Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard PDF

Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Part 7. The Post-Cold War World, 1990-2000 German Reunification Breaching of the Berlin Wall on 9 November: What next? No great international resistance to reunification o France and UK o Sup...

Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Part 7. The Post-Cold War World, 1990-2000 German Reunification Breaching of the Berlin Wall on 9 November: What next? No great international resistance to reunification o France and UK o Support from US Key: German commitment to European project Helmut Kohl: ten-point plan (28 Nov. 1989) Jan 1990: Soviets concede that reunification is possible o Internal collapse of East Germany o Soviet domestic problems o Active policies and concessions of West-Germany with which it needed to cooperate The events surrounding that night and the breaching of the wall imposed a very important and urgent question: what would be next? How should German leadership on both sides deal with these events. This was not something that anyone was really prepared for. While most Germans wanted to reunite the country, some in West-Germany, especially among the political left, feared for a return of German nationalism, while in East-Germany, some merely wanted to reform East-Germany, not necessarily reunite. France and the UK were initially cautious, as they feared that a reunified Germany would tilt the balance of power within Europe towards Germany. It may be hard for young students to understand this hesitation and cautiousness, but 1989 was only 44 years after the end of the second World War and many people still had vivid memories of the War (some even of both World Wars) or had heard the experiences their parents and grandparents had suffered. So, the memory of a threatening Germany was still very much alive among many people. In the end, neither the French or the British would put up hard resistance against something that had slowly become evident and even natural, German reunification. On top of that, the Germans had the support from the United States, It is important to point out the specific role of German chancellor Helmut Kohl. Kohl did not wait for international approval or did not try to negotiate first. Instead, he anticipated by acting very swiftly. And the same month as the Wall fell, he proposed a plan for German reunification. This plan included several steps that would be taken towards reunification. Although the French and British were initially hesitant, it was important for the Germans to ease any fears other countries might have by emphasizing the German commitment to the European project, which Chancellor Kohl skilfully did. As for the Soviets, they were in such a difficult position themselves, First, they were worried about a complete collapse of East Germany; a reunification could prevent this, Second, the Soviets were in a bad economic situation themselves and, so, a financial commitment for help from Germany towards the Soviets was very important, Third, West-Germany would make important concessions regarding a reunified Germany and how it would position itself in the World, in Europe and vis-à-vis the Soviet Union 101  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Towards settlement Economic reunification o High cost: currencies at one-to-one ratio 5 May 1990: Two-plus-four talks (domestic vs international issues) 31 May: Washington Summit – US assurances: o Reductions in Germany’s armed forces, o Recognition of established borders, o German economic support o Greater role for the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) The first step towards reunification was an economic measure, whereby the two economies would be united. Merging the two economies was done by equating the two currencies on a one-to-one basis, which was to the advantage of East Germany given that their currency was worth much less than the West German Mark. The second step was the American proposal to let the two Germanies negotiate domestic matters among themselves and to organize talks with the four former occupying powers regarding international matters. The Washington summit of 31 May 1990 was meant to provide additional assurances to the Soviet Union that German reunification would not be exploited against the Soviet Union. American President Bush made nine specific assurances, including Reductions of Germany’s armed forces Recognition of established borders, to guarantee that Germany would not claim territory that once may have been part of Germany at any given time in history German economic support to the USSR An increased role for the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), which would later become the Organisation on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The goal of this was to create a common framework to improve European security and supplement or even replace NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Reunification 1 July 1990: Economic and Monetary union o + avoid East German collapse o – immense financial cost German concessions to USSR o East Germany free of (foreign) NATO units o No nuclear weapons in the East o Cost of withdrawal of Red Army o Friendship treaty between Germany and USSR Reunification Treaty signed on 31 August, into force on 3 October o East Germany absorbed into West Germany So, on July 1st, 1990, Germany became one economic union again. The advantage is that this would avoid a complete economic collapse of East Germany and a massive exodus from East Germany was also avoided. The disadvantage is that this was a very costly operation for West Germany to absorb East Germany. We mentioned in the previous slide several concessions that had been made at the Washington Summit. Finally, several additional concessions needed to be made to obtain the Soviet approval, and so. Even though reunification would mean that East Germany would become part of NATO, it was agreed that there would not be any NATO troops stationed in former East-Germany No nuclear weapons would be deployed in the former East-Germany 102  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Germany would the pay the cost of the withdrawal of the Red Army A friendship treaty would be signed between reunified Germany and the Soviet Union And so, finally, the reunification Treaty was signed on August 31st, 1990. Even though it is commonly referred to as the German reunification, West Germany absorbed East Germany. The capital of Germany was now, again, Berlin. The city of Bonn had been the capital of West-Germany until then. East vs West These two cars are both German from the same period. There is a huge difference between east and west. Reunification was a very costly operation for West-Germany, and the difference between East and West became very clear very quickly, and a lot of efforts would need to be done in Germany to regain the economic strength and power it had before and the one that we currently know. The two pictures show two cars that drove down the streets of Germany in 1990, a West German Volkswagen on the left, and an east German Trabant on the right. Despite the charm of the Trabant, the technological differences are obvious. Soviet Union after 1989 Gorbachev in the West (1990): o Recognized failings of communism o Reduced international tensions o End of Cold War At home: o Uncertainties: free enterprise, incl. bankruptcies, price rises and unemployment o Regional independence in republics: threat to Soviet cohesion o Lost grip on Eastern Europe: compromise security  Started a process on which he lost control, reacting to unfolding events Gorbachev was not looked at in the same way abroad and at home. In the West, Gorbachev was praised and looked at as a hero, as he was: the first soviet leader to recognize the failings of communism, responsible for reducing international tensions between east and west he had contributed to ending the cold war But at home, in the Soviet Union, the measures and steps taken by Gorbachev led to a lot of uncertainties. The introduction of free enterprise also implied the introduction of bankruptcies, unemployment and inflation it had bolstered regional movements within the soviet republics, threatening the cohesion of the Soviet Union to some within the Soviet Union, the Soviet grip on Eastern Europe had been the best guarantee of soviet security. Losing grip on Eastern Europe, thus seemed to threaten Soviet security  The reforms of glasnost and perestroika had started a process in which Gorbachev had lost control and he was now in a position where he could merely react to events as they were unfolding, as he was no long master, or in control of them. 103  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Regionalism USSR: 15 Soviet Republics Jan 1990: law on nationalities to avoid Soviet break-up March 1990: Red Army in Lithuania after declaration of independence May 1990: Boris Yeltsin elected as President of the Russian Federation Difficult relation between the Union and the republics March 1991: Union Treaty giving larger autonomy to the republics June 1991: Yeltsin elected through popular elections One of the processes that Gorbachev had started and on which he had lost control was regionalism. The reforms of restructuring and openness had also given more freedom to regional movements to express themselves without being sanctioned as they would have before. It was now, for example, possible for Ukrainians and the other 14 republics to discuss the advantages of true independence from the Soviet Union. This was something Gorbachev had not foreseen, or at least severely underestimated and did not know how to handle or reverse. This was clear when he sent in the Red Army in Lithuania after it had declared its independence in March of 1990. This was a rare moment of aggression from the usually restrained Gorbachev. Nationalism was also on the rise in the Soviet Union’s largest republic, the Russian Federation. Boris Yeltsin had become President of the Russian federation in May of 1990 and will be elected through popular elections in June 1991. In the meantime, Gorbachev had tried to resolve the problem of nationalism by granting larger autonomy to the republics. The problem when you grant more autonomy, is that you basically also provide regions with the tools that allow them to ask and claim even more independence. Granting autonomy is most often a one- way street leading to ever more autonomy and, eventually, independence. Rem Map: One way of looking at the Soviet Union is like the typical Russian Matryoshka dolls, whereby one doll contains another smaller one within it. Well, the Soviet Union contained 15 Soviet republics, and some, like Russia, is itself a federation with several regions (Autonomous republics or ASSR) with varying degrees of autonomy. Gorbachev in trouble December 1990: o Gorbachev promotes traditional hard-line communists into politburo o Takes new powers to himself Food shortages & union strikes in USSR, little Western help August 1991: palace coup against Gorbachev, resisted by Yeltsin Republics lost faith in Gorbachev o Resignation on 26 December 1991 and dissolution of USSR o USSR sacrificed for Yeltsin’s seizure of power.  Commonwealth of Independent States (11)  Newly independent states 104  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Gorbachev had more and more difficulties at home because of the measures and political course he had taken. And so, by December 1990, he was forced to appoint several hard-line² communists to the politburo and takes on new powers himself By this time, there have started to appear food shortages in certain areas throughout the Soviet Union and union strikes are organized in response to the bad situation. Moreover, the Soviet Union received little help from the West, as the West found that the reforms were not sufficient, and they were uncertain about its outcome. And so, in August 1991, a palace coup is organized against Gorbachev by the hard-line communists he had appointed and who hoped to prevent the signature of the Union Treaty, which would grant greater autonomy to the Republics. Gorbachev was imprisoned, but the organizers of the coup were not able to mobilize broad support within the administration or the army. In Moscow, Yeltsin, President of the largest Soviet Republic stood against the coup and very rapidly, the coup was undone, and Gorbachev was freed. Of what will happen next exist two very different versions. One account is that despite the undoing of the coup, the republics had lost faith in the Soviet Union and in Gorbachev’s ability to control the events that were unfolding. According to Gorbachev himself, the Soviet Union was a strong state and could have survived as a state were it not for the ambitions of Yeltsin and his ambition to reign in the Kremlin. According to Gorbachev, Yeltsin basically sacrificed the Soviet Union to achieve his ambitions, forcing Gorbachev to resign on 26 December 1991 as the last leader of the Soviet Union, and at the same time dissolving the Union. A new federation had been agreed on and would replace the Soviet Union, called the Commonwealth of Independent States, to which 11 of the former Soviet Republics adhered. The others (among which the Baltic States) became fully independent and did not join the new federation. Georgia joined the federation later in 1993. Boris Yeltsin Faced immense economic and social challenges More radical reforms: privatizing industry and abandoning central planning 1993 constitutional crisis Russian economy hit hard by economic crisis of 1997-8, with ensuing political instability Return of stability with appointment of Vladimir Putin as PM in Aug 1999 31 Dec 1999: Putin appointed acting President, then elected in March 2000 The disappearance of the Soviet Union was certainly not a miracle solution for the problems that had grown through years of centralized economy and due to the Soviet political system. Yeltsin now faced the same problems in Russia that Gorbachev had faced as leader of the Soviet Union. He also faced enormous economic and social challenges and enacted even greater reform, including the privatization of the industry to secure financial help from the West, and mainly from the US. The consequence of these reforms were high inflation, bankruptcies and increased taxes. And so, many opposed to these reforms. Moreover, another 105  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard problem was that Russia still relied on the same administration it had under communist rule; this was not a very flexible or efficient bureaucracy. Moreover, corruption now also became and increasing problem. Political Problems continued to grow and reached a high point in 1993 when Yeltsin had tried to dissolve Parliament. According to the constitution, he did not have the authority to do this. But Yeltsin relied on the result of an earlier referendum that would grant him these powers. As a result, Parliament tried to depose and replace him. Yeltsin won the dispute by bombing Parliament. When the economic crisis in South-East Asia burst out in 1997, Russia was hit very hard, and political stability only returned after Yeltsin appointed a new, young Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin in August 1999. This was the beginning of a long and extremely successful career, as he became President shortly after in December of 1999. Yeltsin was a rather uncommon politician who had the hard task to steer a ship that was hard to control through the heaviest of storms. Some blame the failed transition of Russia into a successful modern economy and democracy to his failed policies. Many will also remember him for his sometimes-erratic behaviour due to his severe alcohol problems. Rem First Map: This map clearly shows why the Russian federation would face the same problems of regionalism and nationalism that the Soviet Union previously faced. The map shows the proportion of different ethnicities in different regions. It is not surprising that those regions where ethnic Russians are a minority are the regions where we can expect the loudest demands for greater autonomy, especially Chechnya – where two internal wars will be waged in 1994 and 1999 against Chechnian rebels – North Ossetia and Dagestan, where the Chechnian conflict has somewhat spilled over. Rem Second Map: Russia was not the only country dealing with ethnic challenges that would result in conflict. Several former Soviet countries also had large ethnic Russian communities who claimed independence or claimed to be part of Russia. As a result, border disputes arose between Russia and Kazakhstan, problems in Moldova (Transnistria, 1990-4), war erupted between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno Karabakh where an Armenian community is enclaved or encircled in Azerbaijan (1992-3). 106  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Un-frozen conflicts (USSR) The dissolution of the Soviet Union would bring about unfrozen conflicts – conflicts that were basically frozen by the Soviet Union, by the grip the USSR had on the Republics and that, with the dissolution of the USSR now became more apparent. Now, different ethnic groups within different former Soviet republics saw the opportunity to rise, to fight to defend themselves or to have greater aspirations for independence. So, the dissolution of the USSR was certainly not good news for everybody. US foreign policy US/West not triumphant Maintain support to Gorbachev o Soviet reforms were not sufficient for financial aid from the West Fear: Soviet failure to carry out reforms o Return to (communist/nationalist) totalitarianism o USSR dissolution into 15 republics leading to wars among successor states Nuclear weapons arsenal US established links with leaders of successor states For the reforms in the USSR to be successful, it was very important that the West, and the US, would not act triumphant or victorious over the USSR. Instead, they needed to show support to the USSR, and to Gorbachev and his reforms. However radical his reforms were considered within the USSR, many in the West believed that his reforms were not enough to be successful and, therefore did not warrant financial aid from the West – they believed it was not enough and not fast enough. At the same time, it is certainly not the case that the dissolution or the collapse of the USSR was a goal of the West. There was a strong fear that – were the reforms not successful – there would be a return to communism or nationalism or any form of totalitarianism. Another fear was that if the USSR would collapse, there would be a war among the 15 Republics of the USSR, because of the reasons we just discussed. Another big fear was that, with the dissolution of the USSR, there were now more nuclear powers. Effectively, in Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, there were now former soviet nuclear weapons, and it was important to denuclearize these countries and make sure these weapons would not turn into the wrong hands. Before even the collapse of the USSR, Pres. Bush had established links with the leaders of these republics. In fact, it is said that Bush knew of the collapse of the Soviet Union even before Gorbachev did. US foreign policy Bush: New World Order o Principles: order, liberalism, free trade o Success: Germany, Panama, Gulf o Lost sight of domestic evolutions: US economy Clinton: 107  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard o After 1994: Confidence to pursue own agenda, and eventual marginalization of Russia in World Affairs (cf. Bosnia, NATO) o Rogue States and failed States ▪ Mobilize US people for activist foreign policy With the end of the Cold War, Bush believed in a new world order, that would arise now that the division between East and West was over. He believed that this new world order would be based on several principles; order based on the respect of international law, liberalism, human rights and free trade, to make everyone wealthier. Bush certainly knew some success; first in Panama, then by reunifying Germany and then in the Gulf War, which was an impressive display of American dominance. But he also lost sight of domestic evolutions in his own country, most importantly the economy. His opponent for the Presidency, Bill Clinton, launched the appealing catchphrase “it’s the economy, stupid!” This was, of course, not an official slogan, but a phrase used by Clinton’s campaign team that caught on and stuck with people. Also, Pres. Bush made the important mistake to comeback on one of his electoral pledges. He had pledged not to raise taxes, and so, when he did, he lost several his voters. About Clinton, he was not a ‘foreign policy guy’, as he was mostly preoccupied with domestic, economic evolutions within the US. After 1994, he gradually gained confidence to pursue his own foreign policy agenda. But this also meant the marginalization of Russia in world affairs. An important example was Bosnia, where the Americans went against the Serbian interests, and thus Russian interests. Also, regarding the expansion of NATO, now during his second presidential term also including former Warsaw Pact member states, which would bring NATO right at Russia’s borders. Clinton and his advisors also introduced several concepts, including that of ‘rogue states’, which are countries that do not respect the new liberal world order and that go against international law. The concept of rogue states included countries like Libya, Sudan who supported terrorist groups, Iraq and Iran. The goal of naming rogue states was to mobilize (the American) people for an activist foreign policy. It is important to keep in mind that at the end of the Cold War, there was no longer any use for an activist foreign policy anymore. The Cold War was over, so the danger was over as well. By introducing the notion of rogue states, it was possible to mobilize people for an activist foreign policy. A Unilateral World 1 clear victor of the Cold War US dominance in economic and military terms End of Cold War removed ‘shackles’ from the UN Security Council Unfrozen conflicts in the third world (e.g., Zaire)  Increased humanitarian interventions Polarity and Stability o Multipolar World o Bipolar World o Unipolar World o Uni-Multipolar World Although the West was initially cautious not to be triumphant, it was clear that the United States and the West were the winners of the Cold War, as communist regimes collapsed almost everywhere, with a few notable exceptions like Cuba and China. The dominance of the Unites States in every domain was overwhelming, economically, militarily, but also culturally, the United States had great attraction. 108  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard It is often said that key events can change the World; people will say there was a world before and after the COVID-19 crisis, like the financial crisis of 2008 changed everything and like 9/11 changed the World. However, in recent history, nothing had such a big impact as the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union since the end of World War II and the division of the World. The end of the Cold War was a major disruption in the recent history of World Politics. Basically, it changed everything. It meant that the world was no longer divided in two camps who were fighting each other. The end of the cold war removed the shackles of the UN security council, as it removed the traditional opposition between the United States, France and Great Britain on one hand, and on the other hand China and Russia who had inherited the seat of the Soviet Union. As we just saw, the collapse of the Soviet Union brought with it tensions between former republics of the Soviet Union and between ethnic communities within some of these newly independent countries. But a similar problem also arose in Third World countries. With the Cold War over, Russia and the US would no longer support certain regimes to contain opposing rebels, as had been the case in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Angola, Congo, and many other countries. The support of the great powers allowed these regimes to suppress rebel groups by force and maintained a certain stability – even though these were often horribly violent regimes of dictators. With the end of the Cold War, there was no longer any reason to support these dictators, on the contrary, it would now become hard to justify support to dictatorships. Removing the support of the great powers allowed the rebel groups to level the field and challenge the regime, causing the eruption of numerous internal conflicts. So, there would also come a greater need for humanitarian interventions and the great powers would now be able to allow this in the UN Security Council. And so, after the multipolar World of the first World War, the bipolar World of the Cold War, we were now briefly entering a unipolar World with only one superpower – the US. This would not last, and some will start to label our world as a unit-multipolar world, with one superpower and multiple great powers, like Russia, China and the EU. The US is still the uncontested superpower, but it has somewhat lost its leadership and China has now become a strong economic contender, challenging the US’ economic dominance. Humanitarian interventions UN charter: protect human rights and respect state sovereignty o Chapter vii: maintain and restore peace Changed world: increasing pressure to intervene o Media and public concern, live 24h news images o Belief in human rights and democracy o Bring order and stability Major dilemma: can intervention be justified without UNSC approval? o When does scale of abuse justify action? o Who defines ’rights’ and decides intervention is appropriate of justified? Responsibility to protect. The United Nations Charter pledges to protect human rights and respect state sovereignty. Sometimes, these two values clashes when a country violates human rights. Chapter VII of the UN charter provides the necessary tools to intervene and prevent or stop human suffering and specific human rights violations. 109  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard After the end of the Cold War, the world has drastically changed in numerous ways. Technological changes, like satellite television now made it possible to air live television 24h per day at the most remote (inaccessible) places of the world. This also meant that news television could cover live from humanitarian crisis, putting governments under pressure. These were often very hard, emotional images of people suffering and politicians were pressured to find a quick response to this. On top of that, the End of the Cold War and the demands for democracy and the transition towards democracy in Eastern Europe had also given hope that there would be a wave of transitions towards democracy throughout the world. And everyone in this world should have the same rights that people in the West had – even if that meant that we should free those people from dictatorship or conflicts. Finally, with the end of the cold war, it was believed that the world would advance towards a world with stability and order, now that there was no more conflict between the two great superpowers, east and west, capitalism and socialism. It was important to consolidate this order and not to let it disrupt by certain countries – rogue nations, for example. At the same time, this confronted decision-makers with a dilemma on when exactly it is justified to intervene and on what grounds? The UN Security Council is the only institution that can allow for a legal intervention in another country. But when the Security Council cannot come to an agreement, is it then ok to standby idle and do nothing? Is there not a responsibility to protect victims who are greatly suffering? The Cold War is over. Now wat? The end of history? The End of History and the Last Man (1992) Francis Fukuyama: an American academic, tried to analyze and understand the impact of the end of the CW and the new world order. Fukuyama argued that we had witnessed the end of an ideological evolution towards the most optimal economic and political system. It did, of course, not mean the end of history, of course. According to him, liberalism had shown to be superior to any other model, and this would be the end of an ideological evolution. “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.” End of ideological evolution: The inevitable triumph of liberal capitalist democracy Simple argument: o Democracy best functioning and dominant form of rule o If a country wishes to prosper, it needs to embrace at least some forms of capitalism To create wealth, you need to protect private property and, thus, individual rights Criticism: o Chinese wealth as best counterexample? o Free markets have increased income gap and reduced average incomes Fukuyama’s argument, in essence, is quite straightforward. ➔ Democracy is the best functioning form of rule. ➔ Any political and economic system that wants to survive should embrace, at least certain elements of liberalism ➔ To create wealth, it is necessary to protect private property and to guarantee individual rights 110  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Fukuyama was, of course, criticized for certain parts of his book and his reasoning. Some, for example, argued that the rise of China was a good counterexample of his theory. However, it can hardly be said that China has not embraced certain forms of liberalism, especially economically. China also protects private property and is now home to some of the richest people in the world who have created large companies. So, it can certainly not be said that China is a traditional communist country with a communist economy. At the same time, economic liberalism has also shown great flaws, as is evident from the economic and financial crises several liberal economies have known. Liberalism has not improved the economic power of workers, as their purchasing power has decreased over recent decades and the income gap between the rich and the poor has increased dramatically. The clash of civilizations The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996) Samuel Huntington, in response to Fukuyama: Samuel Huntington was Fukuyama’s former supervisor at Harvard University and formulated a response claiming that this was not the end of ideological opposition, arguing that the Cold War was probably a momentary pause in what has traditionally caused conflicts throughout history. Throughout history, conflicts have always arisen between groups because of their differences; between groups who talked different languages, who believed in a different god, or belonged to a different ethnicity. Now that the cold war and the ideological opposition between liberalism and communism has disappeared, these differences will again be the basis of future conflict, according to Huntington. “It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.” (1993) Clash of civilizations Cultural and religious identities as primary source for conflicts Islamic extremism biggest threat to world peace and Chinese challenge to the West Based on observations: o Western World disproportionally wealthy, overrepresented in IO o Economic progress does not necessarily result in Western style democracy o States with common cultural background tend to cooperate, more economic regionalism (cf. EU) BUT o Empirically flawed: based on conflicts in 1990s: most conflicts occurred within civilizations o Poor guide to a complex World Huntington bases his reasoning on several observations: 111  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard ➔ The Western World is disproportionally wealthy and overrepresented in international organizations (it has disproportionately more votes than non-Western countries); others will challenge this, and the West will fight to maintain its privileges ➔ Economic progress does not necessarily lead to Western style democracy. Examples abound in Asia where there are hybrid more dictatorial forms of democracy and in the middle east where great wealth (e.g., Saudi Arabia) has not led to democracy at all. ➔ Finally, countries whit greater cultural similarities tend to cooperate more intensely, like the EU for example. Therefore, within groups of greater similarities, conflict will be less likely to occur. Huntington uses the break-up of Yugoslavia and Russia’s fight against Chechnya as examples. And he argues, already in 1996, that Islamic extremism and China will be the biggest challenges to the West. His critics, however, point to the fact that his observations, or empirics, are flawed, they are simply not correct. Huntington has used examples that corroborate his theory. The fact is that most conflicts occur within civilizations. Finally, it could also be argued that these theories are a poor guide to understanding the new complexities of the world. How does this help us understand different ongoing evolutions and events? NATO after the cold war Questions regarding its relevance after removal of Soviet threat Ambiguous US position: o Europeans more responsible for their own security o Fear to lose influence without NATO Demands to adhere from former Warsaw members o Balance for NATO between alienating Russia and disappointing newly independent Eastern Europeans o Military cooperation agreements NATO enlargement during Clinton 2nd term ¡ NATO-Russia ‘Founding Act’ (May 1997) April 1999: Poland, Hungary & Czech Republic join NATO NATO is an organization that was created specifically for the Cold War and, so, the question arose about its relevance. If NATO was created to counter Soviet aggression, what should we do with NATO now that the Cold War is over, and the Soviet Union no longer exists? NATO will play an important role in the different crises in Yugoslavia and it will grow towards the East by welcoming new member States, former Warsaw pact states. Regarding European security, the US had a rather ambiguous position; on the one hand, European security had a high cost for the Americans and, so, the US wanted Europe to become more in charge and responsible of its own security. On the other hand, they also wanted to maintain their influence, which was largely exerted through NATO. The Americans and Europeans did not want to upset or humiliate Russia by letting these countries (Poland, Finland, Baltic States) join NATO, but they also had to provide some positive perspective to these countries, so that their transitions to democracy and liberalism would be rewarded. And so, initially, 112  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard NATO signed military cooperation agreements before allowing them as full members during President Clinton’s second Presidential term. Where Russia had used communist buffer countries to guarantee its security, NATO would now come very close to the Russian borders. The 1992 Maastricht treaty Shortly after Schengen Treaty (1985) Founding Treaty of the European Union Further European integration o Common Foreign and Security Policy and Cooperation in the Fields of Justice and Home Affairs (Second and third pillar) Creation of the Euro and Maastricht criteria (12 members) The 1992 Treaty of Maastricht is a very important moment in European history, as it brought European integration to a new level. The European Community, which had been a mainly economic association of countries, now become a more political Union, the European Union. The Maastricht Treaty came a couple of years after the Schengen Treaty that would allow free access through the signatory countries – almost every EU Member signed, but some EU members, like the UK did not, at the same time, some non-EU members, like Switzerland, also joined the Schengen Treaty in 1985. The Maastricht Treaty also extended the competences of the EU in the domains of foreign and security policy, Justice and home affairs. It was also agreed to create a common currency, the Euro, and for countries to join, they had to comply to several financial and budgetary criteria, known as the Maastricht criteria. These included for example that future members of the Euro should reduce their total public budgetary deficit to 60% of their total GDP and their annual budgetary deficit could not be larger than 3% of the GDP. At this time, the European community or Union consisted of 12 member states. US predominance in the Post-Cold War world The Gulf War Iraq economically devastated by 8 years of war and enduring low oil prices Blame on Kuwait for overproduction beyond quota Invasion of Kuwait by Iraq on 2 August 1990 Threat to Saudi Arabia o Easier to liberate small country like Kuwait 12 Aug: Iraqi withdrawal conditional upon US withdrawal from SA and Israel from occupied territories The eight-year war with Iran had cost Iraq greatly, not only in lives, but also financially. Therefore, Iraq relied on oil revenues to rebuild their economy and the country. However, oil prices had started to plummet throughout the 1980s and, thus, so were Iraq’s revenues. To finance its war, Iraq had borrowed money with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Kuwait had been Iraq’s ally during the war and Iraq had borrowed about $80 113  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard billion. One of the problems was that Kuwait was producing more oil than its quota (remember the OPEC quotas), contributing to the low prices and infuriating Iraq. Iraq now argued that they had gone to war with Iran for the Arab cause and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia should show solidarity and relieve them from their debt, especially since those two countries were doing well economically. Iraq and Kuwait negotiated, and Kuwait agreed to restrict its oil production, but it was too late, as Iraq had decided to invade Kuwait on 8 August 1990. Taking control of Kuwait would give control to the vast oil fields and revenues of Kuwait. In a prior conversation, the new US ambassador in Iraq had conveyed to Saddam Hussein that the US did not take any position regarding border disputes between Iraq and Kuwait. It has been largely debated whether this would have been (mis)interpreted by Saddam Hussein as an American green light to invading Kuwait. Iraqi foreign affairs minister, the famous Tariq Aziz, claimed it had not been misinterpreted. Others claim that the US could and should have made it more clearly to Saddam that the US would not accept an invasion – although no one could predict that that was Saddam’s intention at the time. This invasion was considered an important threat to Saudi Arabia too. If Saddam were to overtake Saudi Arabia, he would have control over the largest reserve of oil and revenues. And pushing Saddam out of Kuwait was one thing but liberating a vast country like Saudi Arabia would be much harder. And thus, action was required. Saudi Arabia also asked the Americans to intervene. On 12 August, Saddam made a diplomatic solution almost impossible when he made an Iraqi withdrawal conditional upon the US withdrawal of Saudi Arabia and the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories. This made Saddam very popular among certain Arabs. It is also what pushed some Palestinians to support Saddam in this fight, like the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, who supported Iraq because Saddam (pretended to) support the Palestinians. Operation desert storm UN SC resolution of 29 November 1990: “All means necessary” o 1st approval of military sanctions since Korean War of 1950 o Ultimatum: 15 January 1991 Military build-up (total ± 500,000 troops) Broad coalition Air strikes on Jan 16 for 6 weeks o US Military dominance Operation ‘Desert storm’ launched on 24 Feb. o Operation was over in 4 days o Saddam agreed to comply to UN resolutions, incl. weapons inspections On November 29, 1990, the UN Security council approves a resolution that allows the liberation of Kuwait necessary, basically allowing the use of force. Iraq is given a deadline for retreat, as they must leave Kuwait before 15 January 1991. In the meantime, a very large coalition of countries is set up and a total of 500,000 troops is stationed in the region. After the deadline has passed, since Saddam did not pull back from Kuwait, air strikes begin on January 16 for 6 weeks. This is the now traditional way of warfare where specialized fighter jets who cannot be detected by radar neutralize the air defense on the ground. This will then allow other planes to attack 114  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard other strategic positions. Then, later, ground troops can be introduced with air support without having to fear the air defense. This was the first large military operation since the end of the Cold war and the domination and superiority of the Americans was simply astonishing (and since they did it every time). Then, on February 24, operation desert storm was launched. The operation was over in 4 days and Saddam was forced to agree to all UN resolutions. These were incredibly hard sanctions, and really hurt the Iraqi population, who was now the victim of Saddam’s regime, as well as of the harsh economic and other sanctions. Yugoslavia’s Break-Up Break-up amid worst bloodshed in Europe since WWII Ethnic divisions and nationalism fuelled by economic problems o Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Bosnians, Montenegrins, Albanians and Macedonians ¡ Roman Catholics, Eastern orthodox and Muslims After Tito (1980), collective with representatives from different republics o Regional solutions Slovenian and Croatian declaration of independence on 25 June 1991 Slobodan Milosevic sent the Yugoslavian army but quickly gave up Slovenia and Croatia after several months The Soviet Union and the Russian federation were not the only ones who were confronted with nationalism and regionalism. The conflict in Yugoslavia of the 1990s would turn out to be the worst bloodshed in Europe since WWII. The situation in Yugoslavia was quite complex because there are several languages, several religions (orthodox, Catholics, Muslims) and ethnicities. General Tito had first been Prime Minister from 1945 until 1953 and then President until his death in 1980. After his death, Yugoslavia was ruled by a collective of representatives from the different republics. Within those republics, more and more politicians started to point to regionalism and nationalism as the solution to their problems, claiming that things would be better if they could decide for themselves and would not be hindered by the Yugoslavian, federal, government and the other republics. Soon after the End of the Cold War, Slovenia and Croatia declared their independence. Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic sent the Yugoslavian army. They quickly had to give up Slovenia, but the conflict lasted several months in Croatia because of the large Serbian population that lived there and because of the ambition of Serbia to create a greater Serbia uniting all Serbian populations War in Bosnia-Herzegovina Challenge due to its complex ethnic mix o ±45% Muslims, ±30% Serbs, ±18% Croats 115  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Bosnian refusal to partition o Independence referendum in February 1992 o Independence of Bosnian Serbs and Croats Full scale war by April 1992 o Serb advances and ethnic cleansing (Srebrenica) o By the end: 100,000 killed and 2,2 million refugees Arms embargo to disadvantage of Muslim Bosnians In Bosnia and Herzegovina, you had a population of around 45% Muslims, 30 % Serbs and 18% Croats. Now, the Serbs and the Croats had actual countries that would support them, but the Bosnians did not, putting them at a disadvantage, even though they outnumber the others. The Croats and Serbs proposed to divide the country with the ambition to add territory to Croatia and Serbia, but the Bosnians refused because it would be impossible to divide the country in a clean way, since the different ethnic groups lived intertwined. After a referendum for independence, Bosnia declared its independence. This was refused by the Bosnians Serbs – Serbs living in Bosnia. In response, the Bosnian Serbs declared their independence as the Bosnian Serb Republic. The Croatians had done the same and had created Herzeg-Bosnia.  Therefore, full scale war erupted by April 1992. The Bosnian Serbs were supported by the Serbs and made quick advances; the Bosnian Serbs perpetrated a genocide against the Bosnian Muslims. By the end of the war over 100,000 had perished and over 2 million people had fled their homes  The arms embargo against Bosnia mainly put the Muslim Bosnians to the disadvantage, as the Bosnian Croats and Serbs were supported militarily by Croatia and Serbia respectively. Dayton Accords Low initial US involvement, ineffective EC 1994: Agreement between Muslims & Bosnian Croats on single federation April 1994: UN forces held hostage after first NATO air strikes 995: growing US involvement July 1995: massacres on Srebrenica and Zepa by Bosnian Serbs (Mladic) Turning point: armed forces of Croatia overrun Krajina (Aug 1995)  Dayton accords (Nov 1995): Bosnia and Herzegovina constituted of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serb Republic The Americans were initially not really involved in this conflict. On one hand, President Clinton was not a foreign policy specialist, he was elected on a mainly domestic program. The Europeans also wanted to resolve this by themselves, especially the French, as they considered this a European matter. Things started turning around when the Bosnian Muslims and Croats decided to join forces and agreed on a single federation in Bosnia. In April 1994, UN forces were held hostage (by the Bosnian Serbs) after the first NATO air strikes. After that, the Americans progressively started getting more involved. 116  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard In July of 1995, the Bosnian Serbs attacked the safe havens of Srebrenica and Zepa and massacred thousands of male Muslims – both were designated safe havens under UN protection. The turning point of the war was when Croatian forces overran Krajina, an autonomous of Croatian Serb territory in Croatia. It was important because if the Serbs were winning, there would be no reason for them to join peace negotiations. Now that the tide seemed to turn, it was important to bring everybody to the negotiation table. Negotiations resulted in the Dayton agreement of November 1995, where it was decided that Bosnia and Herzegovina would remain one country with two parts, federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (51% of the territory) and the Serb republic (49% of the territory). Kosovo Population of 2 million, 90% ethnic Albanians Lost autonomous status in 1989 Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA-UÇK) Fighting erupted in 1998, with Serb atrocities against ethnic Albanians Key problem: Kosovo constitutional part of Serbia Air strikes by NATO on 24 March 1999 to put pressure on Milosevic o NATO campaign suspended on 10 June after Milosevic withdrew army Russian opposition An autonomous province of the Serb Republic in former Yugoslavia. It is a relatively small territory with a population of around 2 million people, most of which are ethnic Albanians. In 1989, the province lost its autonomous status, leading to increased resistance from the UCK – the Kosovo liberation Army. Fighting erupted in 1998 and Serbs again perpetrated atrocities, now against the ethnic Albanians. What made this more difficult was that Kosovo was constitutionally part of Serbia, contrary to the former republics who were independent and were part of a federation. This is not the case for Kosovo, complicating matters from an international legal point of view. By 1999, the situation had deteriorated to the point that NATO had to intervene to put pressure on Milosevic. The goal was to bomb specific targets in Serbia to force Milosevic to withdraw from Kosovo, which he did on June 10. What made this intervention unique is that this operation achieved its goals without using a single boot on the ground. Only using air strikes. All these events occurring in former Yugoslavia, and the Western interventions, greatly upset the Russians who consider the Serbs as their allies – they share the same Slavic ethnicity and orthodox religion. The Russians felt that the Western powers were too harsh on the Serbs and did not consider their legitimate grievances. Given the similarities of the grievances of both countries – smaller regions who aim to become independent – the Russians feel that the Western support for Kosovo sends the wrong signal to secessionists and even to terrorist groups. At the same time, Russia accused the West of hypocrisy when they refuse to support the independence of regions of ethnic Russians, like Crimea in the Ukraine, while supporting Kosovo at the same time. Stability and Instability in the less developed World Somalia UNISOM I: UN humanitarian operation in April 1992 UNITAF (‘Operation Restore Hope’) o Create conditions for humanitarian relief UNISOM II (March 1993 - March 1995) 117  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard o Mission creep’: try to disarm local militias o Concern for Aidid: killing of 23 Pakistani UN soldiers 3-4 October 1993: full scale helicopter and troop attack: US soldiers trapped and 18 killed (black hawk down) o Precipitated withdrawal of US troops in March 1994  US directive that military interventions to defend vital interests only and with clear aim of success In the early 1990s, Somalia descended into virtual anarchy and became a prime example of what a failed state is. A failed state is when a country declines to a situation where the government loses control of its territory, or its monopoly on the legitimate use of force. When the government no longer has the legitimate authority to make decision that affect its population, when it is no longer able to provide for the basic needs of its population or when it is no longer considered as a full member of the international community. That reflects the state in which Somalia had turned. Somalia was – and still is – one of the poorest countries in the world and received little aid from the West. The central government was no longer in full control and several armed groups where in charge of different areas backed by their clans. Now, that is in a way the social structure in Somalia, that consists of clans and where an alliance and a balance between clans allowed for a functional government. Due to the humanitarian situation, it was decided to organize a small humanitarian operation in April 1992, called UNISOM I. The pressure on the American president to do more rose as the public was confronted with images of starving people, including many children. It was then decided to boost the presence of American soldiers to make sure that the aid could securely arrive at those who needed it, and 20,000 us soldiers were deployed under operation restore hope. The Americans were to be replaced by UN deployments and, to make sure these would arrive safely, the Americans started to move beyond their mandate. And instead of limiting themselves to facilitate the aid, they started disarming the local militias. This is what is referred to as mission creep, as they act beyond what their mandate allows them to do. After troops of Aided had killed 23 Pakistani UN soldiers, he had now become a target. The Americans stayed to try to secure Mogadishu – even there was no apparent interest for the Americans. During a full- scale helicopter and troop attack, several American helicopters were shot down, trapping several soldiers in the streets of Mogadishu. Their withdrawal was difficult and eventually, 18 us soldiers were killed, and their corpses were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, shocking the world, and especially the American public who had wanted to send troops to help the Somali people. Therefore, Bill Clinton issued a directive stating that the US would only intervene abroad to defend its vital interests and only with a clear aim of success. This failure somewhat broke the confidence the Americans had gained after the successful intervention in Iraq. 118  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Rwanda 1 Rwanda: former Belgian mandate with Hutu majority (±85%) and Tutsi minority (±14%) (1% Twa) Tutsi rule until 1950s, increasing Belgian and French support to Hutus Regular ethnic violence through 1960s and 1970s Habyarimana government under pressure from FPR, operating from Uganda, and from Western aid donors Arusha Accords with FPR (Aug 1993) 6 April 1994: plane with Habyarimana shot down o 10 Belgian soldiers charged with protecting PM Agathe Uwillingiyimana o Start of genocide against Tutsis and moderate Hutus FPR enters Rwanda The events occurring in Rwanda will have a great regional impact and eventually involve several countries in a greater War in Congo – many may not know that this is the deadliest conflict since WWII and is still not fully resolved today, as its repercussions can still be felt in this dangerous region. Remember that Rwanda, along with Burundi, became mandate territories that Belgium took over from Germany after the first World War. The Germans had used the existing divisions in Rwanda whereby there was a ruling elite, called the Tutsi, and a less wealthy majority, called Hutu, and then there is a small minority of Twa or Batwa, who are an often-forgotten minority. Now, at this time, it was possible to move from one group to another if one became wealthier or lost his wealth. Now, the Belgians decided to institutionalize this difference, turning it from something that defines who you could become to who you are. And so, Belgians introduced this notion of ethnicity in identity cards and exploited this division to let the Tutsis rule over the Hutus. This is the basic divide and rule principle of colonization.  This allowed the Belgians to rule over their colony without having to send large numbers of troops or administrative personnel. Now, one of the conditions of decolonization and independence is that the newly independent country would organize open and fair elections and, of course, since the Tutsi were a minority, the Hutu majority would now finally able to take power. And so, indeed, the Hutus took overpower, which led to violent tensions with the Tutsi minority. In their intent to maintain good relationships with their African partners, Belgium and France entertained excellent relations and military cooperation with the ruling Hutus. Violent clashes ensued throughout the 1960s and 70s, and large numbers of Tutsis fled North to the south of Uganda or West to Eastern Congo. In Uganda, the Tutsis organized into the FPR, the Front patrioteer du Rwanda, a very well trained and well-equipped militia. Over time, Juvenal Habyarimana, who had been in power since 1973, was under increasing pressure from both the FPR, as well as from Western donors, to come to a negotiated solution with the FPR. The FPR had been more and more present and threatening in the North of the country. In August of 1993, the Arusha agreements were signed, which foresaw a process towards sharing power in Rwanda, allowing for a resolution with the FPR. At the same time, Habyarimana was also under heavy pressure from extremists within his party who basically wanted nothing to do with the Tutsis and would rather get rid of them. On April 6, 1994, Habyarimana was flying back from Dar es Salaam when his plane was shot down right outside of Kigali, killing him, as well as the Burundian President. This sparked outrage among the Hutu population, as claims and rumours were circulating that the Belgian soldiers along with the Tutsi were 1 Very important !!! 119  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard responsible. Heavy armed Belgian soldiers had been present in Rwanda to oversee the implementation of the Arusha agreement. The night Habyarimana’s plane got shot down, 10 Belgian soldiers were tasked with the protection of Rwanda’s Prime Minister Agathe Uwillingiyimana, commonly known as Madame Agathe. Madame Agathe was a moderate Hutu, in favour of reconciliation. In a standoff with Rwandese soldiers, Belgian soldiers were forced to hand over their arms to calm the spirits and ease the tensions. While Madame Agathe was killed, the soldiers were then taken to camp Kigali where they fought off the Hutu soldiers for hours before being overrun, tortured and killed. Currently, Hutu extremist leaders were instructing militias, like the Interahamwe to kill as many Tutsis as possible. This was the start of the genocide perpetrated by the Hutus against Tutsis and moderate Hutus. At this point, the FPR enters Rwanda from the North, to gradually overtake the entire country. Rwandese Genocide Belgium pulls back troops (majority of UNAMIR) 100 days, 800 000 deaths Slow UN and international response to rapidly evolving situation French intervention under UN mandate o Operation Turquoise o 2500 troops FPR advances and victory o Coalition government in accordance with Arusha accord o End of operation Turquoise in August o Hutus fleeing to neighbouring Zaire o Track down those responsible for genocide After the killing of the ten Belgian soldiers and knowing that Belgians had become a target for the Hutus, but also for Tutsis – Kagame had told the Belgians that he would not allow the Belgians soldiers to stand in the RPF’s way, as they were descending on Kigali. So, at this point, the Belgians decide to pull back their troops, which was the backbone of the UN mission. By pulling back its troops, and because of the weak mandate of the remaining UN forces, the Hutus were able to slaughter over 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in less than three months. The United Nations were very slow to respond to a situation that was clearly escalating very quickly. Eventually, the UN security Council agreed to a French intervention of 2500 troops, called operation Turquoise, which began on June 23rd. While some claim that this intervention stopped the genocide, others argue that it allowed the perpetrators of the genocide, with whom the French previously entertained excellent relations, to flee to neighbouring countries, and especially to Congo. By then, the FPR had made great advances, taken over Kigali and installed a coalition government, in accordance with the Arusha agreement. Operation Turquoise ended in August of the same year. After that, the FPR tried to track down those responsible for the genocide in Eastern Zaire. Zaire Hutu refugees in Zaire – base to revive their cause o Plan to return to power in Rwanda and attacks on Zairean Tutsis Increasing fall-out between Mobutu and Western leaders 120  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard 1996: Rwandese government sent troops in Zaire to support rebel force of Laurent Kabila o Initial support from Uganda and Angola Ethnic violence continued after Mobutu was overthrown (May 1997) o Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda support anti-Kabila o Support for Kabila from Namibia, Chad, Sudan and Zimbabwe o L. Kabila assassinated in 2001 and succeeded by son Joseph o Deal between Rwanda and DRC in 2002  Deadliest conflict since WWII Hutus had fled to Zaire to avoid retaliation or imprisonment by the FPR. Their plan was to return to power in Rwanda and meanwhile attack the Tutsis who lived in Eastern Zaire. By this time, Mobutu Sese Seko, who had been in power in Zaire since 1965, was no longer useful for the West in their fight against communism. By now, Mobutu, his poor human rights record and his mismanagement of the country had become an embarrassment to the West. Belgium and the US, his main former supporters, had gradually withdrawn their support. In 1996, the Rwandese government sent troops in Zaire to support the rebel forces of Laurent Kabila after Hutus and Zairian government forces attacked Tutsis. Uganda, which had supported and hosted the FPR and feared a spread of Hutu violence now also supported Rwanda, as well as Angola, an old enemy of Mobutu. In May 1997, Mobutu was overthrown by Kabila and renamed Congo. However, this did not end the violence in the region, on the contrary. Although Kabila came to power with the help of the Rwandese, once in power, Kabila stopped his efforts to protect the Tutsis from the Hutus and, as a result, his former allies, Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda now turned against him. However, Kabila could count on the support of Namibia, Chad, Sudan and Zimbabwe. Kabila was not in office for very long, as he was assassinated by one of his guards in 2001, and succeeded by his son Joseph, who remained in power until January 2019. In 2002, Joseph Kabila was able to negotiate a peace deal with Rwanda, but the region remains troubled by militias who try to maintain a grip on the immense natural resources of the East Congo.  The conflict in the region is the deadliest conflict since WWII 121