Class Notes (810,429)
Canada (494,121)
POL326Y1 (69)

POL326 March 26.pdf

8 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto St. George
Political Science
Arnd Jurgensen

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 3options). • 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 questions Foreign Policy to South and East Asia (continued): • the US views China in a somewhat schizophrenic manner, as outlined by the reading by • 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 • 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 20 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 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 • Western Europe was of great importance for the US in the post-war period for economic reasons: Europe was becoming an enormous market for American goods after ww1, up to the beginning of ww2.So the US feared that in the absence of rapid reconstruction of the European market in the post-ww2 period, the US would fall back into depression. This is the primary motivation behind the establishment of the Marshall Plan • The US favored the creation of trade treaties and political union among European countries because it feared the re-emergence of nationalist movements in Western Europe which threatened to undermine the recovery of Europe by forcing countries to devote substantial funds to re-militarization • the European Coal and Steal community : this was intended to create interdependency among European states by integrating their coal and steal industries (coal and steal were at the time the crucial industries for militarization). This would deter them from going to war with each other. • Germany went along with that because it had little ability to refuse. In the aftermath of ww2 it had no soft power, it was prevented form militarizing, and it was mainly focused on the rapid reconstruction of its economy. It succeeded in that tremendously, indeed it emerged as the main economic player in Europe by the 1960s. • Why did France go along with that ? This is a little more of a puzzle. The explanation lies in the process of decolonization which started after ww2 (Germany had lost its colonies after ww1). France was keen to reassert its dominance over its colonies. France had colonies in North Africa and in the Far e
More Less

Related notes for POL326Y1

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.