POL326Y1 Lecture Notes - Colour Revolution, Henry Kissinger, Eastern Bloc

61 views8 pages
10 Apr 2013
Final exam:
same format as midterm, identification section and essay section ( you should write 5
out of 8 OR 4 out of 6 for identifications (prof is not sure yet), 2 essays out of
technically comprehensive, but IDs will be only on material covered after midterm;
likewise the essay questions will focus primarily on material covered this term
although the topics covered last term should be useful in answering the essay
Foreign Policy to South and East Asia (continued):
the US views China in a somewhat schizophrenic manner, as outlined by the reading
some have talked about a policy of “con-gaigement” which is a mix of containment
and engagement: engagement in the economic front and containment in the sphere
of military and intelligence matters
the pivot to Asia is an indication that the United Sates is moving towards a policy of
greater emphasis on containment. This is happening a context where China is
increasingly flexing its muscles towards its neighbors
this means in turn that the US has been drawn more into East Asian affairs as various
countries that are fearful and to some extent threatened by China’s rise seek to
counterbalance its military power and the only way to do so is to align with the
United States
Countries that fear the rise of China like Japan, Taiwan and S Korea have been drawn
more towards a policy of supporting the US. All of them have been close
What is more indicative of the shift of balances of forces is India’s stance, which has
traditionally been an adversary of the US in the post-wwII era.
But the attacks of Sept 11 created an opportunity or the country (given that Russia
had no longer much to offer in terms of security and cooperation) to realign itself
closer to the US. Immediately after the 9/11 attacks India offered its support based on
the reality, as the leadership pointed out, that the US clearly faced a new threat
created by Islamic terrorism which India had been facing already for several decades,
and the center of that terror came out of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Issues that have bubbled up since between India and China then have pushed India
only further in the direction of supporting the US
For example India abandoned in 2009 its policy of no first use of nuclear weapons:
not because it fears Pakistan, as India is well aware that it has superior conventional
forces in respect to Pakistan, but rather because of its relationship to China. China
clearly is superior in conventional forces to India, spends far more on its military and
it is a nuclear power itself.
It is highly unlikely that there will be a nuclear confrontation, but this is nonetheless
of symbolic importance
India was one of the main beneficiaries of the removal of the Taliban influence in
Afghanistan since the Taliban, especially the Afghani Taliban, was seen regionally as
a tool of the inner circle intelligence agency of Pakistan
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-3 of the document.
Unlock all 8 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in
Another and probably more important indication of this realignment and of the role
played by the US : the relationship between US and the Philippines. The Philippines
were a colony of the US for a considerable portion of the 20th century. After it was
granted independence, the US maintained considerable military presence, naval bases,
and close ties to the governments of Ferdinand Marcos, most notoriously. But as the
Philippines emerged from an authoritarian system of government led by Marcos, the
military presence of the US was seen in less of a positive light and thus the
relationship with the US was put under strain
NOW, the Philippines are now engaging once again in military exercise with the US.
This shows that the Philippines are ready to accept the presence of the US as a
necessary evil to counter the far more threatening presence of China
US FP towards Europe
Last term we dealt with this topic article by Hans Morgenthau: the US always
crucially been focused in terms of its foreign policy on Europe; and it played with
respect to Europe and European politics a role of offshore balancing
In other words, Europe throughout the first century and a half of American history
was the only source of threat to American security , and the only way to deal with
that threat was to keep the Europeans divided among each other
That began to change rather drastically as the European powers imploded during the
30 years war and as US rose as the main power, both economically and militarily.
And the threat shifted in a predictable direction to the confrontation between the US
and the Soviet Union
The first battlefield of the Cold War was over Europe:
AT that point Eastern Europe did not represent a threat to the US in itself but a threat
to its global dominance; but the US feared that the USSR would march into Western
Europe and take over using its superior military forces. These fears were never quite
realistic: at the end of WWII, the morale of the USSR troops was not particularly
good so their ability to carry out such a plan was hampered. Also, at the end of
WWII the Soviet Union was on a roll (or considered itself on a roll): it has come out
of the war as a winner; furthermore, the fascist regimes had failed and this seemed to
indicate that the conservative and centrist forces in Western Europe were weakened
due to their close association to the fascist regimes, which meant that if western
European countries were to return to democratic regimes, it would be likely that they
would allow the emergence of socialist or communist parties. This seemed to be
proven by the ease with which the USSR managed to impose its hegemony over
Eastern Europe, including East Germany.
Western powers faced the daunting problem of what to do about Germany
Yalta agreement: reached during the closing days of the WWII: policy of three Ds
towards Germany : de-nazification, de-militarization and democratization
the Americans were the ones who pushed for the Nuremberg system of punishing the
high-ranking Nazi officials. The problem they faced in Germany was that if they
excluded all the high official who had taken had been part of the Nazi regime from
taking part in the new government, who would take their place? Thus the
denazification posed the problem of who should be put in place of the Nazis this
meant that the 3 Ds were soon changed: the denazification was cut short. The
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-3 of the document.
Unlock all 8 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in
justification was that in order to stabilize Germany and to defend it from the threat of
Communism , the economy had to be developed. The main goal was to develop the
economy. This led to the Marshall plan.
According to the definition of fascism articulated by Mussolini: “there should not be
enough space between state and corporate power to fit a cigarette between them”.
This means that in fascist regimes, state and corporate power are strongly connected.
the major corporations of the Third Reicht were incorporated in the structures of
the Nazi regime and were deeply complicit in the war crimes of the Nazis which
created a lot of controversy during the 1950s and 60s
the notion of denazification was turned into the nation of “collective guilt”, basically
that the Germans were collectively guilty of committing the war crimes, no one is
more guilty than any one else. Combined with this was the notion of “looking
forward rather than backward” . Also combined was the plan to create a new political
movement that would be acceptable to the other Western powers. This principle also
led to the development of the Christian Democratic Party, in Germany and in Italy.
In Western Germany, the Christian Democratic Party won the first election and
governed well into the 1960s. The emergence of the party was facilitated by an
enormous amount of logistical support offered by the CIA; but also by the context
that emerged after the collapse of the Nazi regime
o Germany had been divided into 4 occupation zones: American, English,
South, and Russian
the original plan was that once the de-nazification of Germany would be completed,
the Germany would be re-united and would acquire its sovereignty again
the overwhelming narrative that took hold in the West is that the Soviet Union backed
out of that plan, that it blocked the reunification of Germany and held East Europe
hostage behind the iron curtain. The reality is different: it was the US which made
the first moves towards a split of Germany in two parts by introducing a currency in
the Western part without consulting the Eastern part thus de facto separating the
economies. Thus the Soviet Union did the same and the separation followed. The
Berlin wall was built about a decade later.
The wall was largely due to the fact that one f the provisions was that each of the
occupying powers would withdraw the reparations from the zone of occupation. This
meant that the Soviet Union, which had been the hardest hit from the Nazi regime,
withdrew its reparations from Easter Germany, which was the poorest part . The
Western sector instead didn’t withdraw any reparations due to the Marshall Plan
so there was a huge disparity between the Western and Eastern sector of Germany.
This led to a great flow of people out of E and into the Western sectors, mostly the
elites were the ones leaving. So finally the Soviets decided to build the wall.
Similar types of processes played themselves out with the cooperation and tutelage
of the US, in France and Italy, and in much more violent form in Turkey and
Greece., which were subject to a process of…
the upshot was that liberal democracies re-emerged in Western Europe, with the
notable exceptions of Greece (remained under military rule for much of the first
years after the war) and Spain and Portugal, which remained under authoritarian rule
well into the 1970s
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-3 of the document.
Unlock all 8 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Get OneClass Notes+

Unlimited access to class notes and textbook notes.

YearlyBest Value
75% OFF
$8 USD/m
$30 USD/m
You will be charged $96 USD upfront and auto renewed at the end of each cycle. You may cancel anytime under Payment Settings. For more information, see our Terms and Privacy.
Payments are encrypted using 256-bit SSL. Powered by Stripe.