The Cold War and U.S. Diplomacy - Term Paper Example

The Cold War and U.S. Diplomacy Truman 1945- 1953- Contain the Expansion of Communism, Presumably Everywhere More often than not, the United States’ diplomacy and foreign policy are intertwined with the major and even minor global events such as cold war and war on terror among others (Baylis et al., 2011). The diplomacy and foreign relation policy of the United States greatly determine the way it interacts with other nations in addition to setting the standards for foreign interactions for its individual citizens, corporations, and organizations (Dunne, 2000). It is undisputed fact the United States diplomatic strategies and foreign relation policy are very influential in the global affairs. Baylis et al (2011) observes that this influence is greatly attributed to its nearly unrivaled economic, military, and political prowess. At the centre of U.S diplomacy and foreign relations policy are the sitting presidents; their decisions and actions usually determine the U.S direction on major foreign relations issues. As a matter of fact, the presidential bid and possibility of re- election is highly hinged on the sitting president or aspiring presidential candidate’s foreign policy (Roskin and Berry, 2007). In order to understand better this propositions and arguments, this discussion will focus on the Cold War and the U.S. Diplomacy. Particularly, the discussion will discuss Truman 1945- 1953- Contain the Expansion of Communism, Presumably Everywhere. This topic of discussion has been derived from “Presidents and Their ‘Doctrines,” in Roskin, Chapter 4. Harry Truman was sworn in as the United States’ 33rd president on April 12, 1945. Prior to this he served as the vice- president to Franklin Roosevelt who oversaw the satisfactory conclusion of the Second World War. Woolsey (2008) explains that Truman came to the office at the time when diplomatic efforts were directed towards the Cold War. Prior and during the Second World War there had been ideological differences between the then two of the most powerful nations in the world; Russia and the United States (Niebuhr and Bacevich, 2008). Whereas the U.S was advocating for capitalism across the world and had anti- communist local and foreign policies, Russia was advocating for communist (Dunne, 2000). After the end of the Second World War, the ideological differences, mostly known as the Cold War, became more evident as there was continued military and political tension between the communist world led by Russia and the Western world that had the U.S at the forefront (Baylis et al., 2011). The end of the Second World War saw the emergence of the U.S and the U.S.S.R as the world’s superpowers albeit their political and economic differences. Cold War did not feature direct military action because both sides had nuclear power and their use would have implied their mutual destruction Niebuhr and Bacevich (2008). Truman’s presidency fall within the early stages of Cold War and historians has summarized it (his presidency between 1945- 1953) as being with two major occurrences of the Cold War; “the Truman Doctrine” of 1947 and the “Korean War” in 1953 Woolsey (2008). It is important to highlight that the period after the Second World War witnessed the rise in popularity of the communist ideology. Roskin and Berry (2007) notes, there was great worry amongst the Western allies that communism had a good chance in most part if not all in Europe and also across the world. Communist parties had gained remarkable popularity in countries such as Greece, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, China, Albania, and Iran among others (Hulsman, 1997). This scenario did not augur well with the United States and the United Kingdom who were worried that communism would sweep political and economic change across the world and particularly in Western Europe Baylis et al (2011). It is against this background that President Truman to follow a diplomatic doctrine that sought to respond to his country’s and its allies’ worries at that time. The diplomatic doctrine that he formulated and followed is famously known as Truman’s Containment Policy (Dunne, 2000). His Cold War policy was geared towards “containing” the Soviets; it implied that the Communists should not necessarily be challenged in territories that were already established but rather efforts should be made to ensure that they do not enlarge or expand their ideology at the expense of countries that had not embraced communism (Woolsey, 2008). It is worth noting that the United Kingdom government had closely monitored communists’ developments in different parts of the Europe especially in Turkey and Greece and had provided military and financial support to anti- communist groups and governments. However, the UK was experiencing financial constraint and therefore ceased to provide such support to those groups and governments (Niebuhr and Bacevich, 2008). As a result, the United States had to shoulder the responsibility of providing aids to anti- communist groups and governments. Woolsey (2008) observes, Truman was alive to this reality and he made efforts towards ensuring that the Containment Policy becomes a success. For example, he appeared before the Congress on 12th March, 1947 and requested to be provided with the financial and military aid worth $400 million specifically for Turkey and Greece. Dunne (2000) says that this gesture later came to be referred to as the Truman Doctrine. This diplomatic doctrine was followed by all subsequent U.S presidents present in office during the Cold War period. Their following of this doctrine did not occur in a vacuum due to the fact that Truman had earlier stated that this policy must be of the United States to resist attempted subjugation by outside pressures or through armed minorities, as well as supporting free people. Baylis et al (2011) argues that Truman Doctrine bred other foreign policies and plans that were aimed at winning the Cold War. The most notable of these, is the Marshall Plan which was outlined by the then secretary of State, George Marshall. The plan later became to known as the European Recovery Program. Hulsman (1997) explains that this was informed by the argument that Europe was relatively far from recovering from the adverse effects of the Second World War and adoption of communism policies would further exacerbate the suffering and struggles of most of the Europeans (Woolsey, 2008). The Marshall Plan provided aid worth $20 billion to sixteen billion to sixteen nations. This colossal amount was justified by the argument that it sought to alleviate humanitarian crisis in addition to help prevent any possible expansion into Western Europe of communism. It is noteworthy that the plan had offered to include Soviet Union in the plan, an offer that was turned down by Stalin (the Soviet Union Premier) because he thought that it was a tool of propaganda (Dunne, 2000). Just like most of the foreign plans and doctrines, Truman doctrine had effects to the U.S relations with other countries (Dunne, 2000). Firstly, it strengthened the relationship between Western countries as they were closely- linked to a common doctrine; that is, the efforts of staving off communism from their territories. Also, Truman’s effort enhanced the cooperation among the Western countries, particularly, military cooperation. There are many evidences to support this proposition, the most notable one being the formation of The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (Woolsey, 2008). On the other hand, Truman’s efforts strained the United States relation with the Soviet Union as the “war” between them was more clearly- defined through actions. Lastly, the efforts led to poor relationships between the Soviet Union and the Western Countries in general, a situation that contributed to prolonged period of Cold War (Baylis et al., 2011). In conclusion, this doctrine had advantages and disadvantages. The advantages included; the formulation of clear policy that guided the U.S during the Cold War Period. Two, the implementation of the policy helped the U.S and the Western Countries to eventually win the Cold War. On the other hand, it had disadvantages which included; it led to strained relationship across the world that always posed a threat to international peace and security. Lastly, most political science and history scholars have attributed the prolonged period of the war to the Truman doctrine. References Baylis, J et al. (2011).The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dunne, M. (2000). US foreign relations in the twentieth century: From world power to global hegemony. International Affairs, 76(1), 25. Hulsman, J. (1997). A paradigm for the New World Order: a schools-of-thought analysis of American foreign policy in the post-Cold War era. London: Macmillan. Niebuhr, R and Bacevich, A. (2008). The Irony of American History. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Roskin, M and Berry, N. (2007). IR: The New World of International Relations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Woolsey, G. C. (2008). The Truman Doctrine. Officer Review Magazine, 48(3), 5-7. Read More