its future position. Thus, the country enlarged its territories after the war. Besides, the USSR’s army achieved the victory at Stalingrad, and it became the watershed moment of the war.
This event changed the perception of the USSR. It was known as the country that changed the march of history. Also, the USSR’s ideological system began spreading in European countries. The last significant factor was that the demobilization did not concern the Red Army at the end of the war.
The Soviet Union had a superiority regarding military power (CVCE 2015). At the same time, the Soviet Union damages were the most devastating. The country lost almost thirty million people during the war. Its industry was utterly ruined. The USSR had no air or navy forces. It had no nuclear weapon too. Despite all these disadvantages, the country remained the other significant power due to its contributions to the war (Painter & Leffler 2005).
The role of the United States of America in the WWII was also significant. Although the country did not have substantial losses, it contributed substantially to the achievement of the common victory. Almost all US Army was demobilized a few months before the end of the war. Nevertheless, the US Army remained the strongest in the world. The US’ air and navy forces were incomparable to any other in the world.
Also, the economy of the country was the most powerful. The war destroyed everything in other European countries while the US retained its industrial and agricultural capacities. As a result, the dollar became the primary international currency, and the country established its position in the arena of global politics (CVCE 2015).
Even more, the country benefited significantly from the war. Thus, its gross domestic product almost doubled during the period of the WWII. The country was the only producer of nuclear weapons until 1949 (Painter & Leffler 2005).
National Interests in the Middle East
The Cold War did not begin in the Middle East. Nevertheless, the Middle East always a played a substantial part in the international affairs. Khalidi (2009) provides readers with four main points concerning the role of the Middle East in the international system during the Cold War.
The author starts with the fact that territories of the Middle East have always been used for particular activities of European states. Khalidi (2009, p. 15) writes that ‘the Middle East was an important arena for the operation of the traditional European state system, but Middle Eastern countries were not fully accepted as a part of that system’. The author provides the Ottoman Empire as the example. The Empire controlled vast areas in the southern Europe.
Although European states participated in the intensive rivalry with the Ottoman Empire, the latter was not regarded as a part of the international system despite its might. Khalidi (2009) also emphasizes the fact that the European countries do not want to recognize non-Christian societies as equal.
The second point refers to the idea of the promotion of independence and integration. During the Cold War period, the United Nations Charter and the Covenant of the League of Nations were proclaimed. According to these treaties, countries unified as participants in the new international order. Again, some states of the Middle East were not included in these agreements. For example, the Palestinians, the Armenians, and the Kurds were not given the possibility to enjoy the international world order (Khalidi 2009).
The third idea of the author concerns the role of the Middle East’ territories in Western rivalries. Despite changes in the international system, the Middle East remained the primary field for the struggle between two supreme powers — the US and the Soviet Union. Thus, both states aimed at achieving dominance over the region. Khalidi (2009, p. 16) claims, ‘states and peoples in the Middle East were essential objects but were generally not allowed to be subjects, of international relations’.
The bipolar Cold War engaged such countries as Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Israel, and Egypt in the rivalry. Consequently, people and weak states were victims of the polarized world. Finally, the author points at the ineffectiveness of the international systems. The task of the international unions such as United Nations is to promote a peaceful existence of all countries.
It is logical that United Nations should restrict USA’s intentions to became a dominant power in the Middle East. On the contrary, it seemed that such actions were even favored. The degree to which the US was allowed to act in Iraq and Palestine should serve as examples of the statement.
Plans for the Middle East
Both the United States of America and the Soviet Union had particular intentions concerning the Middle East. However, their targets were not interconnected initially. Before the development of rivalry with the USSR, America’s primary interest in the Middle East concerned oil.
According to Sasley (2014), the United States produced two-thirds of the total oil output in the world. A few years later, the government realized that the source of petroleum was not endless. The only solution was to look for foreign sources of oil. Otherwise, America would lose its power.
Initially, the Soviet Union had domestic motives for the expansion in the Middle East (Dannreuther 2012). As Sasley (2014) writes, all Russian czars shared the idea of the necessity to expand Russian territories. Central Asia and the Middle East were ideal areas for expansion.
However, the plan was difficult to realize because of crucial differences between nations. Also, Communists were afraid of potential rebels. The competition between countries began when both the US and the Soviet Union realized the need to prevent the expansion of the rival state. Haliday (2005) differentiates four stages of the Cold War that are characterized by particular effects on the Middle East.
The first phase commenced immediately after the end of the WWII in 1945 and lasted until 1955. The conflict occurred in the “northern tier” — non-Arab countries (Turkey and Iran) that underwent massive devastation from both the USSR and the USA (Harbutt 2010). During the second stage, the USSR enhanced the power of several radical countries of the Middle East including Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. At the same time, the USA supported Jordan and Saudi Arabia (conservative countries).
This period resulted in deep crisis known as the “Arab Cold War” (Immerman & Goedde 2013). The next stage started in 1975 and lasted until 1985. It was the period of the most intense rivalry between the US and the USSR. During that phase, the relationships between countries of the Middle East aggravated. It resulted in the protracted Afghanistan war. According to Ajami (1978), such situation led to the end of the pan-Arabism.
The decline of the Muslim order and unity was caused by rivalry between the US and the USSR, the Palestine defeat, the Six Day War, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The last stage had positive effects on the Middle East. Mikhail Gorbachev became the leader of the USSR.
He promoted the idea of “new thinking”. As Zubok (2007, p. 304) writes, ‘this man [Mikhail Gorbachev] did more than anyone else to the end of the Cold War between East and West’. Gorbachev’s political activity resulted in the recognition of Israel by PLO, the end of the Iraq-Iran war, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, and the unity of two Yemens (Haliday 2005).
The International System during the Post-Cold War Period
The Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. As a result, only one major power left — the USA. The international system shifted from bipolar to unipolar. The end of the Cold War had both positive and adverse effects on the world and the Middle East, in particular. On the one hand, the rivalry between ideologies ended. Consequently, conflicts between them ended too. On the contrary, other conflicts arose, especially in post-Soviet areas (Yilmaz 2008).
Monteiro (2012) defines three distinctive features of the unipolar system. First, an inter-state system presupposes the peaceful coexistence of many states. Second, the unipolar system is anarchic. Anarchy means the inability to control all places in the world at the same time. Third, power is not balanced in the unipolar system due to the lack of competition. Once there is a competitive force, it is no longer a unipolar system.
The impact of the USA’s dominance on the Middle East
The history of the Middle East changed drastically since the end of the Cold War. The United States of America increased its hegemony in the Middle East region. There were no rivals to oppose the country. As a result, countries of the Middle East fell under the influence of the US. The history of the USA’s impact on the Middle East during the post-Cold War era concerns four major events.
These events include the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles, terrorist attack on September 9 in 2001, and the occupation of Iraq in 2003. All these experiences are extremely controversial from the point of view of their effectiveness and necessity.
On the one hand, the US promoted peace in the Middle East and opposed terrorist organizations. On the contrary, the US followed particular national purposes and interfered in the political system of the Middle East. In the following part of the paper, all main events will be examined separately.
The Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait
Saddam Hussein, being the president of Iraq, initiated the invasion of Kuwait by Iraqi troops in 1990. Hussein engaged one hundred thousand troops to invade small Kuwait. The latter had no more than fifteen thousand troops to oppose Iraqi forces (Rice 2009). The reason for conflict referred to Iraq’s urgent need to stabilize its economy. After the war in 1988, Iraq was bankrupt. Kuwait was rich in oil resources.
Iraq’s government claimed to Kuwait as a territory of Iraq. Initially, the United Stated did not interfere in the conflict. Together with UN, they imposed sanctions on Iraq and followed the policy of condemnation. Nevertheless, such reaction did not bring any result. Later, Saudi Arabia, the neighbor of Kuwait, asked the US to provide military assistance. The US became interested in the protection of Kuwait as far as it was close to Saudi Arabia.
As far as Kuwait was not far from Saudi Arabia’s oil fields, Hussein had the opportunity to seize them as well. Consequently, there was a need to react adequately. The US initiated the mission known as Operation Desert Storm to prevent the invasion (Gulf War, n.d.). Kuwait was liberated although the conflict was not resolved. This event aggravated the relationships between Iraq and the US. On the other hand, the US protected rights of the state and promoted peace in the Middle East.
The Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles
The US participated in the long-lasting Arab-Israeli conflict since its inception. In the post-Cold War period, the US aimed at promoting peace in both Israel and Palestine. The interference of the US positively affected this issue. The USA, being the superpower, did not need Israel to oppose the Soviet Union anymore. At the same time, Palestine lost the support of the USSR and was more open to collaboration (Ross 2010).
Consequently, the USA promoted the collaboration. The USA insisted on negotiations. As a result, both countries recognized each other according to the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles in 1993. (Beinin & Hajjar 2014). Unfortunately, armistice did not last for a long time. In September 2000, the second intifada (military resistance) started again. This event became one of the prerequisites that changed the US’s attitude towards the Middle East.
9/11 and the US occupation of Iraq in 2003
Terrorist attacks in 2001 altered the USA’s intentions towards the Middle East. At September 11, two hijacked planes were purposely directed into twin towers of the World Trade Centre (McGoldrick 2004). This event was extremely stressful for the whole world. It undermined hope into bright future. The superpower of the world, the USA, turned out to be vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
As Rice (2008, p. 5) stated, the United States of America supported the Middle East for sixty years, but ‘after September 11, it became increasingly apparent that this old bargain had produced false stability’. This event made President Bush proclaim the War on Terror and change the foreign policy towards the Middle East. The USA aimed at proving its superiority and ability to protect residents of the country.
Events of 9/11 were directly connected to the occupation of Iraq in 2003. President Bush accused Saddam Hussein in the organization of the terrorist attack. Nevertheless, these claims remained unproven though they led to the invasion of Iraq. According to Hinnebusch (2007), there were other motives for the invasion.
The advantageous location of the Middle East countries and the hegemony over oil market were unacceptable for the USA. Besides, the country faced the urgent need to increase its oil bases. Iraq had the second largest reserve of petroleum in the world. As far as Saddam Hussein hold the office of president, it was impossible to come to the agreement. Thus, the war with Iraq as a terrorist country was the ideal solution to the problem.
Conclusion
During the Cold War, the rivalry between the USA and the Soviet Union aggravated the situation in many countries in the Middle East. The end of the Cold War led to the formation of one superpower, the USA, and its dominance in the international arena. The USA assisted the Middle East in opposing Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nevertheless, the terrorist attacks on September 11 changed the USA’s foreign policy drastically.
Reference List
Ajami, F 1978, ‘The End of Pan-Arabism,’ Foreign Affairs, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 355-373.
Beinin, J & Hajjar, L 2014, Palestine, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Web.