Geopolitics Q2 Babette Leonard - The Middle East: 1972-1980 - PDF

Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Part 5. The détente Era, 1972-80 The middle East: Israel-Palestine Historical background: Jews were blame for everything going wrong. History of pogroms and persecution of Jews in Europe Theodor Herzl (1897): Der Jud...

Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Part 5. The détente Era, 1972-80 The middle East: Israel-Palestine Historical background: Jews were blame for everything going wrong. History of pogroms and persecution of Jews in Europe Theodor Herzl (1897): Der Judenstaat Balfour declaration (1917): Support for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, but that nothing should be done to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine One of the key problems in the Middle East is the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, or the Israelis and the Arabs, more broadly. Throughout modern history, especially since the high Middle Ages, Jews have continuously and systematically been blamed and used as scapegoats whenever things went wrong. By the 19th Century, anti- Semitism had become engrained throughout Europe, and it is hard to find a region in Europe – East or West – where pogroms have not occurred, where Jews have not been persecuted at one or another point in time. By the 19th century, with the rise of nationalism and Nation-States we find ourselves in a rather strange situation, where Jews have fully integrated into national societies. Yet, at the same time, they were still widely being blamed for everything that went wrong, including all the economic problems that would occur. Modern history of Israel starts with Theodor Herzl, he’s an Austro-Hungarian Jewish journalist and as a journalist he covered the Dreyfus case in Paris. In Paris, he was shocked by the chants and exclamations of the people there. He felt disillusioned with the assimilation of Jews in Europe. People were chanting “death to the Jews” and he was so shocked that he believed that the only solution that would provide security for the Jewish people was the creation of their own state. Herzl was not the first to come up with this idea, but he was the first to pull political weight behind this idea; what he did was to try to generate organized support behind this idea from powerful and influential people. They are advocating organized Zionism. These ideas were not entirely original, but he was able to start an organization and entertain relations within several governments in Europe. His ideas quickly gained ground amid a minority of Jews in Europe who were suffering from anti-Semitism. A second important step was the Balfour declaration. Balfour declaration is a letter from Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, stating the official British support for a Jewish State in Palestine. It was not immediately evident where such a state would be created and several options were presented: Palestine, Argentina, Uganda, Suriname and Madagascar – basically colonial territories. Palestine is a very symbolic place, with important locations for all the main monotheistic religions. Israel UN partition Plan (1947) State of Israel (14 May 1948) Arab-Israeli War (1948) ¡ Suez Crisis (1956) Six Day War (1967) 67  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Yom Kippur War (1973) After WWII they were more determinate and many are in USA, UK, Belgium. But USA doesn’t want everyone, so they said UK you need to have some too. By going to war Arab lost country. In 1947, after the massacre of the holocaust, and after a lot of Jewish people had immigrated to Palestine, there are mounting tensions between Arabs living in Palestine and the Jewish community that is increasing in the region. So, the UN draws up a partition plan dividing Palestine into Jewish parts and Arab or Palestinian parts. On 14th of May 1948, after British troops left, Israel proclaims its independence. On the 15th of May, a very brief, violent, war erupts between Israel and its Arab neighbours. Explanation map: The pink part shows the Arab parts with Gaza in the South, the West bank and the part in the North close to Lebanon – the blue part being Israel. After the declaration of independence of Israel and the ensuing war, the UN drew up a new map with UN armistice lines, which you can see, considerably reducing the Arab parts. Tensions had already been present even before this period between all parties – the Arabs were upset with the British because they allowed in all these Jewish immigrants and the Jewish were upset with the British because they felt they did not allow in enough Jewish immigrants and of course, tensions had risen between the Arabs and the Jewish because of this partition. Context Unstable region Divided Arabs: Regional rivalries o Conservative monarchists (S. Arabia) vs. radical republicans (Egypt) o Arab leadership (Egypt vs. Iraq) Initial limited superpower concern Gradual increase of armaments of their clients in 1960s o Israel (US) vs. Egypt & Syria (USSR)  Integration into bipolar world order Palestinian Liberation organization and Al Fatah (Yasser Arafat) o Raids from Egypt and Jordan, training in Syria A very unstable region and very divided. In Egypt they like the idea of Nasser to be the leader. Before the crise of the Suez Canal it was only the British playground. Egyptian wanted their land back, so they organised them self, two important organization the Palestinian Liberation (Nasser + Palestine) and Al Fatah. we are dealing with a highly instable region, not just the Middle East but this part specifically and Arabs are divided. 68  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard There are a lot of regional rivalries not only among the Arabs but also with the Turkish and Iranian. But even among Arabs, there are a lot of rivalries for domination, for Arab leadership. They don’t have the same perspective on how to deal with events, as they don’t see eye to eye on everything. The Middle East is very divided. On top of that, many countries try to dominate the others, for Arab leadership. Now if you remember before 1956, and the Suez Canal Crisis, superpowers were not very much concerned with this region. This region was Great-Britain’s playground, the US and the SU didn’t really had a stake in there. It is only after 1956 when Egypt was trying to find weapons to defend itself against Israel and Egypt and Syria becoming clients of the SU, and in a response to that, the US providing weapons to Israel that the CW and bipolar world order were fully integrated into the region. In response to the events from the late 40s and early 1950s, Palestinians living in refugee camps had to organize themselves and started launching commando raid against Israel from Egypt and Jordan. The PLO (Palestinian liberation organization) was created by Nasser in 1964 and regrouped different organizations. The goal was to give Palestinian’s voice. Now, initially, the PLO was dominated by Arab countries, like Egypt, but after the defeat of the 6-day war, Palestinian organizations started to take over. The most important one of them was Al Fatah, created and led by Yasser Arafat. Six Day War: Prelude Prelude: Jordan water dispute over the exploitation of the Jordan river Israeli plan to divert water for industrial and irrigation purposes Jan 1964: Egyptian initiative to bypass Israeli construction 1965-66: Israeli preventive strikes on Syria Border incidents with Syria (7 April 1967) o Attack on Golan positions o Shooting of 6 Syrian MiGs The prelude to the Six-Day war is a dispute over the exploitation of the Jordan river between the Arab countries and Israel. Fresh water, as opposed to salt water, is a very essential commodity in a dry region like the middle east. Israel had built a canal from the sea of Galilea diverting the Jordan river all the way to the Negev desert in the south. In response to this, Nasser invited the other Arab leaders to come up with a plan that would divert the river and bypass the Israeli construction. As the Arab countries started to work on their plan, the Israelis attacked the construction before it could be completed. On top of that, tension had been rising between Israel and its neighbours in part because of the Palestinian guerrilla attacks on the border, amounting in several military incidents between ‘64 and ‘67. In one of those attacks, 6 Syrian MiGs were attacked, and the Israelis attacked positions in the Golan heights. Six Day War (1967) Syrian fear – Egyptian mobilization – Soviet support USSR and US support despite low desire for confrontation 69  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Nasser requests withdrawal of UN forces from Sinai (16 May) Egyptians’ close straits of Tiran (Red Sea) to Israeli ships (23 May) Jordan-Egyptian defense pact → “Security dilemma” → Israeli attack on Egypt on 5 June Israeli takeover of Sinai desert and Suez Canal, Sharm el-Sheikh, Jordan river, East Jerusalem, Golan Heights.  Washington–Moscow hotline and ceasefire, Soviet threat  Arab humiliation As the tensions were rising, the Syrians had started getting nervous, the Egyptians were taking a tougher stand and the superpowers were not able to prevent any of this escalation. The Soviets felt it necessary to back up their clients, Egypt and Syria. Nasser’s popularity as the great leader within the Arab world had been decreasing. And so, Nasser found it necessary to take a tough stand against Israel and not to shy away from bellicose rhetoric. This means that he was talking about war with Israel. In May of 1967, he demanded that the UN forces which had been there since 1956 would be withdrawn from the Sinai desert – unexpectedly, they did. The Secretary-general of the United Nations, U Thant, wanted to protect the UN forces but he was very criticized for this, as removing the UN forces would also remove any obstacle between the Egyptians and the Israelis. Therefore, Nasser who had not expected a full withdrawal of UN forces, felt obliged to move his troops in the Sinai desert along the Israeli border. Also, in May, Nasser announced that he would close the straights of Tiran to Israel closing Israel’s access to the Red Sea and to the open Sea. For Israel, it was an act of war. The Egyptians then signed a defense pact with Jordan. So, Israel finds itself in a classic security dilemma. A security dilemma is a situation where the actions by actor A to improve its security are perceived by another actor B as offensive. So, in turn, this actor will take actions to improve its own security. This will be perceived by the first actor (A) as confirming his suspicions that actor B had offensive intentions, and this leads to a spiral of armament until one of the 2 attacks the other out of fear of being attacked first. By late May, Israel is convinced that it will be attacked by Jordan, Syria, and especially Egypt, and so it seeks to prevent this by carefully attacking them first one by one. This will start with Egypt, as Israel will completely neutralize its Air Force. This will take a full day whereby Israel will attack continuously and systematically all the military airports within Egypt, this way completely neutralizing its Air Force. Now with no air support and with the Israelis dominating the airspace, the Egyptian ground forces are considerably less effective and very vulnerable. Next, Israel will turn to the Syrians, and they will take the strategic Golan Heights. Jordan, which had been told by Nasser that the Israelis had lost their airpower, then started attacking Israel in the West Bank. Because they had no support from Egypt, and especially no air support. They very quickly had to retreat. Now, the situation is escalating and getting out of hand, and as the United States is sending its sixth Fleet, Moscow activates for the very first time the hotline between them and Washington. This was the first time since it was installed after the Cuban Missile Crisis. They find an agreement on a ceasefire and so the situation is stopped. But, of course, this situation finds Israel taking over the entire Sinai desert up until the Suez Canal. The South of the Sinai Desert, Sharm El Sheikh, the Jordan River, east Jerusalem, and almost the entirety of the West Bank, as well as the Syrian Golan Heights. So, by attacking its neighbours Israel very much improved its security situation. At the same time this is a complete humiliation for the Arab countries. 70  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Map explanation: This map shows you the borders of Israel and all the territories that are occupied by Israel after winning the Six Day War. In the south, you see that Israel takes over the entire Sinai desert up until the Suez Canal. In the South, they go all the way down to Sharm- El sheikh. In the West Bank, which borders Jordan, the Israelis completely overrun the Jordan army. And take the entirety of the West Bank, including the Jordan River. In the North. They take over the very strategically important Golan Heights from Syria and thus very much improved their security situation. Aftermath Refusal to return territory without recognition Refusal to return East Jerusalem Worsening of the refugee problem Increasing international attention and sympathy to Arab cause UNSC Res°242 (22 Nov 1967): basis for Arab–Israeli settlement o Land for peace o “Inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” The Six Day war will have very important and long-lasting consequences. From the Israeli perspective, why would they return territory that improves their security? Especially since those hostile neighbours refused to recognize the right to exist, and particularly East Jerusalem, which is very symbolically important from a religious perspective. Another important consequence is that Six Day war will markedly worsen the refugee problem. Around 300,000 people will flee from Gaza and the West Bank, many of which already had to flee in 1947, 1948 and in 1956. From a strategic point of view, this will improve Israel's security, but it will not improve their image in the world and sympathy will rise for the Arab cause and the Palestinians. The United Nations Security Council will unanimously adopt Resolution 242, which is still today the basis for Arab-Israeli settlement. If any peace will be found, it will have to be on this basis. The resolution states that it is inadmissible unacceptable to acquire territory by war and if Israel wants peace, it will have to return the lands that it took. Yom Kippur War (1973 Anwar Sadat succeeds Nasser († 28 Sept. 1970) Hafez al–Assad seizes power in Syria (1970) Israelis: no reason to negotiate territories ¡ Arabs: no leverage to force negotiations Coordinated Surprise Attack on Yom Kippur (6 Oct. 1973) o Low perceived probability of War o Unwinnable war for Arabs → force negotiations o Quick advances and quick reversal In Egypt, Anwar Sadat succeeded Nasser, who passed away in 1970. Also in 1970, Hafez Al Assad, father of Bashar al-Assad, seized power through military coup in Syria. 71  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard For the Israelis, there was absolutely no reason to negotiate these territories as they improved their security, why would they give them back to countries that were hostile to them and still wanted to destroy them? On the Arab side, they had absolutely no leverage to force the Israelis to negotiate. So that is why Sadat came up with this plan to coordinate a surprise attack on Israel – much like the attack the Israelis had perpetrated on its neighbours in ’67. So, they decided to attack on one of the most important Jewish Holidays, Yom Kippur on 6 October 1973. The Israelis had become too confident; after their major win in ’67, they didn't believe that the Arabs would be able to attack them, so they thought that it was very, very unlikely that they would be attacked by their neighbours. or the Arabs, it was almost impossible to win from Israel who was superior to them. It wasn't their goal to win, especially not for Sadat. Sadat’s aim was to force negotiation; to force people to come to the negotiation table and this way possibly get back the territories that were lost in 1967. The attack itself was led by the Egyptians and Syrians but also included expeditionary forces from Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and host of other Arab countries. Since this was a surprise attack, they were able to quickly neutralize the Israeli air defences and their air force and so they quickly advanced, but the Israeli forces were very strong and were very quickly able to reverse the situation. Yom Kippur War 2 UN Cease-fire of 22nd October not respected, and Soviet threaten to intervene to end the war (24 Oct.) US warning for Moscow not to intervene and pressure on Israel to stop advance ¡ US diplomacy towards Egypt to withdraw Soviet engagement 27 Oct. ceasefire Sadat opening to US (switch in allegiance) o Re-establishment of US-Egyptian diplomatic relations Israeli pull back from Suez – Passage for Israel On October 22, the UN Security Council passed a Resolution that called for an immediate ceasefire, negotiated between the U.S. and Soviet Union. As none of the parties respected the October 22nd ceasefire, the Soviets had threatened to intervene to end the war by October 24th and at this point the United States warned Moscow not to intervene but in order to prevent an intervention from the Soviet Union it had to pressure Israel to stop its advance. At the same time, the United States started to engage diplomatically towards Egypt to ask them to withdraw their demand for Soviet engagement. This resulted in the October 27 ceasefire, which effectively ended the war, after pressure on Israel from the United States. This had created an opening for Sadat and Egypt towards the United States and the possibility of switching allegiance from the Soviet Union towards the United States, which at this point had started to become more appealing and perhaps pragmatically more interesting. So, diplomatic relations between the United States and Egypt where re-established and as a result, Israel would pull back from the Suez Canal, and partly from the Sinai Desert. At the same time, Egypt would grant passage for Israel through the Suez Canal. In order to regain the Sinai and the lucrative oil in the Sinai Desert, as well as the lucrative Suez Canal, the Egyptian leader was ready to offer Israel security promises and recognition. This would form the basis of direct negotiations that would lead to the Camp David agreements Camp David Sadat objectives: ¡ Return of territory o Let US deal with Israel o US financial and military assistance o Sadat address to Knesset (Nov. 1977) Camp David summit (17 Sept 1978) 72  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard o Normal diplomatic relations in return for Sinai o Egyptian–Israel Peace Treaty (Washington, March 1979) As part of Sadat’s opening towards the US and his will to improve relationships with Israel, Sadat addressed the Israeli parliament – the Knesset – in 1977. Now one year later Sadat and Prime Minister of Israel Begin held secret negotiations, secret discussions at the American president's holiday home Camp David. Sadat had three main objectives: the first being the return of all the territory lost in the Six Day War. The second goal was to let the Americans deal with Israel. By becoming potentially an American ally, the Americans would stand in between them in case of a conflict and the Americans would have allegiance to both Egypt and Israel. The third main objective was to obtain financial and military assistance from the US becoming an important American ally. The Camp David summit basically provided normal diplomatic relationships between Israel and Egypt in return for the Sinai, a full return of the Sinai. Six months later, the peace treaty was signed between Egypt and Israel in Washington in March 1979. Camp David Impact No concessions for Palestinians o Egypt expelled from Arab League in1979 o Arab loathing of Sadat o Assassination of Sadat (6 Oct. 1981) Israeli withdrawal from Sinai o Return of oil wells and withdrawal of Jewish settlements o Reorientation of settlements to West Bank The Camp David agreements were basically two sets of agreements. The first was a framework for the conclusion of a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. This only concerned the situation between Egypt and Israel directly and it had a positive impact as it created peace between those two countries. The other set of agreements was a framework for peace in the Middle East and basically related to the situation of the Palestinians. The problem is that it did not provide basic improvement for the situation of the Palestinians and most importantly it did not involve the Palestinians. The negotiations did not involve the Palestinians themselves. It was rejected by the United Nations who were also not involved, and by the Palestinians, as well as within the wider Arab region. Therefore, Egypt was expelled from the Arab League and throughout the Arab world, Sadat was now loathed, as he had only defended his own Egyptian interests. This would lead to Sadat’s assassination in 1981. Sadat effectively defended Egypt’s interests and he obtained the full withdrawal of Israel from the Sinai desert. In return he obtained the oil wells of the Sinai desert and the withdrawal of all the Jewish settlements in the Sinai desert. The downside of this is that all those Jewish settlements left from the Sinai desert but were reoriented into the West Bank, thus deteriorating the situation in the West Bank. 73  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Evolution of Palestinian territory The situation of the Palestinians has deteriorated over time. First, we see the situation right before the UN partition plan of 1947 and right after [second image]. And this [third image] is the situation between 1949 and 1967, which is still the basis of any peace between Israel and Palestine. This is the situation how it should be and this [fourth image] is the situation of how it is today [several years ago]. OPEC Iraq, 1960 HQ Vienna Mission: o coordinate and unify petroleum policies of member countries, o ensure the stabilization of oil markets, secure efficient and regular supply of petroleum to consumers, o Secure steady income to producers, and fair return on capital for those investing in the petroleum industry Textbook cartel: Manipulate price through production targets Turning point toward national sovereignty over natural resources o From Multinational Oil Companies to State-owned Companies OPEC is the organization of the petroleum exporting countries. It was created in Iraq in 1960. Its headquarters are today in Vienna and its main mission is to coordinate and unify petroleum policies of its member countries. This means it basically determines how much each country produces or exports, determining the price on the markets to make sure that consumers pay a fair price and that they, as exporters, receive a fair price. OPEC is a textbook cartel, meaning that it can manipulate the price by increasing or lowering its production targets. So, if the prices are too high, they can increase production which will lower the prices. Conversely if the prices are too low, they can cut production targets which will increase the price of a crude barrel of oil. This way they can stabilize the market, stabilized the prize that exporters receive for oil and stabilize their own revenue. 74  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard The creation and growth of OPEC marks a shift away from multinational oil companies, the state-owned companies. So, instead of having a limited number of multinational companies who own all the production of oil, the production of oil is now concentrated within the country that produces it. Before 1973, the world market was dominated by a group of multinational companies known as the "Seven Sisters", five of which were headquartered in the US following the breakup of John D. Rockefeller's original Standard Oil monopoly. Oil-exporting countries were eventually motivated to form OPEC as a counterweight to this concentration of political and economic power. Preceding the 1973 oil crisis, the Seven Sisters controlled around 85 per cent of the world's petroleum reserves. Since then, industry dominance has shifted to the OPEC cartel and state-owned oil and gas companies in emerging-market economies. First “Oil Shock” Economic growth in ‘50s and ’60s reliance on cheap fuel Oil finite, high Western dependency on import, no energy conservation 1968: creation of OAPEC, Arab subgroup within OPEC o 1971: OPEC agrees on higher prices for oil producers Middle East War (1973): o 20 Oct: complete embargo to countries who aided Israel by Arab producers (until March 1974) o By 1974, price per barrel increased from 3$ to 12$  Western economies: fall in industrial activity and inflation  Slow recovery between 1974-78  Oil profits invested through Western bank as cheap loans to developing countries Western economic growth in the 1950s and 1960s relied in part on the supply of cheap fuel for industry and transport. Around 1970 a shortage of oil developed, US production began to decline rapidly, estimates of reserves ceased to increase more rapidly than production and there was a sudden consciousness that oil was finite.’ Western economies were now heavily dependent on oil imports, making little effort at energy conservation. In 1968, the Arabs formed their own subgroup within OPEC, and, in September 1969, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi came to power in Libya, taking a strong line in support of higher prices. In 1971 OPEC agreed to press for higher prices from the producers and a bigger share in profits; and in 1972 the Arab oil producers already talked about limiting oil production to push up prices. Although Western countries were already concerned about future oil supplies and prices before October 1973, it was the Yom Kippur War that revolutionized relations between the oil producers and their suppliers. On 16 October, OPEC unilaterally increased oil prices by two-thirds. Four days later the Arab oil producers, controlling about a third of world oil reserves, launched a complete embargo of supplies to those countries who had aided Israel, including America, Holland, Portugal, and South Africa. Nonetheless, the oil embargo against the US remained in force until March 1974 and by then oil prices had risen by about four times the level of the previous year, from $3 to $12. The impact on the Western economies was startling. Measures to reduce oil consumption and develop alternative energy sources were hard to achieve and could not prevent substantial balance of trade problems, an alarming fall in industrial activity, and a new twist to inflation. It will take a lot of time for Western economies to recover between 1973 and 1978. But at the same time, this will mean increased oil profits for the Arab countries and all other oil exporting countries. These profits will 75  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard be invested through Western banks as cheap loans to developing countries, who will, in turn, accumulate great debt to those banks and to those countries. The Era of Stagflation Sudden steep increase in oil prices o Stagnation in economic growth o High inflation US support to growing economies -> resentment French opposition to US privilege and dollar-gold exchange (1965) Nixon Shock (August 1971): o Import surcharge of 10% & 90-day wage and price controls o End of dollar convertibility in gold (Nixon shock) o From fixed to free floating exchange rates (1973)  End of Bretton Woods system  End of American (economic) Hegemony? As Industrial production had relied on cheap oil, this production now slowed down, causing a stagnation in economic growth. This, in turn, also caused an important increase in unemployment and, of course, high inflation rates. This means that the price of products in stores increased while the wages/salaries roughly stayed the same. That is why we call this the period of stagflation, stagnation in economic growth and high inflation. The US had also started to become annoyed with the current global economic situation, as they had supported the economies of the West after the war, and specifically helped relaunch the economies of West Germany and Japan, who had now again become economic great powers. But these economies were exporting cheap products to the US, hurting American companies. For example, cheap Japanese textile products were competing with domestic American textile manufacturers. Nixon wanted to change this and negotiated trade taxes on certain imports 76  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Even more important was Nixon’s decision to stop the convertibility of the US dollar into gold, effectively ending the Bretton woods system. This is known as the Nixon shock. This caused many other currencies to have free-floating exchange rates instead of fixed exchange rates. What does that mean? See, before the Euro, every European country had its own currency, as is still the case in most of the rest of the world. Now, before the Nixon shock, these currencies had a fixed exchange rate vis-à-vis the US dollar and vis-à-vis each other. For example, German mark was worth around 20 Belgian francs. That is what we call fixed exchange rates. One of the problems with these fixed exchange rates is that if your economy is doing very well, your currency is undervalued, When a currency is undervalued, it means that other countries can buy your products at a cheaper price. That is what China has done for a long time. So, fixed rates do not represent the true value of a currency while free floating means that the value of a currency represents how well the economy is doing and how much people trust a given currency. If they trust it, they will buy it, increasing its value. So, the positive aspect of having currency highly valued, is that you can buy a lot of products abroad, stimulating those economies, but the negative part is that it will be very expensive for other countries to buy your products, which might hurt your own economy. So, the Bretton Woods system, set up after the end of WWII, fixed the exchange rates between currencies, and fixed the price of gold vis-à-vis the US dollar – at 35$ per ounce of gold. So, in this system, money has an equivalent in real gold, that you can buy using dollars. Now remember, the Americans had lots of gold by the late 1940s, as they had provided the European countries with money in return for their gold reserves. The us owned half of the world’s gold reserve Now, as the European countries had recovered, their economies grew, and in relative terms, the Us share of the world’s economic output had dropped. The war in Vietnam was also hurting the American budget and had caused the Americans to print more money. And so, the US dollar had started to become highly overvalued, meaning that it had become very expensive to buy American products and more interesting for Americans to buy cheaper products from other countries. Therefore, now the American gold reserves no longer covered all the dollars available. Banks outside the US held 14 billion dollars, but the US only had around 13 billion in gold reserves. And the US also had to cover 10 billion dollars that were circulating in their own country. The French had vividly opposed this situation. De Gaulle noted that it was not fair that the US could simply print additional dollars while the other countries had to provide something real in exchange. As other countries started to worry, they had started to trade the dollars that they had for actual gold, rapidly decreasing the amount of gold reserves of the US. An important shock to 77  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard the US came when the British government asked to convert three billion dollars into gold. Negotiations were organized to devalue the American dollar in 1971, but it could not stop the end of the Bretton woods system. The end of the Bretton woods system is important in many aspects, as it shows the end of the total American economic domination. It also showed a lock of international cooperation and the US unable to show the authority or to dominate its partners into a solution and, is therefore, considered as an important turning point in recent global (economic) history. Iran or the best allies of Americans Mohammad Reza Pahlavi succeeds his father as ‘Shah’ (1941) Coup against popular PM Mosaddegh (1953) o Nationalization of Iranian oil industry (resistance to foreign domination) o Inspired by MI6, carried out by CIA o More power to the Shah Key regional US ally o American arms → US surrogate o Good relations with Israel In 1941, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi succeeds his father Reza Shah Pahlavi. His father is seen to be too neutral or too lenient towards the Germans and is pushed aside by the British and the Soviets. Remember, the British and Soviets had taken over control of Iran to ease transportation and logistical support between them by using Iran’s railroad. And as you remember, both the British and Soviets leave at the end of the war, causing problems between the Soviets and the brits and Americans increasing the tensions at the beginning of the Cold War. In 1951, Mohammad Mossadegh is elected as Prime Minister. He is very popular among the Iranian public. One of the measures his government takes is to nationalize the Iranian oil industry, which had largely been into British hands. The goal of this measure is to use the Iranian oil resources for the Iranian people, and not for the British interests. One of the goals was also to reduce the foreign domination in Iran, which had been a great empire and one of the oldest civilisations in the world. So, Iran is a proud and independent nation who do not appreciate the domination of foreign powers. Now, today, many large oil companies are controlled by the governments; Saudi Arabian oil is exploited by a company that is controlled by the Saudi government, and the same applies for Russia, Iran and most of the oil exporting countries. But at the time, in 1951, this was considered as a revolutionary, communist, measure. What happens is, the British and American secret services organize a coup to get rid of Mossadegh and to strengthen the power of the King, who is a loyal ally. This effectively increased the domination of foreign powers, especially of the Americans. But this coup organized by the Americans, against the will of the Iranian people also deeply hurts the image of the Americans in Iran. As relations between the Shah and the Americans strengthen, Iran becomes an important ally in the region, comparable with the role of Israel in the Middle East. The Americans basically use Iran to provide stability and security in the region and provides Iran with massive state of the art weapons. The goal is to build Iran as a regional superpower; it is a vast country, with a large population, and 78  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard a stable government with the support of the West. As a non-Arab country, it is also not embroiled in the Arab Israeli feud, as Iran entertains cordial relationships with Israel at this point. Iranian Revolution Modernization and creation of fully developed, industrialized Iran Economic problems by 1975 (inflation, inequality, withdrawing investors) Domestic opposition from Communists (Tudeh party), traditionalists (Clerics) and Middle-class liberals Civilian cabinet by Shapour Bakhtiar (PM) on 31 Dec 1978 Shah leaves in exile (16 Jan 1979) Return of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini on 1 Feb 1979 Installation of theocratic Islamic republic Impact compared to French and Russian revolution The king had the ambition to turn his country into a modern and fully developed industrial country, and the increasing oil revenues allowed him to finance these ambitions However, the country’s quick evolution and expansion also brought high inflation and, as many people from the countryside came to seek their fortune in Tehran and other large cities, the infrastructure of those cities were not prepared to accommodate and cope with these large amounts of people At the same time, the country was also troubled by a mix of internal problems, like a high degree of corruption, the autocratic dictatorial rule of the regime of the shah and very high defense expenditures – Iran was one of the highest buyers of state-of-the-art American weapons. Consequently, western investors no longer saw the Iranian economy as interesting and they started withdrawing their capital, plunging the Iranian economy into a sudden depression The mix of economic problems and the oppressive regime brought different opposition parties together: left- wing communists who wanted better redistribution of wealth and better conditions for workers, as well as middle class liberals who wanted more political rights, and freedom of expression and traditionalists who disliked the social changes in Iran and their appreciation that Iran was become too Westernized As discontent with the regime of the Shah grows, the different opposition groups start to organize Revolution themselves and organize large-scale demonstrations. The US, Iran’s ally, and a very important supporting factor of the Shah’s regime completely miscalculated and underestimated the seriousness of the situation in Iran and did too little too late. The US was torn on one hand they wanted to support the demands of the Iranian public for more political and human rights and increased freedom of expression. But on the one hand, they also needed to support their loyal ally, the regime of the Shah. And so, when the Americans realized the seriousness of the situation, it was already too late. While opposition to the Shah had consisted of diverse groups, liberals, religious traditionalists and communists, the figure that most spoke to the people was Ayatollah Khomeini, a religious leader who had been banned from Iran because of his opposition to the Shah in 1964. He had first fled to Iraq, but when he started having trouble with the regime of Saddam Hussein too, he fled to Paris. Khomeini skillfully forged a coalition of the opposition forces inside the country and advocated change that would benefit and free the people from the tyranny of the King. In response to the domestic protest and the demonstrations, the Shah asked Shapour Bakhtiar to form a civilian cabinet by the end of 1978. So, while keeping a grip on the military, he delegated some power Return of to the government. One of the demands of this new PM was that the Shah would leave the Khomeini country. And so, he did, on 16 January 1979. 79  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard This, too, was too little too late for the demonstrators and as Khomeini returned from exile on February 1st of 1979, PM Bakhtiar resigned shortly after. The Shah’s armed forces disintegrated, demoralized and undecided how to respond to the protests, who were now spread over the entire country. The American administration, under President Carter, refused to support a military crackdown on the protest and believed it was best for the Shah to abdicate, believing the moderate discourse of Khomeini. Khomeini had promised a moderate course to please and rally the different opposition groups in the country, he also mobilized women to demonstrate, and he would later often praise their contribution. However, once he will have a firm grip onto power, every-day life will become very hard for Iranians, and especially for women Khomeini installed a theocratic Islamic republic, which means that religious leaders now hold power and that citizens now must observe the sharia laws of Islam. Khomeini will hold all the religious and political power, as will his successor ayatollah ali Khamenei. Khomeini will form a civilian government led by Mehdi Bazargan. But at the same time, Khomeini was organizing the revolutionary council and committees, as well as the military revolutionary guards, to take full control Quickly, the new regime imposed religious restrictions, like traditional dress codes, which particularly affected women The Iranian revolution might, at first hand, look like just a regime change. But its impact can be compared to the French and Russian revolutions, which spread ideas across other countries, supported by a powerful state. The Idea spread across the Muslim World that it was possible to overthrow a dictatorship, a corrupt regime that was supported by the West against the will of the people, and it was possible to form a religious State, where the people would observe religious obedience This idea seemed very appealing to conservative Muslims. Iran hostage crisis US Embassy reduction of staff after mob attacks (Dec 1978) US loyalty to the Shah Oct 1979: cancer treatment of Shah in US († 27 July 1980) Iranian outrage, mob seizes US embassy and 52 hostages on 4 Nov 1979 ¡ Demands to return the Shah Economic sanctions Failed helicopter rescue mission Release after 444 days on Jan 20, 1981, following Algerian mediation The Iranian revolution also had another impact, one that would irreversibly damage its relations with the United States After the Iranian revolution, the American embassy had reduced its staff after attacks from revolutionaries. While the Americans tried to establish relations with the new regime, the Carter administration also felt loyal to the Shah whom they had supported during several decades. The United Stated could not simply drop the Shah, as this would send the message to other allies that they would not be able to count on the US. 80  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard By the end of 1979, the Shah was receiving cancer treatment in the US. This caused outrage in Iran, who demanded that the Shah would be returned and that his possessions, including many millions of dollars, would also be returned to Iran. The outrage in Iran eventually resulted in a mob seizing the US embassy and 53 people were held hostage on the 4th of November 1979. In response, the United States and most West-European countries, also appalled by what had happened, imposed heavy economic sanctions on Iran. At this point, Carter is in the middle of a re-election campaign, and thus he feels pressured to act, and a rescue mission was put in place. This mission required 8 helicopters to fly from the USS Nimitz to cross the entire desert in the south of Iran, refuel those helicopters, and capture all 53 hostages in a densely populated and hostile city. The mission failed miserably, as two helicopters were disabled by a sandstorm, and while refueling, one helicopter crashed into a C-130 tanker aircraft, killing 8 and injuring several others. Now down to 5 instead of 8 helicopters, the mission was aborted. Jimmy Carter lost the elections to Ronald Reagan, and shortly after Reagan was sworn in, on 20 January 1981, the hostages were released after being held captive for 444 days. They were finally freed through Algerian mediation in return for releasing the Iranian assets that had been frozen. Afghanistan Independence from the British in 1919 April 1978: communist coup against Prince Daoud o Led by small military group, not backed by the masses o Land reforms, educational improvements, women’s rights  Series of uprisings, including military mutiny against Soviets (March 1979) President Taraki visit to Moscow (Sept. 1979) o Eliminate Amin, megalomaniac hard-liner o Amin arrests and kills Taraki upon return  Brezhnev decision to intervene Why? Cold War logic + fear of Islamic takeover The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December of 1979, along with the election of Ronald Reagan right before will effectively end the détente period and re-introduce a period of confrontation between the two superpowers. After losing the important Iranian Ally, the Americans will now see the Soviets invade Iran’s neighbor and fear that the Soviet Union will try to take over influence over the Gulf region. Afghanistan is a relatively poor, mountainous country with a variety of different ethnic groups that gained its independence from the British in 1919. If we fast forward to the Cold War, Afghanistan is a country within the Soviet orbit, heavily supported in economic and military aid by the Soviet Union. In 1973, Afghanistan becomes a Republic after a coup where Prince Daoud deposes his cousin King Mohammad Zaher Shah and becomes President himself. Prince Daoud ‘s goal is to remain President for life and to get rid of the influence of different parties, holding all the power to himself. In April 1978, he arrests the leaders of the of the Marxist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (the PDPA), which had grown with the Soviet support. Following the arrest, a small but 81  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard successful military coup is carried out against him. Daoud is replaced by Taraki, a communist backed by the Soviet Union, who starts a radical reform programme to modernize Afghanistan and turn it into a modern industrialized country. But neither Taraki, nor his reform programme are supported by the Afghan population. The reform programme included land reform, educational improvements and improvements on women’s rights. But this is considered as offending the very conservative Islamic traditions and so these reforms were deeply unpopular. On top of that, the communist government was very repressive, killing many political prisoners Therefore, a series of local uprisings against the government and the PDPA will erupt, as well as military mutiny, killing several Soviet advisors. As these uprisings were becoming worse, President Taraki visits Moscow in September 1979 to discuss the situation and they agree to get rid of Amin, a hardliner within the government. They agree to try to do what is necessary to increase the government’s popularity, and so it was deemed best to get rid of him. The problem is that, when Taraki returns to Kabul, he is the one being arrested by Amin, and killed a short while later. So, as the government of Taraki was being threatened by internal uprisings and military mutiny within the Afghan army, Taraki had asked for help from the Soviets for a while. First, Brezhnev and the Soviets hesitated whether they should intervene, as they believed this would have negative repercussions for both Taraki and the Soviets. But after the events of September and October, killing Taraki, Brezhnev decides to intervene after all, as the Soviets believed Amin had made things worse. Soviet invasion Red Army invasion on 24 Dec 1979 o Replace Amin with acceptable leader Babrak Karmal o Intervention of limited duration Soviet intention: intervention in Sphere of influence, like Czechoslovakia or Hungary Western interpretation: Soviet expansion toward Gulf region o Low Western European interest ¡ Financial aid from Egypt and Saudi Arabia o Pakistani and (secret) US support to Mujahedeen  End of détente The Afghans had requested a Soviet intervention for almost a year now. The Soviets had refused because they were convinced that the Afghan people would deeply resent their government for it. After Amin’s coup, the Soviets believed the situation, and the internal opposition, would worsen. Brezhnev decides to send the red army to Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. Why did the Soviets change their mind? Hard to tell, we can only speculate, as a lot of things were going on. One of the important reasons was the classic Cold War perspective: the soviets feared that Amin might eventually turn to the US for help, as the US might seek a new regional ally after losing Iran. The Soviets also believed that the mujahedeen – who 82  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard were fighting the communist government and had taken over the countryside – were already supported by the US. So, this conflict perfectly fitted in the Cold War opposition and rationale The Soviets might also fear that the religious mujahedeen could take over from the unpopular communist government in Afghanistan, that Afghanistan would also become an Islamic state and, this way, inspire some of the Muslim Central Asian Soviet States to also become an Islamic theocracy. The West considered this as an offensive invasion towards the Gulf region. In all fairness, most of the West was not really concerned with a distant, poor, country with whom they had extremely little relations Aid was mobilized from Egypt and Saudi Arabia – this means financial aid, but the conflict also drew many young Muslims to fight a religious fight – jihad - against the Soviet oppressor Pakistan actively supported the mujahideen and in secret, so did the United States From intervention to Embroilment New united government under Karmal o Marxist government became even more unpopular o Soviet resentment o Reduced Afghan army by desertion USSR’s Vietnam? o Nonconventional war (‘bear attacked by swarm of bees’) o No similar escalation to US in Vietnam (max 115,000 soldiers present) Drew US and Pakistan closer together ¡ Soviets attacked with their own weapons (Egypt & China) US policy aimed at maximizing Soviet cost Explanation previous map: The Soviets sent their troops to Kabul and from there around the country. The Soviets staged a coup, getting rid of Amin and installing a new Marxist government under Karmal. The Soviet Union had hoped this would be a brief intervention, consolidating a friendly government in an ally. Although this became a lengthy and costly war for the Soviets, it was in not comparable to the American experience in Vietnam, as the Soviets did not let this war escalate in terms of military investments or in terms of the casualties they suffered. It was comparable in the guerilla warfare where the Afghans would attack the Soviets and retreat in the mountainous regions where they would not be attacked. The clandestine help to the mujahideen also drew the Pakistanis closer to the Americans In the early stages of the war, the Americans were arming the mujahideen but did not want to do this openly. Soviet weapons from the Chinese or the Egyptians were provided to the Afghan mujahideen through the Pakistani secret services. So basically, the Soviets were being targeted and killed with weapons that were made by them. The US saw an opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union and draw them into a long and expensive conflict, much like the USSR had done with them in Vietnam ten years before. Geneva accords (1988) Soviet intensification in 1985-6 (Gorbachev) Karmal replaced by Najibullah (May 1986) US divided: negotiate settlement vs. ‘bleed’ USSR & force more radical changes at home Geneva Accords (14 April 1988): o Najibullah remains in power o Soviet withdrawal and limit Pakistani interference  Continued civil war and US / USSR weapons supplies until 1991 83  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard  Taliban vs. Northern Alliance The situation was in a deadlock as the Soviets did not want to withdraw before reinforcing the Kabul government. Hence, the Soviet Union intensified the fight in 1985-86 and used more and more aggressive tactics that would also hurt civilians, like the spreading of landmines and the deployment of helicopter gunships – like the heavily armed mil-mi 24 helicopter you can see on the previous slide. Gorbachev, who will be the Soviet leader by the end of the Cold War, will prepare to withdraw by the end of 1986 and will replace Karmal by Najibullah The American government was divided between those who wanted to make the Soviet Union bleed and forcing them into making more radical changes and those who were prepared to negotiate a settlement. The Geneva agreements kept Najibullah in power and foresaw the withdrawal of the Soviet troops and would also limit the interference of Pakistan in the conflict. However, it did not make an end to the civil war in Afghanistan, as both the Soviet Union and the US were continuing to provide weapons to their clients. By 1992, the Soviet Union had ceased to exist, and fighting had continued between the different mujahedeen factions, who were often representing different ethnicities of tribes and supported by different foreign countries. Fighting continued as the Taliban seemed about to reunite the country, except there was still resistance in the North. In the North, different groups had organized into the Northern Alliance, who would continue to fight against the Taliban from 1996 onwards. Détente Began in the early 1960s Dead after Soviet invasion in Dec 1979 Achievements: A safer world? o No direct confrontation o Arms limitation o Mostly European Détente, continued conflicts in rest of the world Increased trade and economic contacts Recognition of communist China (1979) Détente began in the early 1960s in its most early form as peaceful coexistence right after the Cuban missile crisis where both superpowers realized the extent of the devastation if they were ever in a direct confrontation. So, they tried to ease the tensions between them. As relationships improved throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, they again deteriorated by the late 1970s. And by the time the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and Reagan became President at the end of 1980 (not 1979!), détente was completely dead. Let’s look at potential achievements; did détente make the world safer? It did make both superpowers realize how dangerous it was to flirt with direct confrontation, so the two did everything to avoid such direct confrontation. At the same time, they were also talking about limiting the arms they were producing, especially nuclear weapons. You could say that the effects of détente were mostly felt in Europe, as the Cold War had fully continued as it had throughout the rest of the world; in Africa, Latin America and especially in Asia conflict had continued. It did, however, create, especially in Europe, increased trade and economic contacts between east and west. Another ‘achievement’ was the recognition of the communist government as the legitimate government of China. 84  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Helsinki The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki, 1975) was the peak of détente. 1975 Helsinki declaration: 35 countries, US, Canada, and all European countries except Albania and Andorra, signed the declaration to improve the relations between the Communists and the West Basket 1: Security and the inviolability of European borders Basket 2: economic, technological, cultural, scientific, … cooperation Basket 3: human rights, exchange of visits, free flow of info and ideas Basket 4: Implementation and future meetings Initially this was a meant to be Conference on security where the USSR wanted its annexed territories (before and during WWII) to be recognized by the West, but it turned out that the greatest impact of the conference was on human rights. Henry Kissinger admitted that he did not want any of this, but that they went along with the Europeans. President Ford believed that “if it all fails, Europe will be no worse off than it is now. If even a part of it succeeds, a lot of the people in Eastern Europe will be that much better, and the cause of freedom will advance at least that far”. As several countries objected to the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States, which happened right before WWII, and the Final Act simply stated that "frontiers" in Europe should be stable but could change by peaceful internal means. Several Western leaders had made specific statements on the matter of the Baltic States. US perspective More benefits to USSR (and Europe) M.A.D. → less confrontational policies All or nothing perspective o Expectation that USSR would stop supporting revolutionary movements and behave as a ‘normal’ country Domestic opposition from both conservatives and liberals  Failure of Kissinger’s ‘linkage’ After the fall of Nixon, détente, which was heavily associated with him, also became very unpopular – as had Nixon became himself. Conservatives felt that it benefitted the Soviets more than it did them, and effectively it had benefitted Europe more than it had impacted the US. Détente also did not stop the Soviets from interfering abroad, as they had in the Yom Kippur war, they were active in Angola and in south-east Asia, where they had helped make things worse in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Some conservatives argued that détente was a soviet tactic to divide the West, meaning to divide the Europeans and the Americans. But liberals in the US were also unhappy with détente, and especially with the amoral foreign policy of Nixon and Kissinger. They also believed not enough was done on the front of human rights. And so, one of the problems was that the American and Soviet perspectives were too different for détente to succeed in the long run. The Americans had an ‘all-or-nothing’ perspective where one issue was linked to another, and 85  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard improvement needed to be achieved on all fronts. One of the expectations was that the USSR would behave like a ‘normal’ country (according to US definition of normal). This was not the case, as the USSR had a completely different vision on what détente was and what its purpose was. Soviet Perspective Recognition of USSR as superpower and as equal partner in world politics Need for Western technology Not the expected economic revival Cooperation in certain areas, conflict in others o Brezhnev's support for détente o Continued support of ‘national liberation’ ¡ o Advance communism without risk of (nuclear) war Soviets had a completely different perspective on détente, had different expectations. For them, the most important thing was, on one hand, the recognition of the Soviet Union as an equal partner in world politics, equal to the status of the United States, that would be involved in all the issues including the Middle East, and a second was the improvement of the Soviet Union, the need for western technology to recover, to relaunch the Soviet economy, which did not occur as they had expected. For the Soviets, there was no linkage, it was perfectly possible to have cooperation in certain areas, but not in others. And so, Brezhnev was a strong supporter for détente, advocated within the politburo for détente, but at the same time did not see any contradiction in continuing his support of National Liberation, meaning the Soviet Union would still conduct adventures abroad, like the campaign in Angola, in the Horn of Africa to “liberate” and to make those countries communist countries. And so, it was possible to advance communism in those countries without risking a direct confrontation with the US and a nuclear war. And at the same time, even though the United States felt that this was not expected ‘normal’ behaviour, the United States themselves were still conducting adventures abroad themselves like, for example, the campaign against the communist Allende in Chile, or for example the fact that they did not want to give a role to the Soviets in the Middle East. So, the Soviets felt that what the United States blamed them for, they were doing themselves. The Soviets did not consider supporting revolutionaries in old colonies as anti-American. 86