To What extent was the Cold War global - Essay Example

?Question To What extent was the Cold War global? The Conflict:- The cold war was a series of events that took place between the United s and the then Soviet Nation that lasted from 1945 to 1991 and escalated with the Cuban missile crisis where both nations were on the brink of a nuclear war (Kennan, 1972). These decades of confrontation never resulted in physical warfare, the consequences of which could have been fatal. Proxy wars, economic confrontation, spy networks, alliance formation, arms race and technological competition were at their peak during this time. Russia found itself isolated in the world after the revolution of 1917 as most other nations did not concur with the ideological change that had occurred there. The revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin asserted that Russia was encompassed by a ‘hostile capitalist encirclement’ (Gaddis, 1997). This laid the groundwork for what was to follow, i.e. years of hostility and isolation between differing ideological camps. The arms race that supplemented the cold war resulted in dire consequences for several nations after the dissemination of the USSR. The weapons are still used by terrorist and rebel movements all across the world as both the USA and USSR aim to liquidate their excess artillery in the search of economic returns. Globalization of the War:- The arms race between the Soviet Union and the United States resulted in a stockpile of nuclear and non nuclear weapons at both ends which cost both parties significant portion of their economy (McNeill and Unger, 2010). Throughout the years of the cold war, both camps continued to pursue alliances with states all across the world. The purpose of such strategies was to gain a strategic advantage against the adversary and claim ideological and military supremacy. The incentives they promised include economic backing, political support and military assistance (Westad, The Global Cold War: Third world interventions and the making of our times). Some countries preferred non alignment, which was evident with the non alignment movement that consisted of states that did not join any camp. Other states, however, preferred to join camps seeking economic, military and social assistance. Some observers argue that the cold war was not cold at all and that the myriad smaller proxy wars that they were engaged in wrecked the period with enormous violence and insecurity. Americans and Soviets funded, trained, armed and fought alongside local militaries and forces against others in regional and civil wars that spread across several states including Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Guatemala and Angola. What led to Cold War’s Globalization:- Both camps saw themselves as the embodiments of progress and modernity. The United States had a history of intervention into the affairs of non white people (Westad, 2005). By the eve of World War I, the United States had become a protector and balancer of a capitalist world system, by virtue of its economic might. This meant that it considered intervention its responsibility when it saw the laws of capitalism being ‘violated’. Similarly, the Soviet Union continued to pursue its ideology of expansion of the Russian empire and the modernizing and universalistic claims of Marxism. Soviet leaders sought to spread communism into the third world as a means to successfully confront the United States. (Guderzo and Bagnato, 2010). Both sides saw themselves as the torchbearers of a global progression and ideological revolution. This is one of the reasons why the intensity of conflict between the two countries was so high (Westad, 2005). Decolonization of the world also provided both sides room for manipulation with newly independent states. These new states saw the cold war as an opportunity to gauge money for their own country to pursue development plans. They also saw economic and ideological models which they could follow (Guderzo and Bagnato, 2010). Both countries tried extensively to align countries towards their respective ideologies however, by remaining non aligned and playing the superpowers against each other, some countries were able to gain relative independence in an increasingly bipolar world (Gaddis, 1997). The Cuban revolution and the Vietnam war played was of high significance in the early years of the globalization of the cold war. The United States faced the daunting task of containing communism in South East Asia and protecting it from hampering its mission in Vietnam. The Sino-Soviet split played an important role in facilitating the US’s objectives (Guderzo and Bagnato, 2010). The real fire to the conflict was given by the interventions of these states in Africa during the 1960s and 1970s. South Africa, Ethiopia, Angola, Zaire and Guinea-Bissau were the centers of conflict; The Soviet Union and Cuba continued to cultivate allies among anticolonial leaders who were disillusioned and dissatisfied with the American model of progress. These alliances had a significant impact on the development of these countries (McNeill and Unger, 2010). The 1970s and 1980s were marked as years when the two superpowers increased their spread across the world with the US intervening in Latin America while the Soviets strengthening their position in Afghanistan. The election of Ronald Reagen as the President of the US was followed by a surge in counter insurgency tactics and reliance on right wing regimes in its pursuit of dominance of the third world. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan proved to be fatal for the communist regime as weakening economy and manpower led to the eventual demise of the USSR and ‘victory’ for the US in the cold war. Fallout of Globalization of the Cold War :- The cold war had disastrous consequences for the third world countries. Interventions from the US and the USSR destroyed the development prospects of these states and continuous pressure from the superpowers towards their weaker allies deprived them of independent political will. The bipolar nature of the world also led to restricted economic, political, social and cultural ties within allied third world countries which diminished chances of mutually beneficial trade. Furthermore, the stockpiles of weapons by both the USA and the USSR needed to be liquidated to allow their economies to survive. This military industrial complex had reached an entirely unprecedented level and both superpowers worked tirelessly to get rid of weapons at very low costs. This eventually led to excess supply of weapons to conflict ridden states of Africa, South Asia and Latin America. Most of the weapons used in conflicts in these countries are products of the cold war era (Cissa-Salwe). The rightist policies of the US had its own repercussions. The US’s support for Islamic Jihadi organizations during the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan led to the inception of the most feared terrorist organization of the 21st century, Al-Qaeda, which was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and several other terrorist activities. Q2: In what ways did the United States benefit from the Sino-Soviet split? The early 1950s suggested that the Soviet Union and Communist China were firm allies acting in cohesion to spread communism to all parts of the world. A strong communist regime had emerged in china which formed alliances with the Soviet Union and the communist North Korea. North Korea had gained strength after invading the republic of Korea with the help of its communist allies, including the Soviet Union and China .In 1956, the Sino-Soviet alliance would cooperate actively in addressing problems with the communist camp in Eastern Europe and North Korea. This showed that the two nations were sending a message to the west about their unity. However, this love affair was short lived as ideological differences, distrust and jealousy between leaders, Mao and Khrushchev divided the soviet alliance over the years, leading to the escalation of the cold war. The United States however, continued to assume that the Soviet Union and China were indeed allies and the communist bloc was gaining strength. Events that occurred latter nullified this assumption and served as a source of relief for the United States which say many situations that could have gone the other way go in its favor due to the Sino-Soviet Split. Some of the ways in which the Sino-Soviet Split benefited the US are:- 1) Failure to expand influence across proxies:- Increasing divide between China and the Soviet Union meant that proxy states that were of strategic importance to the Communist agenda fell prey to conflict within the Communist world. Such was the case with China’s policy in Africa. After the split, China’s material assistance to governments and revolutionary groups often came in conflict with Soviet ideologies. Africa became the ground for the ideological war to set in within the communist world. In Zimbabwe, for example, the Chinese backed Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe African National Unit while the Soviet Union backed Joshua Nkomo’s Zimbabwe African’s people’s Unit (Pham, 2006). China faced tremendous costs to further its objectives and the results showed as 17 of the 38 independent states recognized Beijing in contrast to Taipei while the Soviet Union was being overshadowed by China as the leader of the Communist world. The United States had already seen the potential of the communist partnership with the successful invasion of Republic of Korea by communist dominated North Korea. Coordination between the communist alliance improved rapidly after China’s entrance into the war. The position of strength also provided greater bargaining power to the communist regime which continued belligerence rather than engaging in negotiations with the UN regime. The UN military forces did not have sufficient power to restrict the communist forces (Christensen, 2011). This position, however, was squandered as a result of lack of coordination between the three communist regimes. Disagreement over timings of an offensive led to ill-advised attacks on the part of China and North Korea which had heavy tolls on the strength of the regime. Counteroffensives from UN forces acted as heavy blows and the subsequent panic from the communist regimes led to a much more weakened position (Christensen, 2011).. There were subsequent conflicts over the timing, terms and nature of agreements between the UN and the communist regime which created schisms between the communist leadership. By 1952, divisions within the communist camp prompted the North Koreans to vigorously pursue a peace treaty with the UN. Later on Stalin restricted the military assistance to China to prevent any offensive that could further deteriorate the situation. Divisions culminated with the Vietnamese war and the conflict of 1969. Furthermore, throughout these years, the communist forces lost focus, suffered from an ideological divide, failed to materialize strategic plans and treaties and provided an open playground for the United States to assert itself on weak, newly decolonized states that sought economic, military and intelligence help. 2) Potential Military and Economic Deals Falling Apart:- The Chinese government, led by Mao, was adamant to acquire nuclear technology to build weapons. This was a major bone of contention between the two communist powers. Khrushchev was surprised by Mao’s intent to pursue nuclear technology but intimated that the Soviet Union could assist China in building a small nuclear reactor for peaceful utilization and development of nuclear power. China, however, had started to prepare for its nuclear industry and develop its nuclear weapons. The first stage of the agreement was signed between Khrushchev and Li Fuchun of China concerning research, funds and raw materials. However, China continued to pursue nuclear weapons, missiles and arms compared to the costly peaceful use of nuclear energy. The Chinese went fanatical about nuclear weapons and made several official requests to the Soviet Nation. The first request was met passively, however, continued pursuance, negotiations, deals and official correspondence led to several agreements and by the end of 1958, important soviet personnel involved in nuclear research had entered into China. Events across Europe and other areas of Soviet involvement, however, had weakened Soviet Union’s position from a leader to an equal with China and Chinese support was extremely necessary to maintain its strength in the communist world. This was a time of nuclear negotiations between the two communist powers. Political debate on the rightful successor of Stalin had reached the peak during this time and Khrushchev had lost his influence significantly. In 1959, after the materialization of agreements between western countries on stopping nuclear tests, the Soviet Union unilaterally halted the transfer of atomic bomb model and design technology to China. While the decision may seem justified in the global context, Khrushchev’s decision to initiate such a pact in a time when Soviet Union was losing its strength may have been a blunder. Not only did any deal materialize, this failure halted the progress of what could have been a much more holistic partnership looking into matters such as trade, economics and intelligence (Gaddis, 1997). 3) Ideological Confusion:- Khrushchev’s stance of peaceful coexistence did not go down well with Communist China which sought to spread Lenin’s version of the ideology and considered the new and revised Soviet Union as contradictory to the basic principles of communism. This schism within the communist world created an opportunity for the US to spread the ideology of capitalism. There were no misgivings on the ideology of capitalism and United States continued to pursue allies and proxy states, propogating the phenomenon of free markets and wealth accumulation. The communist world, on the other hand, fought over allies between themselves, with Russia entering a treaty with India while withdrawing their technical advisers from China. China, on the other hand, criticized the Soviet version of peaceful coexistence and obliquely assailed the USSR by marginalizing Yugoslavia. The ideological divide spread towards economics as well. Both camps had differing views on the implementation of the system and there was a divide over the definition of equal distribution. This further weakened prospects of expanding the ideology and forming new allies. It will be fair to say that schisms between the two nations stopped them from halting the non alignment movement which saw plenty of potential allies move away towards indifference. 4) Diversion and moving towards a Unipolar World:- The Soviet Union’s treaty with India had much greater implications than apparent. China and India were at loggerheads for a while and the USSR’s open support to India in a border war meant that the situation was so hopeless that any military conflict between India and China resulted in open military opposition by the USSR against its former ideological ally. This conflict meant that USA’s adversaries were completely distracted and the USA could continue to strengthen without much concern to what its adversaries did. This laid the foundation of a unipolor world which was established latter after USSR’s separation (Guderzo and Bagnato, 2010). During these years, the United States continued to strengthen itself militarily, strategically and increased its number of allies. These years acted as a breather wherein, Khrushchev’s tolerant policy and the Sino-Soviet split acted in the United States’ favor. Many newly formed nations joined the US camp as it promised more unity and ideological staunchness. Economics and military assurances also played a huge role in the US’s increasing strength. 5) Weakening USSR:- Washington saw USSR as a greater threat than China and a counterbalance of power would have acted in the US’s favor. Conflict between the communist regimes would ultimately result in one trying to outmuscle the other rather than working together for the common ideology. The classic divide and rule principle worked in the United States’ favor significantly. As time moved on and the conflict escalated, the strength of the United States continued to increase. This was evident will the fall of the Soviet Union post Afghanistan. The Soviet Union, isolated and lacking a strong permanent ally, had become very weak economically. Its economic ideologies prevented it from interacting with the global marketplace and gaining strength to support its military objectives. Many observers, hence, call the decision to invade Afghanistan as untimely. In contrast to the USSR, the US had been growing in strength and could support rightist movements in the region against the Soviet Union. And that is precisely what it did, in collaboration with its ally Pakistan. The US funded Islami Jihadis, trained by CIA and ISI (Pakistan’s intelligence agency) against the Soviets. These Jihadis had weapons which were accumulated during the arms race. The United States provided full military support and these individuals, driven by the passion of religion, helped destroy Soviet military forces in Afghanistan. The brunt of the war was too much to bear for an already feeble Soviet economy. Separatist movements within the USSR continued to strengthen during this time and the US, through its covert operations, supported these movements. A weak military, destroyed economy and ideological isolation led to the eventual demise of the USSR. 6) Divided Communists over Vietnam:- Tussles between the Soviet Union and China over gaining the loyalties of the Vietnamese had begun following US’s escalation of the war from 1964-1965. This led to continuous divided loyalties and revolutionary movements from within Vietnam that did not necessarily side with any of the communist powers. Ho Chi Minh was able to take advantage of Chinese-Soviet jealousies of one another and initiate revolutionary movements in South Vietnam. As the bickering between the communist superpowers continued, Minh was able to gain significant support for his revolutionary movement in South Vietnam. Throughout the three years from 1965-1968, the conflict between the soviet powers spoiled the Soviet Union backed peace talks between Vietnamese communists and the United States (Christensen, 2011). All this while the Chinese were not only discouraging Vietnamese communist accommodation and rejecting Soviet mediation, they were encouraging hostility by showing a bright picture of quicker success. The Soviets clearly favored peace talks, the Chinese in contrast were applying pressure on the top leadership in Vietnam to reject talks while continuing to manipulate internal politics. These divisions allowed the US to pursue their goals in Vietnam for the time being. Although the fallout of the war is controversial, strategic interests of that time dictated US presence, which was facilitated by this conflict. References Christensen, Thomas J. 2011, Worse than a Monolith: Alliance politics and the problems of coercive diplomacy, Princeton University Press,  Cissa-Salwe, Cabdisalaam M. 2000, Cold War Fallout: Boundary politics and the fallout in the Horn of Africa., Haan Associates, . Gaddis, John Lewis 1997, We now know: Cold War, a new history,Oxford University Press, Guderzo, Max and Bruna Bagnato. 2010, The Globalization of the Cold War: Diplomacy and Local confrontation 1975-1985, Routledge, McNeill, John Robert and Corinna R Unger 2010, Environmental Histories of the Cold War, Cambridge University Press, . Pham, J. Peter. 2006, '"China's African strategy and its implication for U.S Interests.', American Foreign policy interests, . Westad, Odd Arne 2005, The Global Cold War: Third world interventions and the making of our times, Cambridge University Press, Read More