Chapter 1 : A Farewell to Continentalism
Modern times = XVII°
Contemporary times = XX°- now
!! XX° ≠ 1901 → depends on the events
Ex : USA XX°= 1898 → great change in foreign policy
- Embracing Imperialism
American Foreign Policy XIX° :
Lots of immigration BUT less open → had to chose
+ continentalism ≠isolationism = focus on the American continent
→ Expansion within the continent : war USA VS Mexico → + California and Texas for US at the expense of Mexico
→ More relations with other American countries
→ More and more independent countries on American continent (decolonization)
1826 : Monroe Doctrine : USA declared no intervention with European countries and their colonies’ affaires BUT accepted no intervention from Euro countries with USA and free American countries’ affaires => protection of sphere of influence
!! relative threat because USA not that powerful in XIX°
So, XIX° : continental expansion ≠ overseas expansion
+ Jefferson : North America = « Empire of Liberty »
→ NOT imperialism : creating self-governed republics NOT colonies
American Foreign Policy XX° :
1898 : Change in foreign policy : continental expansion → overseas expansion
USA traditionally against overseas expansion because former colony => against imperialism
→ Most of Americans against BUT other in favor
Reasons :
- Americans willing to be an example but without exporting its model
BUT some missionaries abroad (Asia) willing to export it → expansionists - Ideology
NOT enlightenment any more (natural equality, self-governed people, against imperialism)
=> Social Darwinism = theory of evolution (Darwin) transferred on people
= thought that Anglo-Saxons superior
→ legitimized inequality : « natural inequality »
→ legitimized domination
→ legitimized imperialism - Jingoism : nationalism in aggressive foreign policy
→ martial spirit, eager to go to war
Need for naval strategy for some Americans
Coal = modern technology to cross Atlantic SO new threat for USA
→ Alfred Mahan, sea captain, historian and intellectual : major influence on government
1898 -> age of change
Continentalism 🡺 Continent = North American – Hemisphere
🡺 Expansion of the USA (East Coast -> West Coast). Try to not be isolated ≠ overseas
🡺 George Washington (elected 1789) said “no entangling alliances” -> USA not contracted alliances with European (only business = power)
USA are not isolationist 🡪 deal with Europe
Spain have territory in USA (ex : Florida)
France have Canada
Continentalism ≠ Isolationism
End of Continentalism in 1898 :
- Why ? suited by the beginning of the USA -> at the beginning only 13 states who expanded=> began more powerful (economically) . USA became the 1st country economic power
USA need to expand / spread their economic power overseas
- War Ideology => social Darwinism
- Period of imperialism = new colonies in Asia and north Africa
- Religion = Missionaries (want to spread their religion) 🡪 WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant)
- Jingoism / Nationalism = Martial spirits (favor going to war)
- Alfred Mahan 🡪 Naval strategy
- In the last quarter of 19th century USA became = a Naval Power, develop of Navy
- Naval revolution : Mahan was who convinced the Government to have the Navy to be safe
- Technical change : steam
- Sphere influence -> great power : Latina American, Caribbean
USA situation in 19th century is = Like China actually
USA acted of overseas empire : 1st step was Hawaii (commercial and economic interest)
Buy 1893 : see already that USA was ready to expand overseas
War against Spain 1898 : still have colonies in Cuba (who wanted independent)
- American war ship : “The Main” = 15 February – USS Maine explodes and sinks in Havana harbor, Cuba, killing 266 men. Popular opinion blames Spain and helps precipitate the Spanish American War.
USA defeated Spain and required some territories : Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guan, the Philippines
Mahan, The influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1890
+ The interest of America in Sea Power, 1897. → Turning the eyes outward instead of inward
→ Britain = small island in Pacific BUT mastered to control other countries around thanks to sea power SO USA must do the same for greatness and safety
→ Revival of imperialism, competition between countries + new powerful countries (Ger, Jap.) willing to buy new territories near the USA SO threat, safety necessity of sea power
→ Need to control coaling stations overseas to top up
=> Preparedness + necessity = need for sea power and overseas expansion
Mahan convinced Congress necessity to build a naval power (started even before)
→ 1898 : War against Spain
Cuba still Spanish colony → rebellion for independence
Spanish army was sent : bloodbath + lots of reporters sent → influence on US public opinion
→ Americans more and more in favor of interventionism
+ American warship The Main blew up in the Havana harbor → Spain suspected
=> USA declared war to Spain : fight Atlantic + Pacific (Cuba + Philippines)
USA defeated Spanish fleet
SO what to do with the Spanish colonies ? = Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guatemala, Philippines
→ Debate : USA control them ?
- Against : like colonies = against US ideology
SO self-governed territories - In favor : territories not ready to govern themselves
SO US had to teach them, moral duty to help them
!! same argument than for imperialism (like in Louisiana in the past)
Jefferson said “The Empire of liberty”: mean reconciled with North American expansion, based on self-government
National debate : each side had their arguments
Imperialist arguments:
- They buy territories without asking people
- Interest overseas territories
- Naval bases = “coaling stations” (charbon)
- Social dominate
- Self-government = the contentment of the governed
Racial arguments on the south -> cause of the Philippines, in their mind, those people never became American (racist idea)
1959 = Fidel Castro-> never be self-governed
After 1898 :
2 sides
An Imperialist prevailed president elected was Theodore/Teddy Roosevelt in 1901-1908 🡪 policy of Big Stick = symbol of power
He took part of the war Spain in Cuba, he was a “rough rider”, he fought for this war, he was in favor, supporter of Mahan (navy, forget continentalism…) member of congress
Preparedness = prepare to war
He said : “when you are a president you need to speak softly but carry a big stick”
The diplomacy “Big Stick” -> intervention
National interest -> promote by using their power
USA’ role in world order was Responsibility
Intervened in Cuba = stayed an American protector
1902 intervened for order, by a Treaty
1901 : election Theodore Roosevelt as President + reelected for 2nd term
Roosevelt = Mahan’s disciple
→ Jingoist
→ Responsibility of US on its « backyard » : Southern America = sphere of influence
→ Preparedness : military prepared to intervene overseas : promote US’s interests / support order
=> More global country + prevent European countries from intervening in America
+ Often associated with Big Stick policy : « speak softly but carry a big stick. »
Platt Amendment 1903
USA controlled Cuba
1903 : withdrew from island BUT under conditions = Platt Amendment
- No treaties with other foreign powers
- No debts SO no risk of foreign interventions
- Treaty of Paris = end of war with Spain
→ Foreign countries could not intervene in Cuba BUT US could
= USA could intervene to support order in its sphere of influence - The Cuban government should sell or lease to US a place to create a naval station/coal station → protection for Cuba
= Guantanamo (US enclave in Cuba) → became controversial with Castro
The Monroe Doctrine was a United States policy that opposed European colonialism in the Americas. It began in 1823; however, the term « Monroe Doctrine » itself was not coined until 1850. The Doctrine was issued on December 2, at a time when nearly all Latin American colonies of Spain and Portugal had achieved, or were at the point of gaining, independence from the Portuguese and Spanish Empires. It stated that further efforts by various European states to take control of any independent state in the Americas would be viewed as « the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. » At the same time, the doctrine noted that the U.S. would recognize and not interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal affairs of European countries.
Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine 1904/5 (messages from President Roosevelt)
Investors played a significant role in new established countries → needed money so FR, UK, GER invested
ex : invested in Cuba BUT then wanted money back → military intervention
→ US wanted to avoid any foreign intervention
SO took control of customs duties to pay the investors back (Cuba, Venezuela, Santo Domingo)
!! US thought European intervention was sometimes legitimate BUT wanted to protect its interests
=> Intervention before foreign powers
Other interventions :
Philippines controlled by USA
BUT guerilla → Roosevelt sent US Marines to repress the rebellion
!!against what they had said
Panama (Part of Columbia – Central America)
Project of a canal in Panama
→ At first, French company BUT failed (because of yellow fever…)
→ Roosevelt and Mahan : saw danger for US if European country controlled the canal
SO ready to build and control the canal
BUT Columbian President against it
SO, US naval backed up a coup in Panama helping Panama to separate with Columbia
→ Success : USA build and controlled the Panama Canal
!! against first ideology
Taft elected after Roosevelt
1908 : new policy the Dollar Diplomacy = economic power
≠ Roosevelt’s military power (Big Stick)
Taft allowed investors to define the foreign policy (Roosevelt OK only if backed US interests)
→ « Open-door policy » in China = China very weak, European powers invested and influenced the country
=> Taft wanted US to be part of it too and become an Asian power as well + increase US trade
→ « Concert of powers » = great powers had to act together to maintain world order
=> US wants to have a global role, not only a regional one anymore
!! investors need stability and free trade
→ ready to rely on authoritarian governments (Latin America Spain, ex: Nicaragua)
So, no more about values of democracy → US interests and influence above all
Dollar diplomacy of the United States—particularly during President William Howard Taft‘s presidential term— was a form of American foreign policy to minimize the use or threat of military force and instead further its aims in Latin America and East Asia through the use of its economic power by guaranteeing loans made to foreign countries.
In his message to Congress on 3 December 1912, Taft summarized the policy of Dollar Diplomacy:
The diplomacy of the present administration has sought to respond to modern ideas of commercial intercourse. This policy has been characterized as substituting dollars for bullets. It is one that appeals alike to idealistic humanitarian sentiments, to the dictates of sound policy and strategy, and to legitimate commercial aims.
USA want to invest in China, for America investments
- Liberal Internationalism = Wilsonism and Its Failure
Wilson Woodrow (1856–1924), 28th president of the US 1913–21 elected after Taft
A Democrat, he eventually took the US into World War I in 1917 and later played a leading role in the peace negotiations and the formation of the League of Nations.
The Senate, however, failed to ratify the peace treaty. Semi-incapacitated by a stroke in 1919, he did not seek re-election. Nobel Peace Prize (1920).
Dollar Diplomacy and Big Stick are related
Liberal : individual liberty and government intervention = Laissez-faire ; mean progressive Internationalism : states with relation with other country ≠ continentalism
Wilson embodies : He did not want to go back to continentalism.
Real difference wis his predecessors : he reacted to their policies
→ established tradition of « wilsonianism »
A new world order/diplomacy :
🡪 Wilson has self-determination to the people ≠ imperialism. In an empire there is different nation/states.
🡪 He was for justice/equality ≠ inequality
🡪 Important for him to have collective security (security of country be peace) ≠ balance of power (puissance)
🡪 The league of Nations : “to make the world safe for Democracy”
🡪 Democracy should reflect public opinion ≠ secret diplomacy
🡪 morality ≠ interest (should be subordinated to moral consideration)
The Fourteen Points was a statement of principles for peace that was to be used for peace negotiations in order to end World War I.
The principles were outlined in a January 8, 1918, speech on war aims and peace terms to the United States Congress by Wilson.
But his main Allied colleagues (Georges Clemenceau of France, David Lloyd George of the United Kingdom, and Vittorio Orlando of Italy) were skeptical of the applicability of Wilsonian idealism.
| Predecessors | Wilson |
| R: Big Stick policyT: Dollar Policy→ saw the world as a place of competition= power politics : policy based on power(More European tradition)=> wanted US to join the « concert of powers » without changing the world | « Make the world safe for democracy »→ spread democracy with policies based on moral and ethical = back to more tradition→ « consent of the governed » is the priority |
| Imperialism and militarismInjustice and inequality | Self-determination, self-governmentEquality and justice for all States → League of Nations |
| Balance of power (balance through alliances)BUT unilateralism be prepared and only count on oneself | Collective security → Multilateralism (League of Nations) |
| Secrecy, secret diplomacy (R and T but more European tradition) | Transparency and public opinion → based on people and NOT on governments |
| Foreign policy based on interestsEconomic interventions | Economic intervention = immoralBusiness had to serve US morality → foreign policy based on morality |
| Mahan (R) : wars cannot be avoided→ come from the people so inevitable | Wars come from the rulers not the people + could be avoided : belonged to the past → if self-government and democracy everywhere THEN each nation satisfied= peace+ believed in « arbitration » : rely on a third party to avoid war (Taft too) |
=> Wilson believed that the duty of the USA was to spread democracy to reshape the world as a place of security and peace.
Wilson’s actions
Asia : withdrew the government support to invest in China
→ believed against self-determination of China
+ against Dollar Diplomacy (doc brochure)
Latin America :
Promoted democracy
Treaty signed in Columbia
→ acknowledge the wrongdoings of his predecessors
= compensated the country for what had happened
Mexico : intervention
Mexico instable → coup by Huerta which overthrew legitimate government of Madera
Wilson intervened to force Huerta to leave power and restitute it to Madera
=> failure because Mexicans resented USA for intervening
→ Wilson intervened a lot in various places in the world : believed was US duty to stabilizes countries with democracy and the countries needed time to instore it
Failure of Wilson’s intervention and policies :
WWI : at first, USA did not intervene because public opinion against it
1917 : US public opinion shifted → war against democracy
+ Germany did not respect USA neutrality (torpedoed US vessels)
SO, US intervention
Wilson, Fourteen Points Speech, 1918
Speech establishing an agenda to build the bases of a worldwide peace
- A Wilsonian Manifesto …
– « To Make the World Safe for Democracy »
– Self-determination as Wilson’s Solution
– Other Wilsonian recipes for peace :
– Open diplomacy
– governments as spokesman for nationalities and peoples
– justice - … Against the Old Order (which is responsible for WWI)
– Secrecy as the reason for wars
– « force and selfish aggression » must not rule international relations
– spheres of influence must be dismantled
– Against Militarism and imperialism
– Injustice - … to end all wars
– a statement of clear war objectives
– aim of the war : a just and stable peace (including for Germany)
– the League of Nations
After the war, Wilson went to France (about 6 months)
Versailles Peace Conference : tried to make his vision become true and change the world order
+ Wanted established democracy to be the prevalent order to have peace
→ still empires : wanted countries to have their independence (Poland, Yugoslavia…)
BUT disappointed : countries agreed at first then turn to be more about revenge and their own interests => saw in German humiliation another war
+ worked on the creation of the League of Nations : organization based on international security needed to keep peace
→ solidarity between countries to protect another country if attacked = end war immediately
BUT USA Congress did not ratify the League of Nations → intervention up to Congress and no one else SO saw it as against Congress sovereignty
=> Big disillusion for Wilson
Wilson came back to US extremely disappointed with the allies and his own country
→ exhausted, he died soon after
=> Wilsonianism declined quite quickly (but Wilsonian tradition back later)
+ end of 3 decades of interventionism
→ period inter-war : attempt to go back to isolationism (people regretted intervention WWI)
WWII
1938 : Treaty between Hitler and the other European countries in Munich
→ allowed Germany to annex Sudetenland (German speakers in Czechoslovakia)
= start of German expansion
=> Against sovereignty and equality (like Russia today) BUT US did not intervened
1939 : USA changed its foreign policy : fascism = threat to USA
- Sold weapons to Allies
- Pearl Harbor’s bombing by Japan → involved in the war against Japan
- Alliance Germany, Japan, and Italy
→ Germany declared war to the USA (Hitler hated US anyway)
=> Atomic bomb = end of the war
Wilson had some difference between him and his predecessors (who support regimes with power only)
Wilson supported Democrat regime.
1913 : a coup/un coup d’état in Mexico from Huerta ; Wilson send US army to opposed Huerta because it was against self-determination
Wilson apologies to Colombia about the Panama Canal.
Inter-war period.
Different policies after WW1 : end of Continentalism, Big Stick… New approaches with Wilson : Wilsonialism failed, the League of Nations was the life project of Wilson. Neutrality became the new policy of the US between the two wars. The twenties were very Conservative. It translated into a withdraw from the world.
T.WILSON 1913-1921- democrat
W. HARDING 1921-1923 – republican
C. COOLIDGE 1923-1929 – republican
H. HOOVER 1929-1933 – republican
Franklin ROOSEVELT 1933-1945 – Democrat
Isolationist mood between the wars.
Over the 1930’s they were determined to not be involved in European affairs. Because of lobbies, Bank Corporation intervention was entirely rejected. That is why the president who was not an isolationist was not really alarmed by the first invasion move of Germany in 1938 by the Munich Pact. They began expanding by annexing Slovenia called the Sudeten.
That was the first step of Germany. The US did not do anything and was not alarmed. The US not intervene again, and not be involved in what happened in Europe.
1939. They changed their mind rapidly. When it became obvious Hitler and Mussolini wanted to expand, that Hitler was not respecting the president and the US, referring to his physical handicap (….). progressively the US and public opinion realize how the situation could be dangerous.
Munich Pact in 1938
Hitler and Mussolini want to expand, and Hitler have obviously not any respect for USA
What happened ? After WW2.
They were two superpowers : US and SU. They had been isolated during the war. They became enemies without direct conflicts : that is why it is called a cold war. They both have nuclear weapons. the Us had the monopoly upon the nuclear war until 1949. That was the beginning of a different foreign policy.
The US were supposed to have a Jacksonien policy, a president known to be ruthless with enemies. Second, they used all the resources to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible, this is what the US have done. The USA had the nuclear monopoly until 1949, That was the beginning of a different foreign policy.
Chapter 2 : The Cold War and Global Commitment Up to Vietnam
- A New Policy and Its Implementation in Europe
Soviet and USA have direct conflict between the 2 powers.
The USA have the monopoly
Jacksonian Foreign Policy
Origins of the Cold War : The US and the SO had different views on what should be the world order.
At the time, the political vacuum : because of the end of the Empire, there was the crumbling of imperial powers and the decline of the dominant nations in Europe. So, the two superpowers were very dominant. They both tried to influence and dominate the world as they were already doing on some territories. The Us believed it was possible to impose its definition of a world post-war thanks to the monopole of the nuclear arm.
Political vacuum (vide de pouvoir)
Roosevelt 🡪 Truman (Democrat, he followed the Roosevelt’s idea)
Munich syndrome 🡪 appeasement
Self-determination
Mutual disagreement/misunderstanding
ROOSEVELT re-elected 3 times (4 times totally), the only president died in office Truman became president.
According to president Truman, it had been a mistake to not react to the Munich Pact in 1938. After WW2, the president and many Americans thought it had been a mistake to not intervene earlier. They believed there was a Munich syndrome : the US had been too cautious, and that was something to not do again : react instead of waiting. So, they thought they had to stop the SU.
The state of mind was different after the two wars. Munich Syndrome is also called: appeasement. That is the opposite of confronting the enemy.
Long Period of the Cold War : 1947-1989
Containment/Deterrence (dissuasion)
Theory
Political realism ≠ Wilsonianism (optimistic view of Human)
- Human nature 🡪 irrational
- Public opinion should not define American Foreign Policy + cannot be expected to contribute to peace
- Self-determination should not the USA aim
- Need to isolate Foreign Policy from public pressure/opinion to have a rational policy
- Importance of the global State of war
The two superpowers had different views :
The US wanted to let the people control their government, self-determination. FDR and Truman were democrats, they also insisted on the fact the US should withdraw on the territories they were dominated against people’s will. This was dangerous for SU, they did not agree. Soviet troops remained. Truman’s attitude increased Stalin determination to comfort his solid control of Europe.
The two superpowers had a opposite political philosophy : capitalism against communism. So, this mutual misunderstanding led to the cold war : a long period 1945-1991 in Europe.
In such a long period, what about American foreign policy ? One dominant approach which was Containment – Endiguement – Deterrence – Dissuasion → Dettere your enemy from expanding or attacking you. Each president has their own way to contain but they all had the same aim.
The Role of political theory changed American foreign policy, different ideas about the world and The Us’ place. Political Realism viewed as the opposite of Wilsionalism. They thought there was something unrealistic about this, and so it is the reason why it has failed. They wanted a more realistic vision of the world : how relations between the states should work ? It was a different vision of human beings that Wilson had.
It was probably due to the impact of psycho analysis : Human nature was seen as irrational. Human cruelty was obvious to all since what happened during the war. Wilsionalism had an extremely optimistic view of human nature. Wilson hoped that the new diplomacy should be based on public opinion and transparency. This new policy was against public opinion because humans were cruel, public opinion should not define American foreign policy and cannot be expected to contribute to peace.
It is the same result concerning Self Determination which should not be the US aim. After WW2, the US were pressing France to decolonize China, but they stopped doing it because of the Cold War and the communist threat.
Political realists believed foreign policy should be isolated from public opinion – pressure to be rational.
USA rely on principals :
- Balance of power
- Alliances
- Militarization -> hard power
- Rise of the executive power (≠Democracy ?)
- the US’ role in the world is not to change it but to stabilize it 🡪 order
- Foreign Policy should be based on rational interest
Han Morgenthau : Politics Among Nations in 1948
There was an insistence on rationality and interferent background, the new international relations were dangerous and so could not rely on people. Political realism in America reflects the beginning of the cold War period. During the Cold War, the US found themself in a State of War which was a global state of war which means It seemed impossible to have peace, but it also seems impossible to have war.
The new foreign policy was suited to the state of war that used to be seen as something European. Being in a state of war was entirely new for the US because the country used to not be involved in international relations and to focus on Western Hemisphere. Therefore, the US relies on principles which were not traditional American principles.
They adopted new one used in Europe which were in a state of war too : alliances, balances of power, militarization “hard power”…
The institutions were also changed to adopt these new principles, so there was the rise of the executive power. The US role in the world is not to change it but stabilize it : order is the dominant aim. The idea that foreign policy should be based on national interest to be rational.
During WW2 lots of European scientist schoolers went to the Us and influence the American policy. They tried to develop a theory of international relation, emphasizing the new role of the US.
One particular political scientist from Germany played a great role, it was Hans Morgenthau. He influenced several generations of political thinkers publishing Politics among Nations in 1948. He wanted to teach the US by saying the reality of the international relation was, it thought the US was naive about the world and that it was due to Wilson which was naive too. It was not possible to change the world because it reflects human nature. He teaches a lesson to the US on world order based on reality based itself on powers according to him. Wilson wanted to eliminate power.
So, it is everything that Wilson wanted to abolish creating a new diplomacy. Wilson wanted to Americanize the world : a new American world order based on American principles. Instead of Americanizing the world, the American policy was influenced by Europe. The US adopted Power Politics – la politique des puissances.
- From Korea to Vietnam : Containment goes global
Events of the US which demonstrate policy of the US :
1947. The beginning of the cold war. It was a crucial year, when the American policy changed with the new principles. George Kennan was a diplomat who influenced American Policy.
Document the Sources of Soviet Conduct, foreign Affairs, July 1947 by George Kennan.
Première partie : impacts de la politique communiste
Deuxième partie : les conséquences sur la politique étrangère des EU envers l’US.
C’est un télégramme envoyé au département d’état des affaires étrangères envoyé en février 1946 puis oublié sous forme d’article de manière anonyme. C’est un essai d’explication de la politique étrangère. On prend pour acquis que les EU doivent partir d’une compréhension de ce qui arrive, d’abord comprendre au lieu de vouloir s’en défaire : comprendre la nature du régime dont on ne peut se débarrasser. C’est une politique étrangère plus complexe que le Wilsonisme car il voulait tout changer. On s’adapte au monde plutôt que de vouloir le changer ou le tuer. On fait confiance à des gens qui peuvent nous expliquer cela. Kennan a ce rôle c’est un diplomate. Il fait partie de ceux qui amènent des informations qui définissent la politique étrangère. En US, le socialisme est considéré comme une science, tout ce que dit le Kremlin ne peut être remis en question, la discipline étrangère est un but en soit. Il dit que l’on ne peut prévoir que si l’on connaît le mode de fonctionnement du régime.
Dans la seconde partie, un lien est fait entre “power” et “rational”. Il aborde le réalisme politique en s’opposant au Jacksonisme et en renvoyant l’idée que l’opinion publique n’est pas stable et donc incompatible avec un régime à long terme. Il rappelle que le monde est tel qu’il est et qu’il faut faire avec car on ne peut le changer, “contain by counter-force”. On s’oppose une nouvelle fois au Jacksonisme. L’USA est puissante elle peut avoir un rôle global et elle va essayer d’étendre sa sphère d’influence, les Eu doivent endiguer cela. Les deux pays sont trop différents pour être “amis”.
Dans ce combat entre EU et US, ce qui est surtout important c’est que les Eu doivent démontrer une supériorité sur ce que sont les valeurs des Eu et démontrer que ce que disent les communistes sur les Eu est faux. Il y a bel et bien pour les américains une supériorité de leur pays qui passent par des principes comme la liberté individuelle. Une certaine vitalité interne des Eu va permettre de gagner la guerre froide. L’aspect militaire n’est pas abordé, car le “containment” militaire n’est pas nécessaire. La diplomatie est le principal atout pour endiguer le communisme, la puissance compte mais ne permettra pas de stopper la guerre froide.
This document reflects the new foreign policy of the Us at the very beginning of the Cold War. The Importance of foresight (prévision) is particularly important because it allowed to have a rational policy, opposed to Jacksionalism. During the Cold war reacting was no longer possible so the policy should be rational based on foresight.
How is it possible to foresee ? Kennan’s analysis is not based on the Soviet Union as a state because he believed it was ruled by ideology and not interest or reason. Kennan defines a long-term approach (typical of the cold war). He says to not be quick or easy but in the long term we will probably succeed but we have to be patient. Kenan was not for a military containment so he disagreed with … He was also against the Vietnam War. He was still alive when the SU crumbled. He was very critical about how the US reacted at the end of the cold war because they celebrated the end of the war whereas they had no reason to be proud.
1947 was a crucial year, why ?
The Truman Doctrine (March 1947): speech delivered by Truman which meant to be very important (as much as the Monroe Doctrine). In this speech, Truman describes a very ambitious foreign policy that was supporting free people everywhere and helping them resist « attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure ». The US would intervene everywhere in the world and doing so he militarized the containment defined by Kennan. He also turned what Kennan said into a Doctrine (can be used everywhere, anytime). Successful (intervention in Greece and Turkey) : made the US believe that it was easy to implement the Truman Doctrine : it became implicative as a result of an event that took place in Greece and Turkey (pressure from Soviets), these were the first times US could enforce their containment.
There was a political vacuum in Europe because the powers were declining. Britain announced in 1947 it could no longer afford in Greece and Turkey a military help that it had helped before the military to fight communist guerrilla. There were speeches emphasizing the universal struggle to freedom against tyranny that is how the US argued. There was also a departure from very important principles : “no entangling alliances”. By the militarization of the Containment, the US became an ally with Greece and Turkey. In this speech Truman described a very ambitious foreign policy that was supporting “free people everywhere in the world” “how they resist emptying por by outside pressure” … He said the US would intervene everywhere. He militarized the Doctrine of Containment defined by Kennan. The US did : military intervention in Greece and Turkey. It was successful. It made American think it was easy to apply the Truman Doctrine.
The Marshall Plan. Europe both east and west had economic difficulties and could not recover from WW2. It was dangerous because the SU could take advantage of the situation and expand. That is the reason why the US decided to help Europe economically. It was proposed in the West and East but the SU would not allow the country’s most in the East to accept the American help. It was an economic advantage; The Marshall Plan was something seen as something valuable from the US, because they were producing a lot and could sell their product. The US supplied a great amount of money for several years : 17 billion dollars. The baby boom benefit of it.
The US Congress passed a very important act : The National Security Act. It gave new tools to the president to lead American foreign policy. Three Institutions were created :
The CIA was created to be responsible for secret operations and the security of the president. This is a symbol for the US of a new foreign policy.
The National Security Council at the head of the National Security Advisor. They worked at White House to help the President. The President is surrounded by advisors. Foreign policy is concentrated in the white house. It is a more secret policy. Mainly the idea is to concentrate powers and give all the elements to the president so he can decide.
The Department of Defense. The idea was to centralize different institutions related to the security of the US. The Congress was first dominant but now it is the president, the policy is really based on European policy.
Cold War American policy.
Rationality was very important for the US policy. You had to think twice before intervening. It was a long-term approach. It was more a global policy, it had to suit the world. The American foreign policy became more European based on national interest. There were more alliances, bounce of power…. The US relied on the same theories because they had no other option.
The US accepts the priority of security. It was a departure from original principles. There was more secrecy, less reliance on public opinion. Diplomacy became very serious, there was a will for more diplomats. European diplomats provide theory. The policy was more centralized, the president and president advisors were taking the big decisions. These advisors were part of the National Security Council. Diplomats were supervised by the State Department.
Why did Containment go global ?
The both superpowers had global influence, they wanted to dominate the war. So, their fight became global. The Cold War extended so far into Asia.
In 1950-53, there was the Korean War. Today, Korea remains divided between north and south, it started during the cold war. To prevent the expansion/ unification of the country with communism, the USA started a deadly war, needed to intervene in the name of the Truman Doctrine.
The Truman Doctrine was leading the policy → intervene everywhere and every time to prevent the spread of communism. The war taught lessons to the US : costly human life, direct conflicts… they tried to use other means more secrets using the CIA for example.
Eisenhower and its use of the CIA
This is what president Eisenhower (elected in 1953 to 1960). He was a republican president, in a democratic era. He was a general. He tried to remember the lessons of Korea and so used the CIA to fight Communism.
Increasing use of the CIA after the Korean War :
→ The CIA was used in 1983, in Iran. There was a coup in Iran by Mossadegh to replace the shah (king). Typical at the time, shah not representative of the people, wanted someone more representative (=a coup).
During the Cold war, this is something the US did not tolerate because it was seen as being communism, such as every revolution seen. They tried to nationalize the resources, to supervise and control. The CIA was used to overthrow the Mossadegh in Iran.
→ In 1954, in Guatemala. The CIA helped local military to overthrow the government. It was about the power of an American company which has been nationalized by Jacobo Arbenz. He nationals the company and it was associated with communism, so there was an intervention to overthrow Arbenz
“80% of the CIA budget was consent to “Covert actions” (supervised by the president).
They justified saying there were no other solutions. They also referred to the domino theory: had to prevent any country to become communist otherwise it would spread. It was another way to globalize foreign policy.
Another lesson from the Korean War : the US should make war by proxy (procuration) whereas then being directly involved. This is what they did in Vietnam for example. They tried to support the effort of another country to contain communism. So, the CIA was used by Eisenhower to not fight directly, this is called Doctrine of massive retaliation : Made sure they were at the head of the nuclear power against the Soviet Union.
Declining Image.
The problem for the American foreign policy was image. The US were very ambivalent when they did decolonization after the 2WW, but in fact during the Cold War they were very cautious to not decolonize if it would serve the interest of Communism. There was an attempt to do something about it by Eisenhower. There was a competition between the USA and the Soviet Union models who had to have a good image to win. To some extent every time the US was something that was bad for their image and so the soft power.
The president tried to do something about it with the so-called Doctrine of the Middle East in 1957.
They were the crises of the Suez Canal in Egypt, known as Suez crisis in 1956. It was similar to what happened in Guatemala or Iran. In Egypt there was a want for more economic independence and the canal was controlled by Great Britain as the government wanted to nationalize the Canal. It was nationalized by Nasser. It was seen as a threat by Israel and also Britain because the Canal was very strategic. There was an intervention in Egypt by Israel, US, Great Britain, and France. This was also related to the Cold War. The US put pressure on its alliances to withdraw from Egypt. It was experienced as humiliation by Britain and France forced to act. It was an illustration of intervention by the West to put an end to nationalization. It contributed to the West, it shows the West was against self-government and was acting in a very imperialist way.
So, it was against the US’s image. Eisenhower tried to emphasize on intervention individualist would be legitimate in the Doctrine of the Middle East only if it was requested by the country, they should not be intervention if it was not asked by the country and it political independence (was not what happened in Egypt, not requested, not the same aims a new form of big stick by the western powers of Roosevelt). USA did not want to be associated with it, because at the time there was a competition between the USA and the Soviet Union models had to have a good image to win not doing things to make its image bad
That was the first attempt by the US and Eisenhower to try to deny imperialism.
Kennedy (1961-1963) was elected to improve the image of the US. During the Cold War, the objective could be achieved by different policies. They keep going on Containment. There was something similar between the two presidents. Kennedy was in his way fighting against Communism.
Kennedy was much more aware of the frustration of fellow countries (tried to develop more independence and create a nation by nationalizing).
Kennedy abandoned Eisenhower’s approach and tried to rely more on neutrality. He allowed neutrality to those who were not for the US or the Soviet Union. He tried to reach out to the Soviet Union by emphasizing what he called “a world of diversity”. That is to say the world way to accommodate a different political system. It was a new rhetoric which was more opened and less Manichean. Kennedy said communism is very different, but the world should not be divided by evil, maybe there should be more mutual understanding between the two powers. It was aimed to improve communication and relation between the two countries.
It develops the concept of “nation-building” (use of the American power to help nations to develop). It is also called good communication. Attempts to improve the image of the US by seeing it as a country which helps other countries about creating nations whereas just intervene. It characterized the new visions of new American generations. He created the Peace Corps Program (it allowed the American to use other countries : teachers, engineers…). This program was very popular. It allowed to create more stability, create a national economy…. The idea was to use the American power to help underdeveloped countries so the US could be seen on the right side of History supporting the decolonization. The aim was to project the image of the US based on idealism, return to the principles.
The ambivalence of Kennedy
More idealist, a world of diversity BUT Still necessary to rely on covert actions (Cuba) not a complete change.
Kennedy, we can see two sides. There was a major change. The rhetoric and what he did was another. He was also committed to Containment and thinks something the US did not have the possibility to do in another way. It relied on covert actions for example in Cuba. So, it was not a complete change before. It was important to not appear weak cause he was young.
What happened in Vietnam ?
Kennedy’s foreign policy is illustrated by the In the Vietnam war. Vietnam was a Chinese colony. After the 2WW, the US first supported decolonization but were more cautious then. The US no longer supported self-determination in China and rather helped the French maintain order in China. That is the reason why this war is a good illustration of how war could be managed by the US (Containment policy).
The war by proxy from 1950 to 1965. The Northern part is communist. The Southern part is controlled by France and then by the US. The country remained divided, the southern part was not communist, and the US would assure the country will not be reunified by the communist party.
On the first part the US helped provide weapons and money, military training to the Vietnam forces. When France failed to prevent Communism, they were defeated in 1964.
The US react and decided to help the Vietnamese in the South, it was still a war by proxy. When Kennedy was elected, he continued the policy planned by his predecessor.
In spite of his rhetoric Kennedy was determined “to not lose face”. He increased American intervention, just to show the world and the Soviet Union did not allow the expansion of Communism in Asia. He sent more money, weapons, advisors….
What was very typical of Kennedy ambivalent practice he that also used the CIA to help a coup against someone that the US had supported : Diem, he was very unpopular and was seen no more as an ally but as an obstacle to win the south Vietnam – containment. In November 1963, there was a coup, he was killed three weeks before Kennedy was assassinated.
President Johnson 1963-1969
After Kennedy assassination, Johnson became president. He did much the same; he was also determined to fight communism and keep fighting in Vietnam. The Vietnam war was called a bourbier “quagmire” because so many American remained stuck there. The Americanization of the North, this is when the US became directly involved in the North between 1965-1968. There was no declaration of war, but the Congress authorized the president to send troops in Vietnam through The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. We talked about an “escalation” in Vietnam : more and more troops were sent, more and more bombs were sent….At the end of Johnson term, almost half a million of American were in Vietnam.
President Nixon 1969-1974
The US would prevent another war but with the Truman Doctrine it was difficult to not be involved. This war has very huge consequences for the US. This is damaging American democratic party, and Nixon was elected to put an end to the war. He was a republican who began a republican cycle in the US.
Chapter 3 : The Cold War After Vietnam
What happened after Johnson? He appeared incapable to withdraw troops, he said he would have done more for the domestic affairs, but the Vietnam War leaves no choices.
Hawks VS Doves → Falcons pro war VS Colombes Against War.
At the same time, there was opposition to the war of pacifists and troops who have been supported in Vietnam. Kannan George was one of those who opposed the War in Vietnam. You could be in favor of Containment and yet against Vietnam.
The US seemed to be incapable to win the War. The president was seen for the first time as impotent. The nation was dividing. The American president was usually seen as someone able to achieve anything. He was seen then responsible for losing foreign policy. The president was seen incapable of solving problems.
That is the reason why Nixon was elected. His program was to end the war and took office in January 1969.
- Nixon’s Realpolitik
Nixon 1968-1972
Nixon withdrew troops but relied on bombing. Nixon also wanted to prove he would not lose face and easily let Communism spread. He wanted to force the North Vietnam to negotiate by increasing bombings.
This process was called “Viatemiasiation”. It was the third period covering the 1968 to 1973.
It was only in October 1972 at the end of Nixon at the presidency there was a ceasefire which involved negotiations. There was an agreement the US would let to a peace agreement that was secure in January 1973. It is called the Paris agreement. It was the official end to the world. Negotiations led to the following withdrawal of troops. North Vietnam did invade the South after the Watergate when the US could not do anything. What happened in Vietnam really damaged the US image in the world and the confidence of American in their government.
It led to the “Vietnam Syndrome » : political defeat, no more believing in the government, heavy human losses…. The CIA could still intervene, but American troops were no more sent without careful consideration.
The credibility of the American to win a war was low, and the Americans could not believe as before in their government. they were not supporting Containment and the confidence had been broken by the war. The policy was seen as illegitimate and immoral : chemical weapons for example. The US appeared to be on the wrong side of History. The President was seen to be someone who took the wrong decision.
It became clear that the US and China were having differences.
1947-1969 — different policies
Kennedy’s containment was more complex than the one of Eisenhower. He used methods that were very similar, but he tried to have a more complex rhetoric that would try to improve the Us image. Johnson was not as sophisticated; his rhetoric was not as brilliant. He could not influence the public opinion as Kennedy was able to do. The president was seen as not so efficient and not able to solve war. Nixon would just abandon any idea that the US could withdraw the war by using radical methods. This is how the US managed to end the war.
Their all continued to apply to containment : it was a compass for all the presidents. They were all convinced that the US had no choice, they were obsessed by Munich syndrome (they did not react at the time when Germany made its first move).
- Truman: Something American in the containment: fighting for liberty everywhere, protect everybody, their responsibility → militarization of containment to reconcile the approach
- Eisenhower: secret means, CIA, secret means to contain the Soviet Union, a Manichean vision → Need to reconcile this strange approach with the American to make it appeared American
- Kennedy: reconcile containment with Idealism
- Johnson: not to forget about domestic policy whose primacy is supposed to be obvious for Americans. Task of president :To focus on policy first . He said he was sorry for not being able to do so.
- Nixon: he really abandoned any effort to do so. Tried to recognize USA during world war had to do what it had to. Even in his rhetoric tries to explain the Us did not have a choice.
VIETNAM WAR
The Nixon doctrine: when he was elected, the withdrawal from Vietnam was very important in his campaign. In reality, it took a long time because he could do it but not at any cost. He was not so different from his predecessors since they all wanted to withdraw after negotiations 🡪 implementing (exécuter) his doctrine would not be so easy
Video Nixon, speech 1969
TRUMAN DOCTRINE. The doctrine was about withdrawing troops and refining the USA’s role in the third word, not like a protector, (like Truman), but like a partner (not a military protector). The US would help countries in difficulties. It was more or less a going back to a war by proxy before being involved directly : it Vietnamized the war again.
The Nixon doctrine = Vietnamization if the war About ending the war, do what was necessary to reach a peace agreement.
Henry Kissinger. United State Secretary of State under Nixon and Ford (1973-1977). Jewish refugee who fled Nazi Regime in 1938. He kept a very strong German accent. He received the 1973 Nobel Prize for his actions of ceasefire in Vietnam. Kissinger was a national security advisor, and then became the secretary of the state. Before Nixon, he already had a very strong reputation in the RI (an expert, he wrote books).
He played a major role in negotiations. He went to north Vietnam to negotiate, involving secrecy. While he was negotiating, he intensified the war, by increasing the bombings to force north Vietnam to negotiate.
He also widened the war by including Cambodia and Laos, used by north Vietnam
His message was we will do everything we have to if it is necessary (even bombing other countries)
Peace talks started in 1972 (took some time). In October 1972, the negotiations were concluded by a cease fire and the withdrawal of American troops. But the north Vietnam troops could remain in some parts, it was acceptable for the Americans
January 1973: peace agreement in Paris, official end of the war (a lot of dead, a majority of Vietnamese)
By 1975: The North Vietnam would invade the south and fight (while USA was occupied and could not intervene)
- USA was fed up with the Vietnam war + the congress was willing to put an end to interventions
- many consequences after this war
- learnt from their mistakes
- but did not stop containment
Contained through other means after the war:
- Rely on others. Not trying to project the USA image as a country fighting for democracy
- Play the part of political games more intelligently, taking in account every possibility they had in the context
= not so different from his predecessors
In the 60’s relations between China and the Soviet Union worsened and laid to the Sino- Soviet split in 1969. The two countries were already different about how they saw communism, the Soviet Union was THE model of communism but after Stalin China started to want its own communism
The USA could see communism in a different way, the split introduced a new understanding
- china and Soviet Union are 2 different actors in international relations
- divide the enemy instead of having 1 only communism
- have relations with one to hurt the other = very typical of realpolitik
Nixon based on careful analysis of international relation and how could the USA use it.
The concept was to move away from a bipolar world and become a multipolar world, in order to have new opportunities.
REALPOLITIK a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations
Originally German. A vision of the world based on understanding between great powers. It was based on the concert of nations (dealings, negotiations and how to create peace between great powers).
Nixon wanted to see the split to negotiate with them and convince them that they should work for the stability of the world through understanding with the USA
Nixon was considered as a clever politician, but he considered himself as an expert in RI, a front policy president. He had a taste for secrecy, secret diplomacy
FP: power and secrecy 🡪 his containment recipe
When Nixon and Kissinger thought about communism, they said that the ideology was not so important, the Soviet Union and China would act like states and only understand power.
Nixon and Kissinger had a very similar vision on what USA’s front policy after Vietnam should be.
They tried to monopolize the FP process. Kissinger troubled a lot, involved in a lot of secret actions, visited a lot of countries to get personal relations with foreign leaders. Understanding the leaders was very important. They wanted to keep away the people from the policy 🡪 public opinion would do no good
Video of Kissinger : what he wanted to do was to bring China and the Soviet Union to act in a rational way and work on the stability of the world.
A three-dimensional game – USA, China, and the Soviet Union – 3 instead of 2
They wanted to normalize relations with China. Nixon was the first president to visit China in 1972 🡪 Normalized relations in 1979
They wanted to achieve détente with Soviet Union 🡪 improving relations between the 2 countries
- to use the relations with China to have an impact on the other
- dividing more the 2 communist countries, but this is the international relation game
1972: Nixon visited Moscow too 🡪 a treaty (SALT I) is signed with the USA which reduced the number of missiles held by the Soviet Union and the USA (ratified by the senate in October 1972)
The treaty put an end to the arms race
His realpolitik worked and preserved positive results:
- Improved relation with the Soviet Union
- More related to china
BUT there were Negative results:
- Secrecy- the use of the CIA
- Contain by helping anti-communism governments
Nixon and Kissinger recognized the limits of the power of the USA. They wanted to strengthen his relations with its allies (particularly in Latin America)
He did not hesitate to use the CIA to help dictators to repress the communist (Brazil, Argentina, Chili…)
The most emblematic intervention of the CIA was in Chili 🡪 directly involved in the 1973 coup in Chili which overthrew the Government and killed the president: S. Allende who was a Marxist.
The CIA tried to prevent his elections, but could not Pinochet replaced him by a coup supported by the CIA, wanted to exclude the communism = a very brutal policy against leftist
Today, Kissinger is still considered as a war criminal
Other video of Kissinger: considered as a war criminal (what happened in Chili)
RI should be as a chess game: intelligent BUT when it comes to ethic, they failed and did not try at all
Reason why : Nixon diplomacy was Kissinger diplomacy. International relations were very sophisticated, considered as a chess game on the other hand when it comes to ethics and try to reconcile containment with the US principle, they failed = negative aspect on the whole.
A desire to switch to a policy that would be different and more compatible with traditional American principles, moving away from the CIA dirty tricks (Nixon associated with it)
Nixon referred to the Vietnam War as being Johnson’s war. It was the choice of the president (pol choice) not a necessity. Something Nixon’s tried to avoid : withdrawing from the war that would not be Nixon’s war.
Consequences of realpolitik on American opinion : not compatible with USA principles. Nixon was no more relying on public opinion for foreign policy which was different from his predecessors.
Nixon : taste for secrecy (Watergate)
→ isolated FP (Foreign Policy) from public opinion, more than his predecessors
SO Nixon’s FP opposed to traditional FP
!! Public opinion not only not considered but even misled
Considered himself as expert in Foreign Policy : concentrated on FP with Kissinger
→ FP = Nixon + Kissinger (National Security Advisor) – other players
=> saw FP as a chest game : manipulation of the enemy and be a step forehead
Kissinger = refugee from Germany → became famous Harvard scholar
= embodiment of Realpolitik : focused on interest and power + believed balance of power needed
=> Kissinger helped to change radically the US FP
1968 : Nixon elected
1969 : Relations between China and USSR worsened → disagreement
→ Nixon/Kissinger : quick to take advantage of this disagreement
= Tried to improve relations with both China and USSR to divide them
Kissinger : « 3-dimensional game » USA/China/USSR
→ led to « détente » (also thanks to Kennedy’s resolution of Cuban Crisis)
= still enemies but less tensions
1972 : reelection Nixon
→ Nixon visited China : normalize relations with China => historical visit
→ Treaty with USSR : SALT I (strategic arms limitation talks) = limit number of weapons in both sides to end arms race and put an end to Cold War’s tensions
=> Nixon and Kissinger : much more complex vision on Foreign Policy and International Relations
= wished to be realistic (Realpolitik)
Kennedy : increased use of CIA
→ Nixon too : CIA in all continents
Ex : Chili 1970 → Salvador Allende elected (left-wing)
BUT much opposition in the country + opposition USA
SO USA helped opposition (financial and military help) to prepare a coup to overthrow Allende
→ Allende died (killed ? Suicide?) => Pinochet took the power
!! Pinochet tortured and killed many people : anti-communist, very brutal dictator
→ really shocking : showed how brutal USA FP was
Nixon : FP quite sophisticate BUT not him (rhetoric…)
=> Realpolitik could be very brutal → Very Manichean
= any means is OK if the aim is good
| Political realism ( !! very broad term) = opposition to Wilsonianism | RealpolitikVision much more negative + theorized FP |
| Reluctantly accept reality and its consequences for American FPTry to reconcile them (consequences) with traditional valuesFP = interests NOT valuesAim = put more realism into USA politics+ Tried to teach public opinion to be supportive + Ethics of responsibility (Weber)/ Greater Good | You like traditional European discipleYou enjoy playing the power politic gameYou make no attempt to reconcile it with American principalsNot a principled FPA Machiavellian FPMore rationality in reflexional of FPMore ManicheanPublic opinion considered as irrational |
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POLITICAL REALISM AND REALPOLITIK
Very similar. They both have to accept reality and its consequences.
For political realism, it is about reconciling as much as we can the policy with the principles, here the American traditional values.
Realpolitik indeed comes from the traditional European policy (balance of power, political games, alliances…) and does make any effort to respect the American principles. It may be called the Machiavellian policy because every action could be justified if it serves the interest of the nation. So, in this politic we do not really care about not respecting American policy. Furthermore, Kissinger had a very important role by transforming American foreign policy making it more European.
Differences btw political realism and realpolitik :
Political realism : Reluctantly accept reality and its consequences for American foreign policy. No choice. Idea that the US may to start from something they did not like (power). Trying to aspect something you do not want. Trying to reconcile as much as you can with traditional values.
Realpolitik : you play the game without any warms : you like the game, you like traditional Europeans diplomacy, you enjoy playing the power politics game without any attempt to reconcile it with the American
principles. Not based on principle. Maybe called a Machiavellian foreign policy.
They have something in common but idea that Nixon brought it to an extreme. He was no longer reluctant to that foreign policy.
NIXON’S DESTITUTION
Nixon resigned in October 1974= because he was impeached – destitué (formerly by the house of representatives) who started the procedure and then it is up to the senate to act as a court.
He resigned before the senate acted because he knew he would be destitute , so it was less humiliating to quit.
He tried to centralize American Foreign policy and isolate it from the public opinion 🡪 his resignation is an illustration of the failure of this system.
Interpreted that he went too far not only by public opinion but also by politicians. Once he was investigated: he was associated with someone with very concentrating secrecy so public opinion only saw his tricks.
CONTEXT AFTER NIXON
After Nixon= people wanted a more traditional FP, going back to the normal = reconcile once more the dictates of the cold war with the American principles
This is not what happened immediately after his resignation because gerald Ford (vice-president) took office and Kissinger remained the secretary of state.
BUT in November 1976: people voted for a new president; they expressed their willingness of going back to a traditional policy (in opposition to Nixon) : Jimmy CARTER 1977-1981 was embodying traditional America.
- Carter’s and Reagan’s Reactions
As a democrat president, Carter embodies a principle FP (a man of values). He brought a change to the White House.
- Away from secrecy
- FP based on understanding of the public opinion
- Explanations of the president, communications
- Emphasize on the human rights = a priority in his FP
- Return of a moral FP : principles and values were considered
(Carter and Wilson both democrats, bring values once again to make them a basis for us foreign policy, both quite similar)
Carter wanted to depart as much as possible from his predecessor’s policy:
- Chili & Latin America: He refused to back the dictators as it was done before and denounce the dictatures and the lack of some human rights
- Panama: he completed negotiations on the transfer of the Panama Canal to Panama (1989, took time)
He was a cold war president, very critical on the Soviet Union, he had his own definition of détente policy 🡪 to dissociate with his predecessors Detente policy : relations btw Est and west during the cold war.
Foreign policy should not try to spread democracy : the USA should not try to the change the other governments, but had to denounce human rights abuses
In China. There was a complete normalization with China (initiated by Nixon) with allows for cultural, commercial… exchanges. On the other hand, remained very tough with the SU : his national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski who was polish and that may explain his hostility to the SU (Poland always been critical over SU). Polish was brilliant : he was knowledgeable as Kissinger but with =/ values : both were important security advisors.
1974 : Nixon resigned → Watergate
→ Vice President became President
BUT Kissinger became Security of State → remained major player in FP and FP remained same
Kissinger’s vision : China and USSR were just States
→ Just had to find their interests to deal with them
1976 : Election of Jimmy Carter => real change
→ Campaigned criticizing Realpolitik + blamed Kissinger’s immoral FP
+ aim = back to more moral FP → support Human Rights abroad
Human Rights rather than stability and interests
So Human Rights = priority for Carter
- Reversed situation in Chili (Pinochet?)
- Denounced Human Rights’ abuses in Latina America like Argentina and Chile
- Refuse dictature
- Reversal in policies in Central America : 1977 treaties to transfer Panama Canal in 1999
Planning retrocession of the Panama Canal to Panama
- Continuity with China
Carter’s critics on Human Rights’ abuses focused on URSS, not so much China
→ Remaining tough with URSS
- because of The Zbigniew Brzezinski (Polish) : his National Security Advisor – his opposition to Détente (=normal diplomatic relation between URSS and USA)
Brzezinski right to be careful towards URSS and he was a very influential USA
→ 1980 : URSS invaded Afghanistan
USA boycotted the 1980’s summer Olympics in Moscow + put an end to SALT II
SO, end of « détente » with URSS
→ Carter tried to tie relations with dissidents in URSS
End of Carterism – Carter saw as weak – Achievement and Failures
- the Camp David Accords, 1979
- the Iranian Hostage Crisis (1979-80)
- Invasion of Afghanistan by URSS
- 1979 : Islamic Revolution in Iran
- An unpopular
USA embassy staff taken into hostage for almost a year
→ Shame for the USA
=> Carter elected to embody less secrecy after the Watergate BUT at the end of his term, public opinion did not want to have a weak president
1973 : The Imperial Presidency (book written by a historian)
→ Nixon ruled as an Emperor : increased so much the President’s power : no more checks and balances
SO, against American tradition
=> Carter = back to normal BUT considered as weak, too soft
( !! today considered as rather a good President but not at the time)
—————————————————————————————————————————
1980 : Reagan = Republican – early rhetoric and military buildup
Senator of California, ex actor
→ very good image : always smiling, joking…
Shot during his campaign : improved even more his image
=> aim : improve USA’s image after Carter
Beginning : anti-communist rhetoric
→ Believed URSS used Détente to take advantage on USA
SO, Détente = against USA interests
→ Beginning of « military build-up » : increased military founds
Reagan : support to all anti-communist opponents worldwide – first term : Back to Intervention
- Nicaragua 1982 : Dictator Somoza overthrown by communists Sandinistas
→ Reagan wants to support the Contras, opposition to the Sandinistas
BUT Congress against it
SO illegally sold weapons to Iran to finance operation = typical of Reagan
CIA financing, helping the Contras
- Grenada 1983 : send the Marines
- Lebanon 1982 : terrorists attack and many militaries died
2nd term Foreign Policy Troubles and achievements : peacemaker → USA image improved a lot
- Cautious reactions to political change in the Philippines and South Africa
- The rise of terrorism
- A Teflon president (nothing sticks)
- New kind of détente with the URSS
+ Very good relations between Reagan and Korbachev 1985 (reforms in URSS led to dismantle)
1988 : Treaty to dismantle nuclear weapons in Western Europe
| Reagan | Nixon |
| URSS = « Evil Empire »→ Really against USSR communism for ideologic reasons | More diplomacy No emphasis on ideological differences + Détente |
| => USA = good / USSR = evil | |
| Wanted to revive the « liberty » ideology Against Realpolitik’s in USA | Realpolitik’s, balance of power |
| → USSR = immoral | |
| SO, fight against USSR = moral |
Reagan’s Posterity
- The Neo-Conservative praise
- Attractive to Realpolitik’s opponents → Neoconservatives
- An embodiment of American idealism
- = circle of intellectuals from the Democratic Party
- = containment needed + against Realpolitik’s and Nixon + supportive of Reagan
- 1970’s : split of Democratic Party (impact of Baby Boom) over question of containment