Effects of the Cold War on the Global Relations of the Third World Nations - Research Paper Example

A Critical Analysis of Cold War and its Effects of the Cold War on the Global Relations of the Third World Nations The question, “Who or what started the Cold War?” have haunted the scholars for decades. Obviously, it has divided them into two schools. In answer to this question, one group of scholars argue that the Soviets’ expansionist communist idealism panicked the US-led Western Allies of the Second World War and forced them to take more rigid steps to impede this expansionist enthusiasm of the Soviet Leaders.1 But the other group claim that the Western Allies had failed to perceive the Soviets’ paranoid over their security concerns in East Europe and rigidly to respond to their security steps to create friendly environment in the East-European countries. So, the Western Allies’ rigid response further alarmed the Soviets and provoked them to be more concerned about their security needs in those countries such as Ukraine, Poland, Germany, etc.2 But a neutral analysis will necessarily reveal that both the US-led Western Ally and the Soviet leaders were responsible for the initiation of the Cold War. Both the United States and the Soviet Union together gave birth to the war as a result of their distrust for each other, since both the two superpowers were competing for a unique and unchallenged position in international politics. Initially, their conflict was confined to the Eastern European Zone. But since the Soviets were preparing themselves for a large scale confrontation with the United State, they needed economic resource for such large scale preparation3. So they attempted to expand their influence on countries all over the world. In response, President Truman adopted containment policy to chase after the Soviets in any part of the world and to support any governments who wanted to defend itself against the rise of communism4. After the fall of Germany, the Soviets’ reluctance to retreat from the wartime frontline in East Europe and the Middle East was a clear message to President Harry Truman that the “Comintern” zeal of the USSR was still at work behind the USSR’s foreign policy5. Obviously, it was also a threat to the US interests in those regions. Moreover, the two superpowers were at a strife regarding their political ideologies which were opposing and hostile to each other.6 This strife further had a root in the White Army’s Role in the Bolshevik Revolution during the 1920s and the 1930s. When the Soviet leaders declared that the Soviet occupation in Easter Europe was their legitimate security zone,7 the US-led Western countries took it as the return of the anti-democratic and anti-capitalist “Comintern expansionist” zeal of the Soviet. Indeed, the United States’ suspicion about the return of the Comintern expansionist spirit was further justified by the Soviets’ covert role in the Greek Uprising from 1945 to 1947. Later, as a counter strategy against the Soviet influence on Eastern Europe, President Truman directly interfered into the crisis in Greece and played a crucial in toppling down the Stalinist party EAM and the pro-communist military force DSE in 19478. He further took economic initiatives to rebuild the war-exhausted Europe in order to reduce the communist influence on the region. But in response to the “Paris Conference on Marshal Plan” in June 1947, Stalin created the Cominform in September 1947, as a counter-strategy against the United States’ involvement in Europe. By the time, Stalin gave birth to the Cominform, it was clear to the US authority that Stalin’s expansionist zeal was omnivorous and innately antagonist towards any capitalist-democratic country in the world.9 This view of the United States about the Soviets as a potential threat to the United States was consolidated, when G. F. Kennan, in his “Long Telegram” in 1946, states that “the innate antagonism between capitalism and Socialism” would not let the American rest in peace.10 Moreover, he portrayed the Communism expansionist zeal as a bestial power which would not react in a military way, unless it directly faces military steps. He further argues that since the Soviets were “quick to exploit the evidences of weakness”11, the United States must reinforce its military power to keep them in check. This assessment of the temperament of Soviet Imperialism helped President Truman to adopt the policy to assist countries against the threat of communism, as in a speech to the Congress, he said that “it must be the policy of the United States to support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures”.12 Instead of confronting the Soviets in a straightforward military way, Truman desired to manipulate the nations and provoked them to play against communism. His policy was brilliant enough not give the Soviets to be engaged in any direct military strife. With a view to containing the imperialist zeal of Stalin, he ventured to support the countries economically and, then, militarily.13 Necessarily, President Truman had to declare that the United States would assist any government to keep their heads upright against any type of internal and external communist invasion. Obviously, he had been able to create an ideological basis of his stance, as he said, “The seeds of totalitarian regimes are nurtured by misery and want…They spread and grow in the evil soil of poverty and strife”.14 The moral face-value of his policy was to ensure economic stability of the countries so that the communist dream of an exploitation-free world might not allure the peoples, as it was declared in George Marshal’s speech that the US policy was “directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos”.15 Indeed, such stance of the United States to confront the Soviets fully but not directly was the seed of the Cold War. On one hand, Stalin did not have the scope to be engaged another bloody war after the massive casualties of lives and resources during the Second World War.16 On the other hand, Truman would not provide him any reason to be engaged in direct military strife with the United States. So, the Cold War was an inevitable outcome of the two superpowers’ strategy not to be engaged in direct military conflicts with each other. The superpowers’ non-direct-involvement strategy could fairly foretell their indirect engagement in militarily weaker third world countries. The Soviets were not only seeking opportunities to expand their communist ideology but also endeavoring hard to grab new natural resources in order to feed the newly burgeoning industries in home, while ensuring their holds on those countries.17 Both the United States and the Soviets had opted for unfair and immoral means to confront each other. Though President Truman claimed the United States to be a champion of democracy, he as well as his successors had never strictly adhered to this moral stance, Foner says, Truman’s doctrine set a “precedent for American assistance to anticommunist regimes throughout the world, no matter how undemocratic, and for the creation of a set of global military alliances directed against the Soviet Union”.18 Frequently, both of these two superpowers engaged with each other through coups, countercoups, proxy wars, etc at the cost of the developing people’s lives and wealth. A series of proxy took place mostly in the developing countries such as Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Congo, Angola, Indonesia, etc. A number of coups and countercoups took place in Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, Iraq, Chili, etc, killing millions of people19. The third world countries’ global relations were heavily contingent upon their national interests, the nature of their governments, and their relationships with the two superpowers. These countries’ internal and external security and stability largely depended on their belongings to either of the superpowers. The totalitarian or autocratic governments had to align with either the United States or the Soviet Union. In most cases, the determiners of the possibility of the governments to be aligned with either of the two superpowers were the public support, the national interests and their geographical strategies.20 In many cases, it happened that even after having a fair democratic political system, a government of the third world countries has to face the CIA-backed military coup. Therefore, these countries became divided into two blocs, the US bloc and the Soviet bloc, for military and economic support provided by these superpowers. Since most other powerful players in international politics belonged to the US bloc, the government had to maintain careful relationship with the world powers whether it belonged to any bloc. Yet there are other countries who did wanted to belong to any bloc. Rather they maintained a very diplomatic and careful international relationship. The developing countries’ foreign policy had mostly been determined by the nature of the governments. It was possible that the country’s foreign policy would change with the downfall of one government and the rise of the other. Therefore, the internal political environments of these countries were highly tumultuous. Such political instability made them prone to external invasions, revolutions and internal coups. The Cold War was an epoch-making event of human history. It was the result of the conflict between two superpowers during the late 20th century. More specifically, it can be viewed as their struggle for superiority over each other. Yet one of them (the Soviet Union) was more rigid and totalitarian in nature, whereas the other was more liberalist and sophisticated. Though many nations of the world were initially intoxicated by the dream of freedom from economic exploitation, soon they learned about its inherent oppression. On the contrary, the nations saw how the dreams of democracy and the rule of the majority had been marred by its own advocates. There were many countries where the democratically elected governments which were toppled down by the CIA-backed Coups. The third world countries were allured by the economic and military aids provided by these two superpowers. But their people were tantalized either by the dream economic exploitation free proletariats’ government or by the dream of people’s rule. But these nations’ could not ensure their internal and external security simply by aligning with any of the two blocs which were formed by the United States and the Soviets. Indeed, there was no stable global relations with these nations since the governments could easily be changed overnight the espionages of the superpowers. Works Cited Kennan, G. F. (July 1947). “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” Foreign Affairs, Harvard University. Marshall, George. (1947). Commencement Address outlining the “Marshall Plan,” Foreign Affairs, Harvard University. Nigel H. (2006). The SDI Enigma: Behind the Scenes of the Cold War Race for Missile Defense. Dulles, Va., Potomac Books. Schweizer, P. (1994). Victory: The Reagan Administrations Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union. Atlantic Monthly Press, p. 213 The Cold War. (28 February 2003). Disney: ABC News Classroom Edition. Retrieved 30 February 2011 from http://disney.go.com/educational/abcclassroom/support/tcw/TG_TheColdWarUnit.pdf Thomas, F. (August 24, 2013). Foreign Policy by Whisper and Nudge. Retrieved October 20, 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/friedman-foreign-policy-by-whisper-and-nudge.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Truman, H. (March 12, 1947). Joint Address before Congress (Truman Doctrine), Foreign Affairs, Harvard University Leffler, Melvyn P., "For the South of Mankind: The United States, the Soviet Union and the Cold War, First Edition, (New York, 2007) pg 31 Read More