Unformatted text preview: POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester 1/22/03 Models of International Relations There are two main theories of international relations, realism and Global Interdependence Realism predominant outlook of international events 1) war is natural state of affairs; the world is defined in terms of pursuit of power and self interest. The nature of mankind is to want to dominate and have power; nationsstates are mainly motivated by their own national security. Why is the international environment so different than the domestic environment? How is it different? -In the domestic environment there are laws, bureaucracies to interpret those laws and decide how they should be put into practice, and a police force to enforce those laws. -In the international community, beginning with the 17th century, there are sovereign states. Because of this they have a formal equality with each other and are not subordinated to any higher authority then the state. The state is supreme. This is why the international system is anarchical. This refers to the idea that there is no higher authority, no police force to maintain order in the international arena. Rather whichever states are most strong, are able to dominate. -Theoretically the UN security council represents a collective body of states and attempts to keep the peace but it has no power apart from the power the states give it. ) 2) The security dilemma is a main motivating factor in realist theory. What is this security dilemma? Nation A arms itself for defensive purposes. Seeing nation A arming itself, Nation B feels the need to arm itself to protect it from nation A. Nation A, seeing Nation B now arming itself, feels it now has to increase its arming. ( arms race, and really less security) a) One school of realist thought is that this proliferation acts as a deterrent to war, for both sides fear destruction. Hence, why, despite the intense rhetoric of the time and slight skirmishes along the way, the US and USSR essentially maintained peace for the entire Cold War period. b) Another school of realist thought posits that the very existence of these massive arms races lead to the constant threat that these weapons might be used! There is no deterrent only extreme and constant tension! Essentially the security dilemma is, do preparations for war create conditions for peace or lead countries to war? Is defense preparedness purely defensive or does it also have the possibility of aggressiveness? The inability to determine motives of rivals leads nations to construe defense preparedness as possibly aggressive and therefore the need to react by furthering their military and preparedness. Nations are also predisposed to see rival nations actions' as hostile. They refuse to be idealistic and nave. Better to prepare for the worst.
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 1 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester 3) Why Realism occurs- 21209, 21208 The theory focuses on human nature. It posits that men by nature are prone to conflict and this tendency is furthered by the insecurity of the system, which by definition forces on nation to arm in response to its fellow who has to more perhaps merely for defense. Does the system force human nature or does human nature force the system? Are states' motives based on a fear of attack from their neighbor (system) or do states' desire to attack and conquer (human nature)? Global Interdependence -Those who subscribe to this view of international relations believe that realism's focus on war is obsolete and irrelevant in the post WWII/Cold War world. There is no longer this preoccupation with war that motivates all state decisions in the international realm. 1) Interdependence theory is based on the idea is that there is a new world society in which nations must cooperate because the problems of the world can no longer be solved solely through war. Issues such as poverty, disease, technology and modernity are things that need to be addressed in the international community. Realism is not functional for dealing with these issues. Interdependence focuses on the abilities of nations to create institutions to move away from the anarchy principle and to instead foster cooperation and collaboration. If, for example, we had an effective UN, which could deter aggression, then perhaps nation-states wouldn't feel the need to arm themselves and we could thus end the security dilemma. The linking of nations on levels other then the threat of war leads to aversion of war. For example the economic ties between Taiwan and China will probably help avoid war in that region. Hard power- military strength Soft power- you get `B' to do what you want, not through military coercion, but rather because it is in their interest to do so. Interdependence believes that connections should be fostered between all nations and that these connections will help to avoid conflicts in other areas. It therefore precludes the use of military force. 1/27/03 Marxism -there are several subcategories underneath this heading The reason the world is interdependent is related to the world capitalist system which also is the source for inequalities between rich and poor nations. Marxism claims that there can never be true interdependence because of differences in growth, income, etc. in different countries and therefore the unfair advantages richer countries are given.
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 2 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester (Pg. 20 in Holsty book has table which gives differences in these models) Foreign Policy Decisions 1) Who receives the information to make Foreign Policy Decisions? a) Individuals (Presidents, foreign service officers, executive department heads, etc.) b) groups (Congress, Executive departments, cabinet, etc.) -pressures of conformity and conflict suppression, group think (i.e. when people are in small, cohesive groups there is an implicit pressure to conform because people don't want to be disruptive of the group or upset the equilibrium that a group has achieved) 2) How do the various policy makers process information and what problems do they face? A) Information overload B) Based on existing policy vs. changing policy based on a current crissis C) denial of severity of crisis -The pressure of the situation effects how a person makes a decision 3) What are decision-makers attempting to do? a) make specific foreign policy decisions or is it attempting to b) determine possible outcomes of certain decisions in ceratin situations Areas of study in foreign policy 1) Individuals -leaders have extraordinary impact on issues (Saddam Hussein, George H. Bush, etc.) -Do leaders behave because of their own psychology or are they driven by the context of their situation? 2) Domestic System and Government Institutions -what is the nature of the political culture of a society, democratic, socialist; what is its class structure, etc. 3) Structure of international system (I.e. the interaction of states and the distribution of power amongst them); geopolitics -how do decisions of specific states in specific times affect the international realm -Did the Cold War occur because there was a geopolitical environment with a vacuum of power and so the superpowers had to engage in rivalry or was it in reaction to Stalin and other cold war fears? How do bureaucracies work and how are decisions made within them? What are the conflicts that arise within and between them? 1) fights over resources 2) differing agendas 3) debates over power and authority 1/29/03 The setting of US Foreign Policy, Institutional and Historical Who makes foreign policy decisions and what forces influences these decisions?
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 3 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester US Institutional StructureShared responsibility between executive branch (both leadership, and various advisors) and legislative branch. Executive1. President, 2. Various advisory bodies (cabinets, heads of departments, NSC ["Kitchen Cabinet"]) -The president has a specialized staff of foreign affairs experts. Legislative1. Congress -responsive to its constituency, one that is much more limited than the president's Apart from these formal institutions there are also other elements and interests.1) Private sector interests (I.e. oil, big business) 2) lobbies 3) PACS The foreign policy establishment is made up of prominent people in law, banking, industry and academia as well as the President and Congress. Constitutionally Shared PowersShared powers- the idea of a dispersal of power amongst the various ruling branches to avoid the concentration of power in the hands of a few and to protect the integrity of American democracy. There is an allocation between the President, who the commander in chief, and Congress which has power of the purse, to declare war, to raise taxes and to regulate trade. Congress can appropriate funds for war or not. These conflicting powers often lead to struggles for power between the various governmental branches and we have had a shifting from one branch to another in terms of foreign policy at different times in our history. During the Cold War for instance, the president tended to assert and assume more power over policy then Congress and congress was seem as somewhat abrogating its responsibility giving rise to the "Imperial Presidency." Since Vietnam, Congress has been much more assertive. There are advantages and disadvantages to the having either branch more dominant in foreign policy. With Congress, one is much more likely to have a varied perspective on policy due to the nature of Congress- 535 members representing very different constituencies and outlooks. But this nagging questions of Congress being tied to local interests has always been a problem with their relation to foreign policy. The president, however, does not have to worry about local interests and has the capacity to create intelligence apparatus and therefore acquire and use intelligence much more quickly and hopefully more effectively then Congress ever can. MediaSometimes there is a very compliant media, one that is a conduit for the administration. At other times there is a very adversarial media, one that attempts to
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 4 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester mold public opinion either in favor or in opposition the administration. The CNN effect- The idea that, by bringing to the public's attention certain issues, whether its people starving in Somalia or being slaughtered in Rwanda, the media compel policy makers to pay attention to the issues that "the public is worried about and wants to respond to." They can bring issues to the agenda that an administration wants to neglect. With developments in telecommunications and satellite technology the media is to beam into our living rooms scenes from crises worldwide. Therefore, there influence has been evident more and more in recent years The media is supposed to be an independent area of society that attempts to preserve democracy and informs the public, educates them and arouses them to action. It also has a role in conveying official prospective to the public Critical scrutiny vs. lapdog media vs. special interest media public debate can be very powerfully shaped by the media. Private GroupsInterest groups, lobbies, PACs, etc. all have major roles in the formation of foreign policy based on their abilities to donate funds and promise votes. Private prominent people (academia, banking, etc.) move back and forth between private and public roles so that it is unavoidable that private interests have influence on public policy formulation. Historical and Policitcal setting for US Policy1) American exceptionalismThe idea that American society was unique from and less fractious then Europe and the rest of the world. American had no aristocracy or military class, no ongoing wars and a very different class structure. Some of this is true, but no one could deny that there were indeed great disparities, specifically with regards to minority groups, in the US even though maybe it wasn't as bad as Europe. 2) Emerging role of the US in the 2nd half of the 20th century, -After WWII, the US through its economic and military strength, thanks in no small part to Western Europe's devastation, rose to global supremacy. 3) Despite this power and supremacy, there is also an aspect of vulnerability. a) technological, In the pre-war period the US was fairly secure in its physical security because of the two oceans protection.. With the development of weapon technology such as intercontinental missiles andnuclear bombs, the oceans were no longer protection. Enemies could now attack the US from ranges that had never before been conceived b) economical, the US economy need to extend its reach to overseas markets for resources, materials and energy. This led to a great dependence on foreign markets and materials. Resources could be denied, markets could be closed, the US was no longer self sufficient. Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 5 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester With power does not necessarily come control. Actually, paradoxically, as US power and influence increased, its vulnerability increased. This seemed to be a result of the realist security dilemma. The US armed itself and entered into alliances, placed its troops overseas, and developed economic presences overseas. This led to other countries, mainly the USSR feeling threatened and therefore the need to counter what they perceived as a threat. In terms of the growing conflict between the US and USSR, the first chapter of the leFeber book gives a background up to WWI. (read that) LaFeber details the varying periods of alliances and hostilities through the years between the Americans and the Russians. Specifically, he talks about periods of cooperation and then the events that led to growing adversarial relations. He also contrasts the US system and the Soviet system not soley in terms of capitalist/communist but rather the bureaucratized system of the USSR vs. the federal system of the US. This is interesting because when the USSR extended its empire, the Soviets saw their capacity to control their empire specifically through the method of bureaucracy. They wanted to prevent western countries from having access to that vast area of resources and markets. Here was origins of the conflict between these countries. The US fought for open access to resources and markets and had to deal with a USSR that by virtue of its system, wanted to close off areas that presented the US with economic opportunity. Open trade was fundamental to US security and interests. The Soviets wanted it closed. 2/3/03 Origins and Background of The Cold War -Aside from LaFeber, nearly all theorists agree that the Cold War has its origins Post-WWII. 1) Firstly there were the obvious differences in ideologies and economics between the US and USSR, this was the most obvious source of tension 2) In the post-war world there were several power vacuums, in eastern and western Europe, in Africa, in the Middle East, etc. Each super power tried to take advantage of them. 3) Mutual misperceptions, each saw in the other the attempt to conquer the world. USSR's suspicions of US and the West1) Pre-WWII, The Europeans had tried to overthrow Lenin and undermine the Russian Revolution. Wilson sent American troops to help. 2) Lack of American support against Germans originally; Senator Truman along with others in US government had wanted to let the Nazis and Communists kill each other out. -Truman- "If we see that Germany is winning we should help Russia, and if Germany is losing let us help them" 3) The Soviets seemed to genuinely want a defensive buffer zone in Eastern
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 6 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester Europe and were incensed that the US and the West were against this. The USSR had twice in the last century been attacked from the West, it seems legitimate that they were simply trying to prevent that in the future. The main grounds for US suspicion and outrage at the USSR was their post-war domination of Eastern Europe. Why was the US so totally outraged by the presence of the Soviets in Eastern Europe? 1) They were worried that this was the first step towards Communist expansion in all of Europe and then the rest of the world 2) The US needed an open economic system. The Americans needed access to the resources, goods and markets that Eastern Europe offered in order to maintain the strength of their economy. -Russia wanted to control the Baltic states (i.e. Poland, Finland Romania) These had been part of Czarist Russia and the USSR wanted them back. The US wanted them to be free. There was therefore clearl a link between US domestic and foreign policy. Domestically, America needed to keep the economy healthy so as to maintain its prosperity. In order to do this, they needed to ensure access to foreign markets. This forced them to fight to keep foreign markets open. ChinaOriginally, China was seen as having a billion potential consumers. This seems kind of odd in that China was mainly an impoverished peasant society, they weren't going to have the money to buy US products. In order to get a market in which to sell goods, the US would have to build it from the ground up with economic support and the like. The US needed external markets and in order to get them, the US actually had to construct those very markets themselves!! It was hoped that Chinese consumers would help to avoid depression in the US. EuropeAll the European markets, British, French, Dutch, etc. were devastated. During this post-war period, Most were forced to give up their foreign colonies. The US attempted to replace European power with US dominance. BipolarityThe transition to peace therefore was a complex process. As these retreating colonial powers were stripped of their empires, the Soviets and Americas emerged in a new bipolar system. Bipolar system suggests symmetry, that the two superpowers were more or less equal and able to counter each other. This was NOT the case. The USSR was just as devastated as the rest of Europe after WWII. Their navy was destroyed, their transportation systems were weak, their industrial system was nonfunctioning, and their railways were in a great state of disrepair. Also at this point the Soviets had yet to develop nuclear weapons. Therefore it was difficult for the USSR to
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 7 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester truly challenge the US because of American atomic weapons, military strength and industrial power. The USSR was working on reconstructing its society and economy while the US was already a full fledged global power. This imbalance led the US to believe that they could use their superiority as leverage against the USSR and compel it to conform to US interests in terms of the Eastern European countries as well as any other aggressive interests that the Soviets might want to proceed with. The role of Germany at this stage was crucial. Was it to be divided and left undeveloped or was it to be reconstructed? Was a prosperous Germany essential to the prosperity of Europe and the US or was it too big a risk to let Germany again build the industrial strength that would allow them to rearm and possibly threaten the world again? LaFeber talks about these questions in terms of a US creed (the connection between foreign and domestic policy). The US felt it needed to import certain minerals for its industrial system, which the US didn't have domestically and for which there were no substitute in that time in history. This was seen as crucial to US industry. Therefore, an "iron fence" around Europe was unthinkable. Essentially, the first "battle" in the Cold War came down to USSR "security interests" vs. US economic needs. LaFeber notes the contradiction in US policy. On the one hand, the US pushed for an "open-door" policy where all nations would be free of outside influence and able to develop their own open-market systems. On the other hand, there was exclusive American control of the Western hemisphere! The US was closing off Latin America and North America to the rest of the world, while protesting that the USSR was doing the same thing in Eastern Europe! Secretary of War Henry Stimson, argued against this imperial role of the US in Latin America. What was the US view about Soviet designs and motives at this time? The Americans believed that the Soviets had barbaric expansionist visions, and wanted to do all they could to prevent that image from becoming reality. Therefore, the US had adopted a "get tough" policy with the Soviets. Based on what they perceived as American advantages across the board, they believed that the USSR would have no choice but to acquiesce to American demands. (Secretary of Agriculture Wallace, was a quiet voice of dissent in that he wanted to baby the Russians). Truman's administration felt that any attempts to negotiate with the USSR would be seen by them as weakness. The debate in US foreign policy, led by men such as the Secretary of Agriculture, was, were Stalin's sadistic policieces limited to Russia and therefore the US could negotiate in terms of the rest of the world or did Stalin have designs on world domination
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 8 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester and did the US have no choice but to get tough. Get Tough Foreign policy based on three main pillars1) all civil unrest is initiated by the Soviets 2) Soviets can't be allowed expand 3) US is only power able to meet Soviet threat (Imperial burden) Questions of "Get Tough" policyAmbrose talks about the rejection of Soviet requests for aid and how that compelled the Soviets to embark on harsh and coercive 5 year plans, the consequences of which were harsh on the Soviet and Soviet dominated people. If the US had been more open, its conceivable that Stalin might have been less harsh. LaFeber talks about Secretary of State Byrne who believed that you couldn't use economic-aid as leverage to pressure the Soviets, they simply would not budge based on those threats. The BombIn 1945, the US had an atomic bomb monopoly. (post-Hiroshima, Nagasaki) This allowed the Americans to believe that they could fight the Cold War without endangering people or pocketbooks. Throughout this period they engaged in "bomb on the hip diplomacy" which Ambrose claims actually put the US in a horrible position because they could rarely justify actual use of the bomb. At this time, an attempt was made to prevent development of atomic weapons under a UN mandate. The US attempted to set up an international authority (The UN Atomic Energy Commission) to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The hope was that the Soviets could be induced to not proceed with the development of nuclear weapons by either1) the US sharing its nuclear weapons or 2) for the US to give up its weapons However, the Soviets and Americans reached an impasse in that, as long as the US had a monopoly, the Soviets would not demobilize, and as long as they wouldn't demobilize the US wouldn't give up its bomb. Due to this, it seemed unlikely that the spread of atomic weapons would be stopped. Arms race 1946-Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech. Praised military capacity of US and suggested that G-d had willed for the US to have nuclear weapons. Stalin's saw this speech as a direct call to war against the Soviet Union and basically established the Soviet bloc with his harsh 5 year plans. There was an atmosphere of bluff/counter bluff, reaction/counter reaction, and threat/counter threat. A security dilemma had developed in which every move that one side took for security was seen as provocation by the other side. It led to each country seeking influence in its own spheres and zones, expensive arms races, military alliances and interventions. It led to the Cold War. 2/5/03 Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 9 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester What was the policy of containment? A forming of an anti-communist block to prevent the expansion of the USSR. Basically, containment called for the holding of the Soviets at their currenty borders and not allowing them any further expansion. It was assumed that any civil unrest in any part of the world it was instigated by the Soviets. Therefore, any of this unrest justified US intervention. This became the hallmark for US foreign policy. Any regime trying to prevent communists from taking power would be guaranteed protection by the US. Truman DoctrineTruman spoke to Congress about "a grand crusade of light against darkness." He said he needed the immense public support at this grave juncture. There were totalitarian regimes that threatened to "snuff out" freedom everywhere. The time had come for people to choose between alternative ways of life. (see 2 paragraphs in Ambrose's book) Truman wanted to "scare the hell out of the American people" `Mr. X' (George Kennan- State Department official)Published newspaper articles pushing for adoption of the Truman doctrine in terms of foreign policy. He saw the USSR as aggressive, uncompromising and ideologically driven (Communism and Leninism). In his article he attempted to explain the grounds of Soviet behavior. The Soviets, he said, genuinely felt that they were victims of "capitalist encirclement" and that they needed to regiment their own forces to deal with this threat. Thus all Soviet behavior could be explained in terms of security and aggression. The US, he said, must be prepared to confront the USSR with "unalterable counter-force." He claimed the need to show the Soviets that their encroachments would be stopped at every stage. Did this conform to classic realism? In the sense that it focused on Military security yes. But realists argued against it because it made no differentiation between vital national interests and this "worldwide campagin against the forces of darkness." Realists did not believe in going out and fighting for world morality. Marshall Plan-Secretary of State General George Marshall -Program to provide vast economic assistance to devastated European economies.. Its clear military purpose was to restore Europe so that it could withstand a potential Soviet attack. The main question was, should each country submit separate aid requests or should there be one major economic plan? The USSR felt that one block plan was unfair and enabled the US to control their internal economic affairs. A country specific plan would allow the USSR to determine what information they had to give out and what requests they had to make. In the end, the US chose a general economic reconstruction plan, a policy they knew they would adopt from the start, and the Soviets and their satellites withdrew aid
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 10 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester requests. The Marshall plan satisfied the people who wanted a robust European economy. It satisfied humanitarians and anti-communists who were in favor of preventing the spread of communism. Its main motivation was fear that the poverty and chaos of Europe might be a fertile ground for the communists to establish power. LaFeber- Fear that Europe would collapse was very important consideration "the patient is sinking while the doctors deliberate" Two halves of the same walnut1) Military security (Truman doctrine) 2) economic reconstruction (Marshall plan) Economics connected to Security1) Open markets needed to keep US economy afloat; Truman equated the personal freedoms at home with the ability to trade overseas. 2) Unless European economies were reconstructed, our economy would be devastated and the Government would be needed to regulate it immensely 3) The US needed to protect foreign non-communist governments for the collapse of governments elsewhere would prevent US prosperity Therefore, the main goals of US foreign Policy at this time were1) relieving world hunger 2) reconstructing Europe 3) saving US trade 4) ousting Communists 5) Building Alliances Struggle with CongressAs mentioned above, there is a constant struggle for control of foreign power between the executive and legislative branches. At this point in time, due to Truman's tactics, the executive wrested this power from the legislative branch. Why was the doctrine seen as such a landmark? 1) swing to the executive power 2) first time US would interfere in Europe in peacetime 3) first time that the US offered such a massive economic aid package 4) galvanized support from US public In response to the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan, the Soviets formed the Molotov plan Stalin demanded complete obedience and conformity from Soviet satellites. 2/10/03 Criticisms of the Truman Doctrine Complaints came from the realists, leftists, rightists, etc.
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 11 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester There disagreement over true Soviet motives and strategies and there was a suggestion that US was de-emphasizing moderation due to Soviet weakness. Many believed that the nature of the threat had been exaggerated. The main debate was, were the Soviets truly aggressive at this or were they provoked to be more aggressive by the US actions. Critiques of Truman Doctrine1)Too Passive -this complaint was lodged by those on the far right who believed that the USSR was a barbaric society bent on world domination; they demanded that the US rollback Soviet gains and not simply accept the status quo 2) Too confrontational - this complaint was voiced by those on the left who claimed that the only reason the Soviets were becoming more aggressive was because they felt threatened. This group believed that the doctrine was so provocative that it would lead to conflict with the USSR 3) Improper evaluation of national interests - This was the complaint of the realists. Whether or not the USSR was behaving because of US aggression or not, the realists belived that the doctrine simply gave much to broad a defintion to "national security needs." If, as Truman claimed, US interests were based mainly in Europe then why was there a need to get involved in encounters with the USSR all over the globe? -Truman responded to the leftists and realists with the "domino idea." If one country, in a certain region, fell to communism, it would lead to all the ones around it falling and therefore a Soviet thrust into the west. After defining the US interests in containing the Soviet threat worldwide, the US adopted 3 tools to accomplish this1) A base system worldwide which would allow US troops to be station in countries around the world and therefore more able to respond quickly to crisis situations; US needed "strategic frontiers" beyond US territory -expanded defense perimeter of US so that it could be used in deterrent, defensive, or offensive modes; also allowed the US to fight wars away from US territory have defensive, deterrent and offensive capability 2) Flight rights, asked all countries in regions threatened by the Soviets for rights to fly over their territory if the need arose 3) Exclusive control of the Western Hemisphere; the Soviets could never be allowed to make a western thrust. -In 1947, the Truman administration also formed the National Security Committee headed by National Security Advisor that answered directly to the President. He also joined the various military departments into one defense department and set up the Joint
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 12 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester Chiefs of Staff so as to strategize military decisions together between all three military branches (army, navy, air force)NSC 20/4 (1948) -basic statement of US foreign policy which clarified and laid out goals -The US would use all the means at its command to safeguard its security and prevent Soviet domination of Europe and Asia. Not only would the US withstand current Soviet power but it would reduce Soviet power. 1) This would be accomplished through expansion of US and Western military strength worldwide and would be accomplished as follows1) the rebuilding of Japan and Germany 2) US access to the resources of Europe and Asia 3) Atomic weapons World power was shifting so dramatically on so many different fronts at this time it was difficult to keep everything in prospective Some of the main issues of the time1) The demise of the British Empire 2) China's fall to Communism 3) Asian independence (India, Burma, Pakistan, etc.) 4) the creation of Israel 5) nationalist uprisings in Indochina against France 6) upsurge of Communist parties in France and Italy There was also a fear that if Communists came to power, even if they weren't directly connected to USSR they would be a force to discredit western economic and political systems and would prevent the west from having access to the resources they needed 2) Connected Military and Economic Needs -needed both access to foregin resources and prevention of those resources from falling into Soviet hands Clearly there is room to question whether the Truman doctrine and Marshall plan were the proper response to the situation of the time with debate centered around actual Soviet motives. Different approaches to the Cold War1) assign responsibility to USSR -adopted policies of expansion, aggression, imperialism, belligerence, domination -due to Marxism? -due to nationalism? 2) assign responsibility to US a) capitalism is by definition expansionist in that it based on the search for world markets and resources b) "arrogance of power"; theUS had to seek outlets overseas and was also "carrying the bomb on the hip", thereby brushing aside legitimate Soviet security needs
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 13 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester and forcing Soviet aggression c) (in Schulzinger) the US was underestimating the force it would have to apply to contain the USSR, d) the US used blackmail; they used the Soviet threat in order to force the Western Europeans to accept US control through economic assistance 3) assign responsibility to both US and USSR -As the Chinese felt, the US and USSR were colluding amongst themselves to dominate the world; the two super powers were destroying nationalist revolutions and the like in order to protect their spheres of influence ; they were both out to maintain the status quo 4) The origings of the Cold War had nothing to do with the US and USSR per say but rather were a result of the decline of the traditions colonial powers. This led to a power vacuum and an unavoidable clash between the US and USSR as they tried to gain a status within that vacuum 2/12/03 The formation of NATO and military aspects of containment 1950- National Security Document Report 68 (NSC 68) Authored by SecState Acheson and superseded NSC 20/4 NSC 68 was a Statement of US foreign policy during the Cold War; it went beyond containment and forwarded the idea that there had to be a military approach, not limited containment It was Based on 2 main propositions1) The USSR was fanatical, militaristic and bent on exerting its authority in areas of its control and then extending that domination 2) US had to play role in protecting "free societies from slave societies" (Totalitarian) -Acheson said it was essential that the US maintain order around the world in order for the US to survive. Wanted to develop US positions globally as "positions of strength", purpose was absolute victory as opposed to containment. This represented an abandonment of the policy of containment and diplomatic solutions with USSR. Aspects of Military preparedness that NSC 68 called for1) With the bomb monopoly in 1945 destroyed in 1949, Truman pushed for faster development of H Bomb, and a larger arsenal of A-bomb (mid 50s there were 300 atomic bombs and 260 aircraft with which to drop bombs in the US) 2) Build up of conventional military strength -mainly accomplished through encouragement for the recovery of Europe C) Increased budget through higher taxes -required Truman to convince Americans of the sacrifices that they would have to bear D) Developed alliances with western Europe -NATO
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 14 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester NATONorth Atlantic Treaty Organization; a collective defense pact Article 5an attack on any one of the members of NATO would be perceived as an attack on all and all countries were required to pool their resources and respond to such an attack. Disadvantages: were that several countries would now be required to become involved in smaller countries' wars in which they weren't needed and didn't want to become involved in Advantages: provided a nuclear umbrella to European countries against possible Soviet attack. Deterrent to Soviet attack, gave US ability to fight on foreign soil. -Called for redevelopment of Germany. -Soviets set up Warsaw Pact in response to NATO. BudgetTruman asked for Mutual Defense Assistance Bill which required one billion dollars, Congress gave it to him. Criticisms of NATO1) would cause US to get into wars it didn't want 2) budgetary restraints, who was ultimately paying for all this defense? The US! 3) President could send troops to war without Congress given his requirement under the NATO Treaty!! unhappiness in Congress 4) US overextended They were getting involved in potential intervention in a European conflict NATO was seen as an act of challenge to the Soviets, they perceived it as capitalist encirclement and there is some suggestion that Stalin used this threat domestically to shore up his own support, to allow the mass mobilization of Soviet society and harsh economic policies under 5 year plans. General Cold War Mentality 1950 US outlookThe US during this period was dominated by the McCarthyist Red scare (Communists within and without). We believed that with their new nuclear capabilities, the Soviets were capable of more than they truly were. Because of this, we believed that the Soviets were fueling nearly every conflict worldwide. Truman's policies had caused this by marhsaling the public by "scaring the hell out of them" 2/19/03 Distinctions between an economic system and a competitive State System (Fred Block article in Ikenberry) There were two separate issues in foreign policy at this stage. There was the domestic economic system, which was threatened by Soviet expansion abroad and their
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 15 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester closing of an open-market system. Then there was simply the competition, in terms of power, between the US and USSR. NSC 68 was attempting to intertwine strategies for both of these issues. The reason the two were integrated was a matter of tactics, Truman was more likely to get his economic packages passed if they were connected to the Soviets and Communist expansion. -Block suggests that there were contradictions between the Marshall Plan and NSC 68. The Marshall Plan was attempting to improve Liberal Capitalist Institutions. In NSC 68, however, the emphasis, shifted away from the improvement of institutions to militarization. The Marshall Plan wanted to show why western liberal institutions and capitalism had inherent virtues over communism. NSC 68 simply ignored these weaknesses of capitalism and tried to enforce it on the world. What were the weaknesses of Liberal Capitalism and its institutions and how was the Marshall Plan attempting to address them? -Northwest Europe was broken and shattered by WWII and because of this, there was a fear that the public would look to communist parties for the promises of employment, security, etc. as opposed to capitalism. This was because of the fear that capitalism presented, that despite the benefits it presented, those in its lower classes would be exploited. Communism predicates itself on the idea that the vast majority of the working class are the joint beneficiaries of the public ownership. Capitalism, with its emphasis on private property, implies that those privy to that property will benefit to the detriment of all the others. The Marshall Plan was attempting to rectify this through Keynesian economicsthis was the idea that the government can intervene in a market to create full employment and maintain a stable economy; this theory was against the liberal pool who felt government should stay out of economic sector -The Marshall Plan was a pursuit of a world market economy, through mass handouts to western European countries, in an attempt to create a system where the US economy and system could flourish. This would have been carried out whether or not the USSR was a threat or not. With NSC 68 and its aftermath, the Truman Administration was taking an extremely hard line on any reconciliation or cooperation with the Soviets at the time. Domestically the Democratic administration was unable to accept any policy of reconciliation for fear of being accused of being soft on Communists. Legacies of NSC 681) militarized foreign policy for decades 2) dark view of international relations (Manichean), seeing things in black and white 3) the Soviets were responsible for all the problems in the world 4) huge military budgets 5) more belligerent tone to foreign policy 3 underlying structures that developed due to this militarization of foreign policyDownloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 16 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester 1) alliance system (NATO, military-defense arrangements, collective security pacts) -draw western European countries into a tie and remind them of dependence on US 2) military-industrial complex -This complex was a triumvirate of the government, industrial corporations and research institutions (Congress, business people, veterans and soldiers all benefited from a conflict-driven view of the world) -It was feared that such an alliance would have "unwarranted influence" on American democracy. You have government trying to keep employment up. You have through military and industrial developers looking to make profits. The two basically complement each other and there is an intertwining between government and business (and then academia and research as well) as all produce military goods. -This developed specifically during 1961 because of the tremendous increases in ability to produce military goods, it cost more to provide for this mass collective defense and once instituted it couldn't be taken away without devastating the economy. -Soviet military/industrial complexBecause there was no private sector, the defense establishment and the government sector are one system controlled by the state. There was a military segment of the Soviet state that was pressing for increased spending and being a part of the system as opposed to outside the system, there was a correspondence between military and government and that made for an even bigger military/industrial complex. -Given this irreconcilable position on both sides, that USSR wouldn't demobilize and therefore US wouldn't de-nuclearize and vice versa an arms race seemed almost unavoidable, and therefore the military-industrial complex. This is what partially leads to Cold War tensions 3) "Loss of China" complex -Refers to the Civil war in China (Mao vs. Chiang) and the fact that there was, in the Truman administration a view that the US should intervene in China to prevent the communists from winning. (There was also a significant fear that the Soviets would intervene if the US did) When Truman decided not to intervene and China came under the control of Mao, there were hardliners in the administration (specifically in the Republican Congress) who said that Democrats could not be trusted with national security and that they were responsible for the loss of China. -Democrats now felt they had to be "more Catholic than the Pope." In order to prove that they weren't weak on national security they had to intervene whenever possible. . 2/24/03 Policy of Containment and the shape of that Policy in Asia Towards the end of the Truman administration, there was intense debate, in terms of the communist issue, on two main issues1) should communism be contained worldwide or only in Europe 2) was containment too weak of a policy
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 17 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester Both issue would come into play in the Korean conflict. -Korea is strategically placed between Russia, China and Japan. (see map in LaFeber) -Korea originally occupied by Japan in 1905. There was intense rivalry within the country between forces on the left and forces on the right, however, such civil strife was put off due to World War II. At the end of the World War II, Korea became a protectorate of the US and USSR, divided at the 38th parallel. Three Main Phases of War1) 1953: North Koreans cross 38th parallel into South Korea - US forces intervene with assistance to South Korea with the goal of forcing the North Koreans back behind the 38th parallel 2) The US, at head of UN coalition, forces North Koreans back to 38th parallel and then cross it essentially attempting to unify Korea under South Korean control. -represented a change in policy, away from containment and closer to rollback and liberation; a very marked change in policy 3) McArthur continues north towards Yalu River, provoking the Chinese to join the war. -The Chinese felt that they had been subordinated by the West throughout the 19th and 20th Centures. Because of this they were always paradnoid of Western motives. With McArthur's push to the Yalu River they were nervous that the US was invading China. -When Chinese entered war they were able to push back US troops. This transformed the position of China in the world. They were made into a world power. China went from the prospective of 700 million perspective consumers to 700 million perspective enemies. Issues that led to the war in Korea1) The "loss of China complex" -made it impossible for Truman to allow Korea to fall for it would be seen as Democratic Party weakness 2) Belief that leftist forces were being pushed by Stalin and that this wasn't just a civil war -There is much debate whether this assumption was true. At best, Stalin seems to have been ambivalent about Korea, he didn't want US in Korea but he also didn't want Korea in Chinese hands either -even if it had been determined that this was a local civil war, the US still might have sent forces if they believed that China would enter the war on the side of the North Koreans 3) Containment vs. Rollback -issue that developed when the US crossed the 38th parallel -anti-Rollback: With Rollback you risk WWIII; US will power and war capabilities will be extremely stretched, better to pursue containment instead of pursuing this large scale war -anti-Containment: If you don't destroy the communists, the east and west would be in a state of constant tension with no end in sight to the Cold War
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 18 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester 4) Korea's strategic location -The US was afraid that if Korea became communist then it threatened the "Pacific belt" of Japan and the Philippines, the domino theory -With Korean War, the Truman doctrine was extended to Asia. It was a military pledge to protect Asian countries from Communism. The US was "taking it stand" to show the Soviets that they weren't going to stand by and let them take over the world. The US entered conflicts in Vietnam (by assisting the French), China (by sending an aircraft carrier to Formosa) and Korea on the same day. In this way they would prevent what they perceived as any dreams the Soviets had of expansionism. Was Assumption 2) true? Hard to tell, all involved had their own fears with the Korean conflict 1) The Chinese and Soviets were afraid of a Japanese/South Korean united capitalist front in their backyards 2) The Soviets were fearful of the Chinese at the head of a Asian Communist front 3) The Chinese were afraid of the west wanting to invade China (based on their support of Chiang) Outgrowths of the Korean War1) Truman able to push through a tripling of Defense budget - re-institution of civil service. -45 billion dollar program 2) June-November 1950: US massively expands defense budget, manpower and foreign policy focus; essentially cemented cold war as worldwide battle between capitalism and communism 3) US domination of UN. The USSR didn't veto the US resolution condemning the North Koreans because the USSR was boycotting the UN based on Mao's representative not being seated at the UN. Robert Taft vs. Hans Magenta (look up in book) 2/26/03 A New Cold WarEisenhower to Khrushchev U. S.Eisenhower campaign and policy (1952)1) "Asia First" -Eisenhower accused Truman of not paying enough attention to Asia; he promised
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 19 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester to protect US interests in that sphere 2) Pro-Rollback -Dulles, a religious Christian, used morality as a way to motivate public support by simplifying the conflict to "forces of light versus forces of darkness" -Claimed that the policy of containment was immoral because it forced people who were subject to the totalitarianism of the USSR to stay under that totalitarianism, they had to remain slaves. -"containment as a treadmill," you stay in the same place and get exhausted white not accomplishing anything; it required immense resources to contain the USSR but it didn't accomplish anything for it maintained the status quo policy of "brinkmanship," in which the administration would take forceful action but always stop short of war (i.e. Threatened use of nukes in North Korea but ultimately agreed to the status quo) USSR-Malenkov had originally taken power after Stalin's death but, after an internal party struggle Khrushchev takes power -With Stalin's death, and Soviet development of an H-Bomb, Russians feel that they are in a position to negotiate and lessen tensions with West. `46-`53 had been a period of intense tensions while `53-`59 would be a period of reduced tensions. "The Irreconcilable Conflict" The US was placed in an odd position. After tough campaign rhetoric against Stalinist Russia and its expansionist tendencies, Eisenhower rose to power only to have Stalin die three months later. The Soviets then seemed to be amenable to negotiation and reduction of tensions. Would the US agree?? Soft power- America could win countries over to its size by the force and strength of its principles (democracy, freedom, liberty) rather then the force of its military Bi-polar view- view of Dulles, which would not allow him to see the USSR's system as having any advantages at all; it was them vs. us Irreconcilable conflict- Since communism is an aggressive policy that is immoral and does not promote freedom for people under its rule, there can be no reconciliation with it and it must be fought, albeit in a Cold War, strenuously. This was the view of the Eisenhower administration as developed by John Foster Dulles. What were the constraints on this policy? 1) American allies were opposed to this "all out fight" -Winston Churchill, the most respected of the allied leaders was against this maintaining of tensions 2) Most at the time agreed that the strength of the US was its economy not its military. This view insisted that resources could be better spent providing for the well being of the
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 20 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester American population instead of the military (in stark contrast to NSC 68). Republicans wanted to be strong on communism but also wanted to be fiscally responsible and to not run into deficits and deficit expenditures; that seemed to be a contradiction in terms! New LookTo address these issues of 1) and 2), Eisenhower adopted a "new look" specifically to military policy. The administration believed they could rely on nuclear and other tactical weapons to protect their interests abroad. This policy promoted smaller armies but large nuclear capacities both in terms of bombs and the planes that were able to deliver them. In this way, they were able to maintain US defense policy while promoting the balancing of budget and governmental fiscal responsibility. This policy was essentially the idea of brinkmanship using the threat of "massive retaliation," but always backing down short of war. Though this policy was tough in rhetoric, it was weak in action. Eisenhower was playing a very dangerous game both in terms of threatening nuclear holocaust and his attempts to focus on domestic issues while avoiding war and protecting interests abroad 3/3/03 Midterm: All readings on first page of syllabus except for omitted Feb 24th and added LaFeber chapter 6; covering issues of Marshall Plan, Cold War, Truman Doctrine, Containment, Rearmament, New Look. Essay exam with choice, 3 essays, 20-25 minute for each. Open book. Fairly straightforward questions. Review reading!! Up until march 5th, today's class is the end. Eisenhower Administration's New Look Continued With regime change in Russia due to Stalin's death and then infighting between Malenkov and Khrushchev, and the Eisenhower administration's rise to power, a new era began in the Cold War. This era would be marked by Dulles's defense policy of "massive retaliation." This was the threat that the US would essentially bomb the Soviets back to the stone age with nuclear weapons if they threatened expansionism. Theoretical and practical issues that arose from the policy of massive retaliation1) Were nuclear weapons relevant to the kinds of foreign policies crises the US was going to face in the coming years? These crises would mainly involve local fights with anti-colonial nationalists. How exactly were nuclear weapons going to protect US interests in such situations? Massive retaliation would simply kill off small countries and be extremely counter productive! 2) How was massive retaliation going to assist the US in its fight with the Soviets for the loyalty of the 3rd world? -With spheres of influence cemented for the US in North America and Western Europe and for the USSR in central and Eastern Europe, the fight for varying countries' loyalties moved to 3rd world countries in Africa, Latin American and Asia. Dulles did not believe in "neutral" countries and therefore believed that "you were either with us or against us," there was no differentiation made between nationalist uprisings and communist expansionism.
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 21 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester -The western world had a history of colonization in these areas and the Russians used this fact as a PR tool in their attempts to gain the loyalties of these emerging countries -The Russian model of development also was of more interest to 3rd world countries who didn't have large amounts of capital to invest in a free market, global system. Due to the ineffectiveness of "massive retaliation" to address the issues in 1) and 2), new strategies had to be developed. How would the US prevent these nationalist uprisings that were seen as being supported by the Soviets and bad for US interests abroad? 1) military alliances (i.e. SEATO) 2) covert operations (i.e. Iran, Guatemala) 3) Threat of Nuclear weapons (i.e. Taiwan) 1) Military alliancesSoutheast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO)-Collective security pact, European Powers plus Asian powers. Dulles said "intrusion into Southeast Asia is dangerous to US peace and security." -Congress was told that, in cases of revolution that was encouraged by outside forces in any of these southeast Asian countries, SEATO allies would be consulted and the US would not act unilaterally, however, the executive really had no intention of making such consultations Differences between NATO and SEATOa) In NATO, the idea was that the US would act multilaterally with its allies while in SEATO it would act alone. b) SEATO did not act only when there was a case of armed intervention but even to counter "subversive activities" 2) Covert OperationsCIATruman established the CIA but it was in 1953 under Allan Dulles, brother of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, that it began to gain power and was used. The CIA at this point was not really subject to any oversight and engaged in "dirty tricks," to overthrow governments in several countries namely Iran and Guatemala. 3) Threat of Nuclear Weapons If need be, US would use nuclear weapons "just as they would a bullet" in their attempts to ward off the communist threat. Specific Incidents in US foreign policy, Eisenhower Administration1) Iran1951 elects a nationalist leader who becomes PM, provokes the ire of the US and British by nationalizing the British Oil Company, that provokes the Europeans to boycott Iranian oil. Iranians argued that they were paying more taxes to the British government than they
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 22 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester were paying the Iranians for the oil! Only foreign government are reaping the benefits of our national resources! PM distrustful of both US and USSR, attempted to be neutral nationalist. West afraid that he was moving into Soviet camp and cut off all aid. Iran afraid of retaliation. US wanted to replace PM with the Shah. His father was a constitutional monarch put on the throne by the British in 1941. The CIA, led by Kermit Roosevelt instigated a revolt in the streets of Tehran against the PM and overthrew him but from 1951-2000, they denied their role. They put the shah back on the throne, and he was a very western-oriented leader, but he led a very repressive regime with US backing. One result of this coup was that US Oil Companies were able to get much better conditions than British companies. They reduced the hold of the British and the British monopoly in Iran. 2) Guatemala Democratically elected, Arbenz, nationalist. Indigenous Indian communities, very poor, illiterate and inequality. Government was attempting to reform the inequality. Elected Arbenz for this purpose. Wanted to expropriate "unused" lands for peasants. Expropriated 400,000 acres from United Fruit Company land for that purpose. After this expropriation, the fruit company used publicity agents and state department officials and they labeled this expropriation as an "international communist conspiracy." CIA was sent to intervene and overthrew Arbenz. CIA trains mercenaries and leader Armas to lead invasion, provides money, arms, radio station, "army of exiles." Arbenz asks for assistance from USSR which is interpreted horribly by US obviously. Marked a turning point in US policy; 1) US portrayed this as locally inspired coup when in truth it was CIA inspired, in terms of PR, the US made it seem like the people had simply deposed their leader, 2) When army abandoned its leader, other Latin America nations learned that the government and army must be intertwined in order to maintain control (Fidel Castro did this in Cuba) Has been suggested that although the US won the battle in Guatemala, they lost in the war in that he was assassinated 3 years later after his policies of mass-killings etc., and the uprising of more radical guerilla groups. 3) Taiwan (Formosa)Taiwan was bombing mainland China. Obviously, there was a fear of Chinese retaliation and perhaps an attempt to take over the 2 islands on the Northwest side of , Quemoy and Matsu ,then it would begin the domino effect and be followed by Korea, Japan, etc. Because of this fear, he asked Congress for a "blank check" to employ whatever force he needed to protect Taiwan from the Chinese. He was afraid that if he waited for the Chinese to attack it would be too late to protect Taiwan. Never before had Congress been asked for this blanket approval. Eisenhower considered dropping tactical nuclear weapons on China and destroy their military capacity so as not allow it to expand into Southeast Asia. This is also the first serious example of a pre-emptive strike. 3/5/03 The Suez Crisis and the Middle East The Baghdad pact was one of the first US attempts to become involved in the Middle East in 1955. It involved US, Britain, Iran and Iraq. It attempted to prevent a
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 23 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester vacuum of power in the Middle East into which the Soviets might move in. With Nasser coming power, Egypt, feeling threatened from the Israelis, as well as from further imperialism and colonization, looks to Checkeslovokia for arms support and recognizes Mao in China. Also believes in Pan-Arabism. All of these are looked upon extremely negatively by the US. Nasser had entered into an agreement with the Brits to slowly phase them out of the Suez Canal. He also wanted to build the Aswan Dam to strengthen the Egyptian economy. The Americans and British approve a World Bank financing of the dam. But, at the last minute the US decides to pull out of the project. The question was, could Egypt, while recognizing the Chinese and getting arms from Soviet influenced countries also be able to get assistance from the west? Dulles asked, why should we treat the Egyptians better then those who are squarely in the western camp? As a result of the US pullout, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal (The British Suez Canal Company) and wanted to use the profits from the Canal to build the dam. However, he does promise to keep the canal open to traffic to all European countries. The British and French were highly doubtful of this. Flow through the canal had already been slowed by sunken ships, and the British and French didn't believe they Egyptians were technologically or politically able to keep the dam open. The French and British arrange for the Israelis to attack Egypt and then force them to enter in to "prevent the parties from coming within 5 miles of the Suez Canal," in reality this was an attempt to bring down Nasser. The US and Soviets cooperate, issuing a joint declaration condemning the British, French and Israelis. Crisis defused by Washington pressure, UN peacekeeping troops are sent to monitor the area, and Israel gives up Sinai and Gaza Strip Hungary and Poland At the same time as the Suez Crisis, the Soviets were suppressing riots in Poland and Hungary. Khrushchev had started these riots by calling for a de-Stalinization program. He claimed that there were different roads to Communism and that different countries could have independence from Moscow and he seemed to suggest that there would be some autonomy and independence in these Eastern European countries. With this speech, Poland wanted to depose their Stalinist leaders and put into power more nationalist leaders. Moscow agreed to that. They also agreed to let the Polish communist party, although remaining within the Warsaw pact, to get some degree of independence. Moscow conceded to the demands of the rioters in Poland. In Hungary, there was a wide scale revolt, begun by students and joined by workers which spread throughout the country, demanding that the Red Army leave the country and have their own nationalist leader as well. It seemed that the Soviets would concede to this as well. Hungary seemed to be at the point where "liberation was possible." Would Hungary be the first place of rollback? Was this an opportunity for the US? Hungary announces that it is withdrawing from the Warsaw Pact one day after British and French attack on Suez. The Soviets move in and suppress the revolution,
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 24 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester killing 30,000 Hungarians and 7,000 Soviets and executing the rebels. It seemed that the US could have sent in military assistance, but Eisenhower was unwilling to risk nuclear war for Hungary. Liberation was clearly a sham. This was the second time Eisenhower avoided war, previously in North Korea, despite his rhetoric of rollback and revolution and brinksmanship. His policies came to be known as the Eisenhower Doctrine. Eisenhower Doctrine Asked Congress for permission to block Communist intervention in Middle East. It was the idea that the US would intervene in Middle East if any government was threatened by communist takeover. 3/10/03 Eisenhower Doctrine 1957- Requests authorization from Congress to intervene in Middle East against threat of Communism whenever necessary. (partly a response to Nasser and Suez Crisis) Basically an extension of the Truman Doctrine, just that it specifically contained Commuism within th middle east as opposed to Truman's which was all encompassing. 1958- US sends troops to Lebanon when Civil War threatened to become a Soviet arena. Criticisms (as with other previous doctrines)1) US was now a guarantor of regimes 2) US would be dragged into conflicts of their choosing or not 3) local revolutions were automatically perceived as communist-inspired when in reality some were genuinely nationalist 4) With this blanket authorization, there is always the danger that the President can elude Congressional oversight -Eisenhower tended to be seen, historically, as being very conservative and rigidly hard-line anti-communist. For about 20 years, there was this one analysis. -When the records were actually opened, there's some Eisenhower revisionism and some historians now discuss his mastery of foreign policy and his ability to go to the brink but avoid war. He wanted to avoid a garrison state, one that would be over-armed. He used restraint on the military-industrial complex and tried to reduce the defense budget. US ability to carry out reconnaissance flights over USSRThe U2 flew at high altitudes and took pictures of Soviet terrains, especially Soviet military capabilities. Very important because this allowed the US to gather intelligence without risking human life. It would give rise to a very embarrassing episode. Reinforcing exaggerated claims against each otherFlights started in `57-`58. In `60, USSR shot down one of these flights in Russia a week before a summit of the two leaders. The US claims that it wasn't their plane. Gary
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 25 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester Powers, the pilot, survives, and Khrushchev was able to prove that it was indeed American. Eisenhower was publicly embarrassed. The administration knew what Soviet capabilities were. In 1957, when the Soviets launched Sputnik and developed an Inter Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), there was a great uproar in the US about Soviet superiority. There was a fear that a Missile-Gap was developing along with bomber gaps, educational gaps, scientific gaps, etc. This comparison gave rise to the desire to acquire more military capacity to maintain the US's edge. Although this was the public atmosphere, (Gaither Report-grim picture of US security), it was completely inaccurate. There was no such gap between the US and the Soviets. In fact, the Soviets were far behind in their military capacity! The Soviets boasted about their superiority through this superiority was fictionalized by the very people of the US they were trying to scare. The Soviets were lying, the Americans knew they were lying, the Soviets knew that the Americans knew they were lying! It was all posturing and strategizing. This was the environment of the Cold War. Each side uses the other's hand for its own advantage. Spread of American cultureFrom the end of the 1950s, US consumer goods was one of the most influential tools abroad. Once European economies had recovered, they were very eager for consumer goods, electrical goods, cars, machinery (domestic and industrial), washing machines, TV, etc. This led to an adoption of American ways, it was a cultural infiltration especially youth culture (Hollywood, Elvis, jeans, rock and roll, etc.) Someone called it the "Marilyn Monroe Doctrine". To what extent did this undermine authoritarianism? They represented the idea of the west being free, these cultural exhibitionists displayed the west's letting people express themselves. Capitalism was a more fun-loving, consumer-fulfilling system than was Communism, which was austere and denied flourishing consumerism. Was this part of policy? Because it did allow Americans to have advances in policy! Was there an attempt to disseminate American culture? Seems that absolutely. JFK elected in 1960 Revives Truman-esque containment doctrine and takes a much more hard-line approach towards Soviets. Kennedy was prescient to the degree that he believed the USSR would implode from within (something that eventually would happen). He believed the vitality of the capitalist system would ensure it would win out. However he did make policy decisions pursuant to this belief. Saw Eisenhower as being weak on security, increased defense budget from 40 to 56 billion, increased nukes, ICBMS, as well as conventional forces Arms Race, (McNamara, Secretary of Defense later said this increase in weapons was a mistake), forced Soviets to increase their capacity The more weapons the US built, the less secure it was! The Soviet economy was a relatively strong position and could sustain immense expenditures on these weapons. Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 26 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester Crisis 11961 BerlinRefugees from East Germany were fleeing to West Berlin. This was a huge propaganda tool for the west, these people wanted to flee to the West! This was a huge embarrassment for the Soviets and the East German regime. They wanted to prevent West Berlin from becoming a magnet for fleeing easterners. Khrushchev built "The Wall," practically overnight. Crisis 2Third WorldKennedy initiated nation-building. This was the idea that these countries that were becoming independent needed to be channeled into modernization, growth and development and moved towards the West. Along these lines he introduced the Peace Corps (young Americans would go overseas with their educational skills and attempt to assist poorer countries in developing their societies) and the Alliance of Progress (meant to address inequality in Latin America, not very successful because Latin American reforms tended not to be carried out). Kennedy felt there was potential to transform nationalism into a force that was aligned with the West. 2nd Quarter 3/5/03 The Suez Crisis and the Middle East The Baghdad pact was one of the first US attempts to become involved in the Middle East in 1955. It involved US, Britain, Iran and Iraq. It attempted to prevent a vacuum of power in the Middle East into which the Soviets might move in. With Nasser coming power, Egypt, feeling threatened from the Israelis, as well as from further imperialism and colonization, looks to Checkeslovokia for arms support and recognizes Mao in China. Also believes in Pan-Arabism. All of these are looked upon extremely negatively by the US. Nasser had entered into an agreement with the Brits to slowly faze them out of the Suez Canal. He also wanted to build the Aswan Dam to strengthen the Egyptian economy. The Americans and British approve a World Bank financing of the dam. But, at the last minute the US decides to pull out of the project. The question was, could Egypt, while recognizing the Chinese and getting arms from Soviet influenced countries also be able to get assistance from the west? Dulles asked, why should we treat the Egyptians better then those who are squarely in the western camp? As a result of the US pullout, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal (The British Suez Canal Company) and wanted to use the profits from the Canal to build the dam. However, he does promise to keep the canal open to traffic to all European countries. The British and French were highly doubtful of this. Sunken ships had already slowed flow through the canal, and the British and French didn't believe they Egyptians were technologically or politically able to keep the dam open. The French and British arrange for the Israelis to attack Egypt and then force them to enter in to "prevent the parties from coming within 5 miles of the Suez Canal," in
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 27 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester reality this was an attempt to bring down Nasser. The US and Soviets cooperate, issuing a joint declaration condemning the British, French and Israelis. Crisis defused by Washington pressure, UN peacekeeping troops are sent to monitor the area, and Israel gives up Sinai and Gaza Strip Hungary and Poland At the same time as the Suez Crisis, the Soviets were suppressing riots in Poland and Hungary. Khrushchev had started these riots by calling for a de-Stalinization program. He claimed that there were different roads to Communism and that different countries could have independence from Moscow and he seemed to suggest that there would be some autonomy and independence in these Eastern European countries. With this speech, Poland wanted to depose their Stalinist leaders and put into power more nationalist leaders. Moscow agreed to that. They also agreed to let the Polish communist party, although remaining within the Warsaw pact, to get some degree of independence. Moscow conceded to the demands of the rioters in Poland. In Hungary, there was a wide scale revolt, begun by students and joined by workers, which spread throughout the country, demanding that the Red Army leave the country and have their own nationalist leader as well. It seemed that the Soviets would concede to this as well. Hungary seemed to be at the point where "liberation was possible." Would Hungary be the first place of rollback? Was this an opportunity for the US? Hungary announces that it is withdrawing from the Warsaw Pact one day after British and French attack on Suez. The Soviets move in and suppress the revolution, killing 30,000 Hungarians and 7,000 Soviets and executing the rebels. It seemed that the US could have sent in military assistance, but Eisenhower was unwilling to risk nuclear war for Hungary. Liberation was clearly a sham. This was the second time Eisenhower avoided war, previously in North Korea, despite his rhetoric of rollback and revolution and brinksmanship. His policies came to be known as the Eisenhower Doctrine. Eisenhower Doctrine Asked Congress for permission to block Communist intervention in Middle East. It was the idea that the US would intervene in Middle East if any government were threatened by communist takeover. 3/10/03 Eisenhower Doctrine 1957- Requests authorization from Congress to intervene in Middle East against threat of Communism whenever necessary. (Partly a response to Nasser and Suez Crisis) Basically an extension of the Truman Doctrine, just that it specifically contained Communism within the Middle East as opposed to Truman's which was all encompassing. 1958- US sends troops to Lebanon when Civil War threatened to become a Soviet arena. Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 28 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester Criticisms (as with other previous doctrines)1) US was now a guarantor of regimes 2) US would be dragged into conflicts of their choosing or not 3) Local revolutions were automatically perceived as communist-inspired when in reality some were genuinely nationalist 4) With this blanket authorization, there is always the danger that the President can elude Congressional oversight -Eisenhower tended to be seen, historically, as being very conservative and rigidly hard-line anti-communist. For about 20 years, there was this one analysis. -When the records were actually opened, there's some Eisenhower revisionism and some historians now discuss his mastery of foreign policy and his ability to go to the brink but avoid war. He wanted to avoid a garrison state, one that would be over-armed. He used restraint on the military-industrial complex and tried to reduce the defense budget. US ability to carry out reconnaissance flights over USSRThe U2 flew at high altitudes and took pictures of Soviet terrains, especially Soviet military capabilities. Very important because this allowed the US to gather intelligence without risking human life. It would give rise to a very embarrassing episode. Reinforcing exaggerated claims against each otherFlights started in `57-`58. In `60, USSR shot down one of these flights in Russia a week before a summit of the two leaders. The US claims that it wasn't their plane. Gary Powers, the pilot, survives, and Khrushchev was able to prove that it was indeed American. Eisenhower was publicly embarrassed. The administration knew what Soviet capabilities were. In 1957, when the Soviets launched Sputnik and developed an Inter Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), there was a great uproar in the US about Soviet superiority. There was a fear that a Missile-Gap was developing along with bomber gaps, educational gaps, scientific gaps, etc. This comparison gave rise to the desire to acquire more military capacity to maintain the US's edge. Although this was the public atmosphere, (Gaither Report-grim picture of US security), it was completely inaccurate. There was no such gap between the US and the Soviets. In fact, the Soviets were far behind in their military capacity! The Soviets boasted about their superiority through this superiority was fictionalized by the very people of the US they were trying to scare. The Soviets were lying, the Americans knew they were lying; the Soviets knew that the Americans knew they were lying! It was all posturing and strategizing. This was the environment of the Cold War. Each side uses the other's hand for its own advantage. Spread of American cultureFrom the end of the 1950s, US consumer goods were one of the most influential tools abroad. Once European economies had recovered, they were very eager for consumer goods, electrical goods, cars, machinery (domestic and industrial), washing
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 29 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester machines, TV, etc. This led to an adoption of American ways, it was a cultural infiltration especially youth culture (Hollywood, Elvis, jeans, rock and roll, etc.) Someone called it the "Marilyn Monroe Doctrine". To what extent did this undermine authoritarianism? They represented the idea of the west being free; these cultural exhibitionists displayed the west's letting people express themselves. Capitalism was a more fun-loving, consumer-fulfilling system than was Communism, which was austere and denied flourishing consumerism. Was this part of policy? Because it did allow Americans to have advances in policy! Was there an attempt to disseminate American culture? Seems that absolutely. JFK elected in 1960 Revives Truman-esque containment doctrine and takes a much more hard-line approach towards Soviets. Kennedy was prescient to the degree that he believed the USSR would implode from within (something that eventually would happen). He believed the vitality of the capitalist system would ensure it would win out. However he did make policy decisions pursuant to this belief. Saw Eisenhower as being weak on security, increased defense budget from 40 to 56 billion, increased nukes, ICBMS, as well as conventional forces Arms Race, (McNamara, Secretary of Defense later said this increase in weapons was a mistake), forced Soviets to increase their capacity The more weapons the US built, the less secure it was! The Soviet economy was a relatively strong position and could sustain immense expenditures on these weapons. Crisis 11961 BerlinRefugees from East Germany were fleeing to West Berlin. This was a huge propaganda tool for the west, these people wanted to flee to the West! This was a huge embarrassment for the Soviets and the East German regime. They wanted to prevent West Berlin from becoming a magnet for fleeing easterners. Khrushchev built "The Wall," practically overnight. Crisis 2Third WorldKennedy initiated nation building. This was the idea that these countries that were becoming independent needed to be channeled into modernization, growth and development and moved towards the West. Along these lines he introduced the Peace Corps (young Americans would go overseas with their educational skills and attempt to assist poorer countries in developing their societies) and the Alliance of Progress (meant to address inequality in Latin America, not very successful because Latin American reforms tended not to be carried out). Kennedy felt there was potential to transform nationalism into a force that was aligned with the West. 3/19/03
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 30 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester The Bush Doctrine: The National Security Strategy of the United States (9/02) Pros and Cons, Historical vs. Contemporary; -Clinton's last was in late `99 (9/20/02; NY Times article contrasting Clinton and Bush strategies) I. Unilateralism -Truman doctrine was presented in terms of the threat, fear, threats and dangers of the spread of communism. A subtext to this, an underlying rationale to this public rhetoric was the very important and basic economic interests of the US in terms of free and open markets and large regions being closed off to the US. All documents have these differing levels. There's a face value and then there's an underlying value. -Today there is a revived notion of imperialism. This is an idea that the unilateralists are reviving, the new and improved imperialism. This has been in public journals as well as the scholarly journals. Imperialism is one underlying theme of the Bush Doctrine; America's "Imperial Burden" in the 21st century, this is a promotion of global stability while pursuing American interests -The doctrine is addressing its unrivaled power and supremacy, it will not allow any other country the weapons or the strength to challenge the supremacy of the United States. This is a warning to any country (China, India, etc.) that would try to rival the US. -The question therefore is what to do about the small countries, ones that cannot rival the US in terms of military or economy but can develop weapons that threaten US. In a globalized, interdependent world, one of the main tools is attempting to encourage these smaller countries to join that community. Sanctions? Military? I.e. China Clinton- engage China, invited it into the WTO, the countries of the world can cajole and induce China to do certain things Other School- outlaw countries make it a pariah and pressure them into good behavior II. Anticipatory Self Defense, Pre-Emption III. Global Competition -Competition between major global powers and -US primacy 1) Unilateralism vs. Muiltilateralism 2) Rogue nations and the dangers they represent and policies for counter-proliferation 3) Terrorism and how to destroy the networks that allow them to flourish New forms of terrorism and the idea of pre-emption 4) "Pre-emption must not become a pre-text for aggression" How do you draw the line between lawful aggression and unlawful aggression? Who gets to draw the line and how do we draw the line between preemption for legitimate security needs and aggression? The Bush doctrine implies that pre-emption by the US is justified, other countries are not. 5) US security needs besides terrorism
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 31 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester 6) Similarities in rhetoric between Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush Project for the New American Century (Cheney, Rumsfeld organization) Is that power being used in the interests of the world at large or simply only US interests? 3/24/03 Cuban Missile Crisis Oct. 14 1962 We discussed the CIA and its role in Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. Ambrose has brief background to Cuban situationUS had close ties with Cuba, had intervened militarily 3 times since 1900, and were significantly economically involved to the point where the US's decision on how much sugar to import regulated the Cuban economy. Authoritarian rule of US-supported Batista, repressive and dictatorial despot, Fidel Castro organizes revolutionary leaders opposed to Batista, went into the mountains to forge strategy to overthrow Batista and succeeded in 1959, established left-socialist government, US perturbed that he's only 90 miles from FL. Castro opens sugar-machine/oil trade with USSR, 1961 Eisenhower breaks off ties with Cuba. Eisenhower attempts to use CIA to overthrow Castro. Castro nationalizes various industries (including some American businesses) and attempts to redistribute resources and restructure Cuban economy to address the poverty of the Cuban people. April 1961, Bay of Pigs InvasionSimilar to Guatemala, Cuban exiles, assisted with air cover and sea supplies by US, land in Cuba in order to mobilize Cubans against Castro. Belief that Castro didn't have enough domestic support that local support could be gathered. Disaster. In 1998, CIA wrote a report on its own conduct. Reasons for failure1) No local support, Castro strongly enough established both domestically and militarily to wipe out the exiles 2) CIA inept, report said it was a "bungling by the best and the brightest," meant to be strictly covert but everyone knew about it, including Castro CIA was also involved in Operation Mongoose in November `61, to attempt to stir up local unrest against Castro and assassinate Castro. Missile CrisisU2 Over flight of Cuba discovers Soviet missiles being stored in Cuba and the assumption is made that once these missiles are armed with nuclear warheads could do extreme damage to US mainland. Kennedy when presented with evidence of this, has to determine response. Soviets had promised not to install missiles in crisis. Why worry about missiles in Cuba when Soviets had ICBM's which could also reach the US? 1) More a psychological aspect, nuclear missiles are 90 miles from your shores its going to scare the people. 2) There was also the question of first strike and the issue of proximity. ICBM's, as they approach over Europe and the Atlantic, the US has the capacity to detect them and
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 32 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester either destroy them or retaliate. The advantage of missiles based in Cuba is that they could strike before the early the early warning system (15 minutes) could detect them and respond. 3) The worry was that Country A could attack Country B on the first strike, to the extent that Country B cannot counter strike. Missile gap, the USSR felt at a disadvantage while the US felt itself at a disadvantage as well! USSR felt that it could save money by putting missiles in Cuba, more bang for the buck. For 13 days, the crisis was extremely dangerous and could very well have led to a nuclear confrontation. The US had to determine a response that would not evoke a nuclear response from the Soviets. What were the choices? What were Soviet motives? 1) Bargaining chip 2) Defense of Cuba 3) Missile gap 4) First strike capability 5) Global balance of power, if the USSR could install missiles it would seems as if the Soviets could challenge the US in this hemisphere and challenge the Monroe Doctrine and give the Soviets more leverage in the rest of the world Options for US response1) All out attack, invasion of sea, air and troops. 2) Do nothing and pretend Missiles weren't a great threat; thrown out 3) Blockade and Quarantine Quarantine imposed, no ships from anywhere, primarily from USSR, could carry offensive weapons to Cuba. So you could prevent fresh supplies, but does that accomplish anything but delaying new supplies and not changing the status on the ground in Cuba? The missiles sites were being developed. Why did the Soviets withdraw? Not the quarantine but rather that the US threatened to follow up the quarantine with a full scale attack of the Soviet government didn't commit to removing the missiles which they finally committed to. Kennedy was given great praise for calibrating the US response thereby giving the Soviets a way to withdraw the missiles without humiliating them. Khrushchev said he had to withdraw the missiles to save the world on October 28th. Seen as very important as it revealed a lot about the conflict, leadership here and the ability of the US to prevail in an extremely dangerous crisis. 3/26/03 Vietnam Links between Cuban Missile Crisis and VietnamHaving confronted each other in Cuba and both superpowers having recognized that a nuclear war would be not winnable, that led them to a period of dtente. Kennedy and
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 33 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester Eisenhower assumed that if there were a standoff between the superpowers, the third world would be encouraged to engage in wars of liberation because the super powers would be unable to prevent them LaFeber posits that the standoff in Cuba precipitated the war in Vietnam as 3rd world countries saw they could pit the 2 super powers against each other. Brief HistoryVietnam was a French Colony in the 19th century, lost Vietnam to Japan in WWII. French re-gained Vietnam at the end of the war and was struggling to retain it with US assistance. The internal Civil War was between the Nationalist/Communist forces (Ho Chi Minh) against the French). The US (and French) felt its interests lay in Southeast Asia; the region had crops (rice), cheap labor, rubber (there were no synthetic alternatives at this time; provided 90 percent at this time), tin (60 percent of world's supply), main source of oil in Asia. Japan was a US ally and the stronghold of the west in the east and therefore the necessity for Japan to have access to Southeast Asia. JFK took over the domino theory for Asia from Eisenhower and the previous administrations specifically in terms of Japanese access. Decides to at first send support and US "advisors" to support Diem and South against North. Peking and Moscow begin to support North in response. As the war dragged on, the US adopted the opinion that they did not want to be seen as "a pitiless Giant," that the US was forceful without pity and yet still unable to prevail. The "Rolling Thunder" campaign was launched against the North, which was mass carpet-bombing of North Vietnam. Guerilla warfare involved in the infiltration of fighters from the north into the civilian populations of both the north and south. It made it impossible to determine who was the enemy and who were civilians, local peasants and farmers. The wrong way to find out who the enemy was, was the strategy of "strategic hamlets." This involved the movement of an entire village into another area and then bombing out anything left. Villagers were relocated into camps that were encircled by Americans to ensure that they would not become havens for guerillas and the areas of old villages were de-foliaged (napalm) and carpet-bombed. The question of civilians was particularly tragic. Communists saw them as being on the side of the South and the side of the Americans. The South saw them as being the hiding places for the forces from the North. They were sandwiched by forces on both sides and treated horribly by both sides. Ho Chi Minh and his leadership in the North (land and social reforms)In South Vietnam, US installed Diem, a harsh, repressive, Catholic (probably a greater understanding of Western Religion then Buddhism, despot. Ho Chi Minh accepted division at 17th parallel and leaving the South to the French. The terms of that agreement called for elections in the South within 2 years, and Ho Chi Minh believed those elections would be called and that he would be elected (assumed that he would win nearly 80 percent of the vote). But US took over for French, canceled elections and put Diem in charge. This would be what led to the launch of Ho Chi Minh's war against the Americans.
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 34 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester Ho Chi Minh introduced popular reforms for an agricultural society while in the South everyone hated Diem. Ho Chi Minh was convinced that his Vietnamese brand of nationalism was going to be independent of China and that the US's claim that this would be another monolithic Communist movement like the USSR and eastern Europe was incorrect and a misread of the situation. This is obviously subject to debate. The freedoms that Americans enjoy at home cannot be separated from the freedom of enterprise overseas and abroad. Vietnam was an expression of this campaign to keep Southeast Asia free and open in order that American freedoms be secured. National Security was interpreted, throughout the Presidents during the Vietnam war (Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon), Gulf of Tonkin- (August 2 & 4, 1964 US Destroyer Maddox was in the Gulf of Tonkin. The official account was that the North Vietnamese had fired on the ship in 2 separate incidents. Johnson said this was "open aggression on the high seas." It was seen as a North Vietnamese attack on the US. Johnson approached Congress and asked for the ability to engaged in "all appropriate measures" to engage in whatever necessary to prevent future attacks. There was no opposition in Congress, only 2 voted against it in the Senate. It has now been acknowledged (4 years after) by Secretary of Defense McNamara, has acknowledged that the US was cooperating with the south in fights against the north and that therefore the US was a victim not of a pre-emptive attack but was simply reacting to being attacked. McNamara lied to the Congress and said that the US was not engaged against the North when they were attacked. The Resolution would be repealed in 1970. It had led to a huge swing in foreign policy towards the President in misleading circumstances. Whether this resolution became a precedent for other measures that the executive now attempts to get from Congress that enable freedom of action, is the subject of much debate. But it is seen as providing the ability to wage a war quickly. When it became public knowledge that there was a false basis behind this resolution, they would become and remain highly suspicious of the executive. Rolling Thunder was launched with the passing of this resolution and we had 400,000 troops in Vietnam at this point. We wanted to cut off support from the North to the guerilla fighters in the South. LaFeber brings down that for every guerilla fighter killed there were 6 civilians killed. Nixon comes to power after Johnson decides not to run for re-election and attempts to convey to the American public that he's winding down the war while enlarging the bombing campaign into Cambodia and escalating the war in a secret manner. Nixon is the architect of the expansion of the bombing into Cambodia and of keeping that bombing secret as there was already enough public disillusionment with the way the war was being waged. Nixon goes to China and Russia in 1972; they acknowledge these 2 major Communist nations but refuse to recognize Vietnam as a Communist country. It is ironic
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 35 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester that they offer diplomatic outreach to the big countries but refuse to offer the same diplomacy with Vietnam, a small country. Why, if we could accept the Communism in massive countries like China and Russia, countries we were attempting to make peace with, could we not accept it in a small country like Vietnam? In `75 we essentially conceded the war to the North and there was never any domino theory played out. Readings for March 24th and 26th are dropped. 3/31/03 A New Containment-Detente 1953-1966: Off and on antagonism 66-69: New Containment What is the difference between post WWII-mid '60s containment and containment of the '70s and '80s? It went from confrontation to negotiation. Before '66, there were various attempts made to bring about a lessening of tensions between the Soviets and the Americans, which failed. The Korean War, the Suez Crisis, Soviet invasion of Hungary, 1962 Berlin and Cuban Missile Crisis all served to ruin any attempts at a lessening of tensions. In 1966, there was an attempt at detente. At first, we insisted on containing Communism militarily and resist expansion by force. Now, the attempt was being made to persuade the Russians and Chinese to moderate their foreign policy. This idea that negotiating would bring about a reduction in tensions, detente (reducing in French), referred to a process and an atmosphere in which both Super powers and China would attempt to moderate their approaches towards each other, and try to avoid the "hot incidents" which had occurred in the past. The US tried to play China and the USSR off each other. Before this, the US had taken the position that these 2 countries were a big, monolithic Communist bloc, and represented a dangerous spread of Communism around Eurasia. To acknowledge that they could drive a wedge between the two was to suggest there was no such monolithic Communist bloc. This was a huge turnaround. LaFeber emphasizes that the backdrop to all of this was the continuing Vietnam War. The assumption was that if the superpower problems could be solved then the "smaller" problems like the Vietnam War could also be settled USSR: -Khrushchev was ousted in 1964. Two people Breznhev and Kosygin headed the new regime. They were interested in detente and put out feelers for US interest. -During this time (1968) Czechoslovakia occurred. It became more liberal and attempted to open up trade with other countries and become more independent. Afraid that this would lead to the erosion of its power over its satellites, the Soviets crushed the liberal regime, clearly willing to sacrifice detente. -Enunciate the Brezhnev Doctrine- any socialist country that was "threatened" by world capitalist imperialism, would be protected by the USSR militarily to save it from being torn away from the East European bloc. The Soviets would not tolerate any threat
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 36 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester to their influence over Eastern European satellites. Similar to Johnson doctrine which said no other country (besides Cuba could further Communism into the Western Hemisphere. US: -New Military Approach to Containment-US planned to shift some burden of power to its allies. During this time, the US armed Japan, Israel, Iran, Angola, Zaire (Belgian Congo) and South Africa in order contain Communism in their regions, they were seen as surrogate powers. US direct involvement could be lessened while empowering these surrogate powers. -Iran raised its price of oil in order to pay for American equipment. This would prove to be a forerunner for crises faced later. -This policy was labeled "containment on the cheap" Aspects of detente1) Non-proliferation- the arms race, if not stopped, could at least be slowed. The USSR and US should attempt to prevent non-nuclear powers from getting weapons. (France, India, Israel, etc. are non-signers of the non-proliferation agreement) Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT)- agreement to freeze nuclear missiles and would freeze development of anti-ballistic missiles. Although this suggested that nuclear missiles would be reduced, the US had MIRV (Multiple Independently Targeted re-entry Vehicles) technology that would allow missiles to put more warheads and attack several targets with fewer missiles. This SALT agreement sounded better than what it actually accomplished as MIRV's allowed the US to add nuclear capabilities and the USSR had this technology several years later. The best thing to come of this was that a hotline was set up, a direct line between the US and USSR head's of states. This would prevent mistakes in perception of other side's moves. But on the whole more was promised then the SALT agreement actually accomplished. 2) Opening to Peking and Moscow- playing each side off each other 3) Trade and technology transfersWheat deal between USSR and US. Nixon offers a huge sale of wheat on very generous terms ("The Great Grain Robbery"). Doubled the extent of trade between the two countries and was based on the idea of technology from the west being made available to the Soviets. 1972- 25% of wheat crop sold to Soviets. (In `79, when Soviets invade Afghanistan this wheat arrangement is stopped by Carter) American business (I.e. Pepsi, Chase, etc.) begin opening in USSR. This was a 9-10 year period of dtente (thaw). On the one hand people felt that the US should NOT assist communists. On the other hand, this was the USSR acknowledging their weakness and their dependence on the west. It was a way to compel them to moderate their foreign policy. Also we hoped that a lessening of tensions would help us pull out Vietnam. -Nixon cuts armed forces, ends draft and cuts expenses in the nuclear arms talks -there was an idea that during this time there was more tolerance and less
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 37 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester distorting fro the other side. There was a downplaying of anti-communist sentiment. There were conferences, there were summits, there were the Paris Accords of 1973, there was a rising East-West Trade, there was Nixon going to Moscow and Beijing. You begin to see a concept of linkage, linking foreign policy between the two super powers to trade. Dtente and linkage were two sides of the same coin. The attempt was made to control Soviet behavior through dtente, linkage. They had to behave to receive US capital and trade. China was also seen as a way to make the Soviets respond to American pressures for there was a fear that if the Soviets misbehaved the US would concrete their ties with China. 5/11/03 1972: Nixon goes to Moscow in May, June; goes to Peking later that year Departure from traditional US foreign policy towards China; certain people very opposed; Nixon interested in Chinese market before Russians could get it; signed friendship treaty which allowed trade and cultural exchange. No formal relations until '78-'79. (from '49-'72 Taiwan had been the UN Security Council Member representing mainland China) 1975: Halsiki Agreements; agreements between 35 European countries (eastern and western) which accepted eastern European boundaries and borders as legally accepted in return for the Soviets allowing dissidence more leniency. Some believe this set the stage for the loosening of internal, domestic control with the USSR. Dtente- the idea of linking trade and agricultural exchange to moderate USSR policy Jackson/Vanik Amendment-linking the idea of American trade with concessions by the Soviets to allow Jews to move to Israel; wanted to link trade to human rights; Soviets were not allowing very many Jews to leave and they also charged an exit tax -(Soviets said these people have been educated at state expense and they're leaving the country with those skills without the state benefiting [brain drain], therefore they had to pay a fee) -Congress also would not allow Most Favored Nation status to be imposed on USSR, Soviets actually cut back on the small numbers already allowed; this amendment backfired. War Powers Act (1973)-Congress must be consulted before the President commits troops, if impossible President can send troops but within 60 days he must get Congressional approval or bring them home. -Seemed to be attempt by Congress to curtail Executive. In reality, once troops are in the field it is most unlikely that Congress will say bring them home when the President has already sent them out. Gave the president ability to respond quickly without consulting Congress. Actually expanded power of the Presidency. Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 38 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester Middle East After Suez, Soviets armed the Egyptians, Americans armed the Israelis. Six Day War, awaiting attack, Israel pre-empts; very triumphant captures Jerusalem, Sinai and Golan Heights Resolution 242 October1973: Yom Kippur War- Surprise attack by Syria and Egypt Soviets come to the assistance of the Egyptians, Americans initially euip Israeli army but hold back replacement armaments until the Israelis agree to a ceasefire 1975: agreement between Egypt, Sadat goes to Israel 1979: Camp David Accords, Sinai goes back to Egypt Conflict in the Middle East was a threat to the US economy, oil, the energy crisis and OPEC. US was vulnerable to oil supplies. Embargo imposed by the Arab oil producing countries. Saudi Arabia raises the price almost four fold. Shocked US, western European and Japanese economies even though they were only importing 10-15 percent from Middle East. LaFeber points out that regardless of the conflict and the oil embargo, there was going to be an energy crisis in the US. Why? The US is 6 percent of the worlds population and consumes 40 percent of the worlds production and it was raising its oil consumption by 5 percent on each year. Its growing reliance on oil imports were going to hurt the US economy. And people like the Shah in Iran, despite being a constructive ally, said they were going to raise oil prices based on previously being taking advantage of. OPEC (Oil Producing Export Countries; Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) formed in 1960; always the assumption that they couldn't act in a coordinated fashion. In 1973-4, they did coordinate and are able to pressure the rest of the world, they threaten nationalization of the oil companies, specifically the American, British and French companies. They are empowered to raise their prices as a group to the Western world. Since then, OPEC has not had as strong an ability to do that. Countries always try to sell outside the quotas and outside the regulated prices. Kissinger engage in "shuttle diplomacy." Involved both the Soviets and US putting their forces on high alert. Americans did not want Soviet troops in the Middle East, threatened to become a super power conflict. Fortunately it didn't happen. New Containment in Africa Africa was relatively low on the priority list of the Kissinger-Nixon team. During the early part of the administration, they strengthened their ties with the white minority regimes of Angola, Zimbabwe and South Africa because they didn't believe the black majorities would risk violent overthrows and they had a great deal of money invested in Africa and believed white regimes could protect those better. UN arms embargo on South Africa to prevent armed revolution. US also passed Byrd amendment which allowed US to buy chromium from Rhodesia. US was playing a double game. CIA was backing one of these guerilla movements while the US government was backing the Portuguese government.
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 39 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester Angola was a Portuguese colony with 3 revolutionary groups fighting for independence. One was Soviet backed, one was US backed. In 1975, Portugal has a military coup and Angola wins independence. The guerilla groups become rivals for the capture of power in Angola, internal Civil War. Americans had oil refiners in America which had to be protected. Moscow and Cuba support one side. The US and China support the other. Congress asks the administration what they're doing in Angola, administration asks for 25 million dollars for arms, Congress denies it and votes to stop military expenditures in Angola, Kissinger goes on a tirade and condemns Congress for not dealing with Soviets. Opponents of Kissinger say it's wrong to treat a domestic Civil War as a context for how the Cold War should be fought. The group that won power, which was Soviet supported, used Cuban and Soviet troops to protect American oil refineries. Africa became a Cold War areana in Zimbabwe and South Africa as well. Early `70s it was a low priority, later in the `70s Kissinger realized how critical Africa was because of its enormous mineral wealth. He began to talk about the necessity to do something to avoid a race-war. He was afraid of both Soviet internvention, and radicalization and a race war. US ships arms to various countires and encourages American corporations like Bethlehem Steel to do business there. US afraid that Africa will be estranged from them and they needed the economic resources. Tradegy was that war in Angola continued on into the '90s. They even degraded themselves to cutting off peoples' limbs. Huge population of amputees. Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) was a different kind of struggle. Unilateral Declaration of Independece (UDI), breaks away from Britain and establishes a white minority regime. Condemnation in the UN which sanctions Rhodesia, and eventually a black regime is established and changes its name to Zimbabwe which is now widely criticized for white farmers' land being expropriated to the black majority. Also, major human rights' violations. South Africa, mid `70s, peaceful demonstrators gunned down. White minority regime, even Nixon-Kissinger agree to sanction South Africa to end apartheid. Regan believes constructive engagements. Kissinger is attempting to moderate US policy towards South Africa while allowing American businesses to continued to do business. Sets off divestment campaign. Both Amrbose and Lafeber describe this period as highs and lows and ultimately believe that dtente was not successful and didn't accomplish what it hoped to accomplish. The period was one where we almost had a victory in the Vietnam War, started with a strong economy but ended with high inflation, started with an imperial presidency and ended with a failed presidency, started with low gas prices ended with high prices, general view of a new form of containment is seen as less than successful. 4/7/03 Jimmy Carter Criticizes Kissinger-Ford, campaigns on lowering military spending and lowering tensions with the third world, blasts the Russian wheat deal, emphasizes Human Rights.
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 40 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester Says that "Human Rights should be absolute" seen as criticism as USSR, because they didn't have political or Civil Rights; wants to reduce the scale of US military and arms abroad. Secretary of State (Vance) and NSA (Brezhinski) had conflicting views of the world and approaches to foreign policy. Brezhinksi, a escapee from communist Poland, had a hard-line approach and believed the Soviets were the cause of global problems, against dtente, believed USSR would only respond to form line from the US, and that the Soviets started all the thirdworld nationalist uprisings. Vance took the exact opposite approach. Carter tried to incorporate both at different times hence the criticism of Carter's schizophrenic foreign policy. Human rights was what Carter was most criticized for. He was completely inconsistent. On the one hand, he was very critical of the Soviets, on the other hand he wasn't critical of the Chinese. Similarly, in Iran he was aware of the how the Shah was arresting, detaining and eliminating over 50,000 dissenters and yet Carter went to Tehran and toasted the Shah as "an island of stability." Carter had 2 main successes. In 1903, the US had built the Panama Canal. In 1964, there was an outbreak of rioting and protests, LBJ acknowledged that this was an infringement of sovereignty and that the US would work out some agreement with the Panamanians. When Carter takes office, he draws up a treaty giving US full canal rights until 1999 and in 1999 Panama gets the Canal but the US has a right to intervene militarily to keep the Canal open at any time. Many in Congress opposed to Canal Treaty, but Carter prevails. The other success was the 1979 Camp David Accords. Israel and Egypt sign a peace deal returning Sinai to Egypt. Left aside all of the other Mid East issues. (Carter, Begin, Sadat) Carter also had several failures and inconsistencies. 4/2803 The Bush Doctrine seems to suggest that we need a new foreign policy that says we need to move away from the concept of the Cold War, and that they are no longer applicable in an altered context. What is this altered context? Contrasting Cold War environment to Current environment1) New global dominance by US without a counter-balancing force -the nature of the strategy is no longer defensive, we don't try to achieve security by acquiring more missiles to use and survive a first strike attack. Instead, there is a necessity for offense because traditional forms of security where we had the "luxury" of waiting for an imminent attack no longer exist. Traditional deterrence was just that, MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) would prevent any major attack on US soil. -If the enemy is different, then we have to shift our tactics as well. We therefore must shift from defense to offense, that is how the Bush Doctrine seems to justify pre-emption. "The best defense is a good offense."
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 41 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester -If a state is harboring a terrorist group, whether knowingly or unknowingly, even if that that state does not have the institutional capacity to monitor where the terrorist is hiding, the Bush Doctrine provides that the US has the right to intervene. The US can violate sovereignty if there is a threat of terrorism. Sovereignty comes with responsibility. 2) New enemies, our enemies are different. Traditionally, our enemies were the USSR and its enemies. In our new environment, we have new enemies, groups with links in different countries, etc. -Terrorist groups are different from states in that "they don't have an address," and that they are willing to sacrifice lives to obtain their objectives. The newest aspect of the terrorist is his access to WMD's. 3) New weapons, proliferation of WMD. 4/30/03 Regan Elected in 1980 Ran as hard-line anti-communist. Communism if evil ("evil empire") doomed to the ash heap of history and he believed that the US must use all of its military and economic resources to counter Communism. Ended his 2 terms walking hand in hand with Gorbechav in Moscow. (Gorbechav's glasnost and perestroika would help in the late '80s.) Reagan immediately emphasizes military budgets and build up and arms race which leads to Reagan Doctrine. Military budget was almost 300 billion in 1986. Military strategy was the ability of the US to fight 3 and a half wars at the same time, kind of vague as to how war was defined in terms of dimension and scale. Strategists tended to refer to the movement of US troops from bases and the homeland to shores overseas. There was also some debate for there was no chance of matching Soviet and Chinese manpower but there were advantages in technology. Regan did also concentrate on technologies such as MIRVs, submarines, cruise missiles (developed to avoid detection), more advanced bombers, strategic defense initiative (Star Wars)--Missile shield which could intercept missiles fired at the US, really more of a visionary idea, we didn't have the technology at the time. Critics of it suggested that the shield developed would always be subject to innovations from the enemy. Regan intent on developing US ability. Regan Doctrine- Committed to protecting "freedom fighters." The US has an obligation to defend human rights "from Afghanistan to Nicaragua." By establishing the obligation of the US to support free societies rather than Communist, the US improves its own self defense by promoting and protecting democratic regimes elsewhere. Also involved 2 billion dollars to fundamentalist Islamic guerillas who were fighting the Soviets. CIA trained and armed and funded Mujahadeen which morphed in Al Qeada which attacked not only the Soviets in Afghanistan but even the hand that fed them, the US. The US in the `80s went from being a predator nation to being a debtor nation. US indebted to external sources of capital. Regan argued that cutting taxes would increase revenues. It provides a stimulus to enterprise to savings to investment and a growing incentive to be entrepreneurial. Didn't happen in the `80s. Ran up a staggering
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 42 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester budget deficit. Domestic effects of foreign policy were its effect on the US economy. 5/5/03 Reagan Doctrine led to debate between terrorists and freedom fighters. Nicaragua, leftist oriented government was fighting rebels, the so called Contras, Regan's freedom fighters. Here were internal rebels attempting to overthrow a government the US saw as unappealing and dangerous because it was too closely allied with the Cubans and it was just too leftist. Reagan attempted to subvert Nicaraguan government, supporting Contras. Trained armed and funded and gave military cover to the contras in military warfare against the sundaneestas. When Congress cut off military funding for the activities of the administration in support of the Contras (Congress was at first unaware of what Reagan was doing), Reagan attempted to skirt those rules that Congress had set up and tried to sell arms to Contras through Iran. Known as the Iran-Contra scandal. There were questions whether Reagan or others in his administration were directly responsible for sending funds to allies not acknowledged by the US Congress. Were they carried out by rogue official in the White House, Oliver North or was it done with approval of the President? Reagan claims to have not remembered, and he did indeed prove to have Alzheimer's. He was never charged, Oliver North was. CIA director Casey died before going to trial. Issue was concern in Nicaragua, that there could be another anti-American government so close, and that they were willing to support "freedom fighters." Reagan had plausible deniability by saying he didn't remember if he supported such things or not. Reagan doctrine also applied to Panama and El Salvador as well, but focus on Nicaragua. Reagan came in very hard line anti-Communist, and towards the end of his tenure in office, he was warm and cordial towards Gorbechav, referred to him as his friend "Gorby." This was because there was a profound transformation in the USSR. Gorbechav liberalized USSR and reformed the entire Soviet Union. Perestroika, Glasnot, openness, the attempt of Gorbechav to alter the system from Communism to Socialism with Democracy. Also to alter system from command economy controlled by the state to an economy with an initially small but eventually much larger private sector. In his revolutionary way, Gorbechav was responsible for the evolution of the Bhrezhnev Doctrine to the Sinatra Doctrine. Specifically in reference to Poland, Hungary, Romania. In Poland there was a trade union movement, solidarity, which formed outside of the government. When polish government felt threatened by this labor movement, it turned to Soviets for military assistance to crush the reform movement. Gorbechav said that the USSR would not impose the Soviet view upon the satellites. The Sinatra Doctrine is "Do it your way instead of doing it my way." Reagan is followed by George H. W. Bush. He comes to office in New World Order and he believes that this new order involves the application of the rules of international law and thus when Iraq invades Kuwait, he assembles a coalition of countries and with UN sanction intervenes to roll back Iraqi gains in Kuwait. Desert Storm has been overwhelmed by Gulf War II. Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 43 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester Clinton introduces Clinton Doctrine. When these two presidents come to power, we have a new global order with new more superpower struggle. The USSR has collapsed. We now have an unstable Russia but no longer a military rival or threat to the US. This time is seen as a great opportunity for the west. It is seen as a time when containment can give way to enlargement. Containment was a limiting concept, enlargement reflects this new vision of world order in which the US presence overseas, commercially can be enlarged. The idea of enlarging trade, markets and commerce; enlarging US interests overseas and expanding the idea of market democracies. Trade with the rest of the world can be seen as a source of mutual wealth. Prosperity, Democracy and Freedom can flourish. Clinton Doctrine is using the US superiority in trade, technology and information to dominate trade, investment and commerce in the rest of the world. The rest of the world would be open to US products and investment. One of things this leads to is the extension of NAFTA. Trade pact between US, Canada and Mexico which creates a regional, economic block. Workers didn't have the same freedom to cross borders outside of illegally and limitedly. Assumed that NAFTA would expand throughout South America, this despite the fact that several of those countries, Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina have faltering economies. China- debate in terms of whether the US should trade with China, a country which is a repressive dictatorship which violates human rights. Hoped to undermine Chinese politics perhaps by increasing or decreasing trade with them. US decided to allow China to enter WTO and gave it Most Favored Nation trading status. If we had done otherwise, it was suggested that cordoning it off wouldn't work. The national security argument was also important. Fearful that hardliners in China would've been able to strengthen their position and block reform if US didn't trade. Clinton first president to go to Vietnam in November 2000. Lifts 20 year old economic embargo. Takes planeload of business corporation leaders who want to rebuild Vietnam after the destruction of the Vietnamese economy and its inability to accelerate its whole development Pugwash, an NGO, made up of atomic and nuclear scientists from within and without of the USSR who attempted to convince Gorbechav that security of USSR and US depended on system of interdependence instead of conflict. They got Gorbechav's ear and Gorbechav got Reagan's. Final (Eisenhower Doctrine not on exam) 1) Kennedy Administration and the idea of New Attitudes to 3rd world events Covert actions, 3rd world revolutions The new face of containment, how did Kennedy see containment in a different life fomr what had historicall ben the questions 2) Nixon- identified its own doctrine Nixon also was in power during dtente with USSR, 1966-76; be familiar with dtente and the Nixon Doctrine; pay attention to Kennedy Johnson Nixon Carter Clinton Bush doctrines
Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 44 of 45 POL 1510 American Foreign Policy Professor Thadani Spring 2003 Notes for the entire semester Carter-human rights Regan- freedom fighters Clinton- trade 3) Vietnam; cold war struggle and internal revolution Exam 4 questions; choice; essay; open book Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1510ThaNotes1.pdf Page 45 of 45 ...
View Full Document