Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard PDF

Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Part 6. From confrontation to communist collapse, 1981-9 Carter Doctrine “Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vit...

Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Part 6. From confrontation to communist collapse, 1981-9 Carter Doctrine “Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” SOTU, 23 Jan. 1980. Although the response of the Carter administration had been confused and ineffective – making the US lose an extremely important ally, Carter also clearly set a line that needed not to be crossed. Losing an ally was one thing, but the US would not accept that anyone – the Iranians nor the Soviets would take control of the Persian Gulf, one of the most important corridors for oil exportation and distribution in the world. The Iran-Iraq War Consequence of events in Iran Mounting border disputes, challenge of Algiers agreement o Islands in Strait of Hormuz and the Shatt al-Arab waterway Khomeini previously expelled from Iraq in 1978 o Saddam as enemy of Islam o Encourage Iraqi uprising 4 Sept. 1980: Iranian shelling of Iraqi positions 22 septs.: Iraqi invasion Map explanations: The Iran-Iraq War can be considered as an almost direct consequence of the events that had previously occurred in Iran. During the time of the Shah, Iran grew as the most powerful country in the region with the support of the US. This way, Iran had been able to settle several border disputes with Iraq. Specifically, Iran was able to seize several islands in the strait of Hormuz and the Shatt al-Arab waterway. The Shah also stirred up Kurdish revolt and forced Iraq to agree to a new alignment of their borders, as the Algiers agreement of 1975 repositioned the border in the middle of the Shatt al-Arab river. Khomeini had previously sought refuge in Iraq after being expelled from Iran. He had stayed there until 1978, before moving to Paris. He had to leave Iraq because his growing criticism towards Iraq’s Ba’ath regime and Saddam Hussein, whom he considered as an enemy of Islam. By 1978, Saddam had proposed to the Iranian leadership to get rid of Khomeini, but the Iranian leaders feared that this would turn him into a martyr and would further deteriorate the situation in Iran. But the time had come for Khomeini to leave Iraq. After the revolution, relationships between Iraq and Iran deteriorated, as Iran’s new religious leaders revoked a treaty in which both countries promised not to encourage subversion in the other country. Khomeini not only encouraged people to rise against their leader in Iran, but also encouraged the Iraqi people to rise against Saddam. On 4 September, following months of border tension, Iranian artillery shelled Iraqi positions, and, on the 17th, Saddam denounced the 1975 border treaty. With strong ideological fears of the neighboring regime and a desire for revenge for the Shah’s earlier humiliation of Iraq, Saddam seized the chance, five days later, 87  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard to invade Iran. The Iraqis thereafter argued that the war had been started by Iran on the 4th, but the Iranians always dated it from the Iraqi invasion on the 22nd. Deadlock Saddam hoped for short war – Iran at its weakest Refusal of UN calls for ceasefire o Iran weak position o Saddam: take advantage of strong position Deadlock (1981), reversal (1982) and deadlock o Trench warfare ¡ bombing of cities and Iraqi use of chemical weapons o Isolated Iran vs increasing support to Iraq Worsening after 1986: ‘tanker war’ o International efforts to end the war o Iraqi attack on USS Stark, and USS Vincennes (Iran Air Flight 655) Acceptance of UN Res. 598 (1980 border) in July 1988 Saddam had hoped for a short war, believing that he would be able to take advantage of Iran’s weakness and internal political turmoil following the revolution. He believed that Iran was now at its weakest, politically isolated with no significant ally. Iraq initially made a quick advance, occupying much of South-Western Iran, a region with important oil production and a large Arab population – remember that Iran are Persians and not Arabs. The UN asked for a ceasefire but neither party wanted to talk; Iran, at this point on the losing side, did not want to negotiate from a position of weakness, while Saddam wanted to exploit his advantage. But very quickly, in 1981, the war came to a deadlock with no advances on either side. Iran was not as weak as Saddam believed it to be. It is important to remember that Iran still had all the modern American weapons that the US had provided them during the reign of the Shah. Moreover, Iran was a larger country with a larger population and was still able to produce an adequate supply of arms. Moreover, the Iranians were fighting for their country; to defend it against foreign invasion, while Iraqis were much less motivated to fight an aimless war. At that point, by 1982, the war seemed to turn into Iran’s favour. The war remained in deadlock until 1986, when the fighting further intensified. The Iranians seized control of Iraqi territories and Iraq intensified its horrible poisonous gas attacks on Iran. Both countries now started to bomb each other’s cities. At this point, oil tankers going through the Persian Gulf started being attacked. This is the phase of the war known as the tanker war. This targeting of oil tankers pushed the oil prices up, increasing Iraq’s oil revenues. It is only at this point that the international community, less happy to see oil prices rise, started getting involved. The Americans, whose Carter doctrine clearly stated that access to the Persian Gulf was part of their national interest, now increased its military presence in the Gulf region and started escorting oil tankers with military vessels. At this point, both countries wanted an end of the war, as they did not see how they could turn the war into their advantage without massive efforts and sacrifice. Two events should also be mentioned in particular: 88  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard On 17 May 1987, Iraqi air fighters fired missiles at the American vessel USS Stark, killing 37 American soldiers and wounding many others. Iraq apologized, claiming its fighters had mistaken the USS Stark for an Iranian oil tanker. Around one year later, on 3 July 1988, it was the Americans who would make a horrible mistake, by shooting down a commercial Iranian airplane flying from Tehran to Dubai. Nearly 300 passengers died. Shortly after the incident, the American President Ronald Reagan expressed deep regret, although not willing to admit any error on the American part. On July 20, Iran accepts the terms of the UN ceasefire. The Iranian population had become increasingly affected by the long war and the attacks on their cities, taking more and more and heavy losses. The Iranian leadership became convinced that it would need to increase its military budget massively if it wanted to win the war. Iranian leadership was disappointed with the lack of international sympathy, especially regarding the unlawful chemical attacks. Iranian leadership also became afraid of American involvement, which would threaten the Iranian revolutionary regime. Some fighting still occurred until Peace was restored by August 20th of 1988. Lack of a geopolitical shift? US o Ill feelings towards Iran o Pro Soviet Iraq  Victory for neither side  Contain conflict localized  Would eventually not allow Iran to win USSR o Entangled in Afghanistan o Increased support to Iraq as risk for confrontation with US  8 years of war Þ high number of casualties  0 gains on either side The reasons for this are manifold: On the American side, there were hostile feelings towards Iran, as war started during the hostage crisis in the US embassy in Tehran. At the same time, Iraq had been a Soviet client, so the Americans did not want either country to win. What was important for the US, is that this conflict would remain contained between the two countries and not further expand and set the entire region on fire. Even though the Americans benefitted from the two continuing to fight and weaken each other, when push comes to shove, it is reasonable to expect that the Americans would not have let the Iranians win the war. This also explains why they did not intervene and condemn the atrocities perpetrated by the Iraqis, and specifically the use of gas on Iranian civilians. 89  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard The Soviet Union, however, was entangled in Afghanistan and could not support Iraq more actively, as higher activity in the region would certainly have alarmed the Americans, who would prevent Soviet domination of the Gulf at all costs. In the end, as with so many wars before, and many that will follow, after 8 years of intense fighting and an exceptionally high number of casualties on both sides, estimated around half a million combined, neither party won a single inch of territory. Rem: USA watch two enemies destroyed each other but when the event came other the border of those country. Exam question: all those events have a relationship, the Iran revolution also contributed. Iranian revolution provides it’s possible to have a conservative religious regime Signs of a geopolitical shift? Exam question Iranian revolution as inspiration in Middle East (cf. communism in developing world) Afghan victory of Mujahedin over USSR Iranian revolution setting things in motion for creation of ISIS and current situation in Syria o Iranian revolution o Iran-Iraq War o Invasion of Kuwait o US invasion of Iraq o Creation of ISIS from Iraqi resistance force During the 1980s, some wondered whether the Iranian revolution has sparked a geopolitical shift in the Middle East. As we have seen during the last class, the Iranian revolution inspired many, especially conservative Muslims throughout the Middle East, as it showed them that it was possible for peoples to get rid of corrupt dictators supported by the Great Powers, in this case America, and install a religious Islamic regime instead. Many feared that this might initiate a wave of revolutions, much like the French and Russian revolutions before. Here too, revolutionary ideas had spread with the support of a powerful country, first France, then the Soviet Union. The reality is that things did not quite take such a turn. However, it could be argued that events that occurred a long time ago still have an impact on events today. This is also one of the reasons why it is so important to know and understand past events. In this case, the Iranian revolution and the Iraq-Iran War can help us understand how the wheels were set in motion for events that would occur much later. Let us consider the following chain of events: Without the Iranian revolution, the new isolated Iranian regime and the political turmoil in Iran, Saddam Hussein would not have attacked Iran. This long war, however, drained the Iraqi finances. After the War, the Iraqi economy was doing very bad, and Iraq had a lot of debt to countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Following arguments between Iraq and both countries about the lack of Arab solidarity and manipulation of oil prices, Iraq decided to invade Kuwait and seize its oil production. As the Americans intervened to liberate Kuwait, the UN and the US imposed heavy sanctions on Iraq. This caused the Americans, and especially particular fractions within the republican party to want to cause a regime change In Iraq by getting rid of Saddam Hussein. After 9/11, which was perpetrated by radical Muslims with the support of former Mujahedeen who were previously fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan with the support of America, the United States set on a path to reshape the Middle East region to better answer to its interests. That is one of the main reasons why the US invaded Iraq, an operation that failed miserably and caused the Sunni resistance forces in Iraq to organize themselves. This, in turn, attracted 90  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard many extremist Muslims willing to fight Americans and Shia Muslims in Iraq. This eventually led to the creation of ISIS, which further grew after Syrian rebels started to fight the repressive Syrian government. Reagan doctrine “We must not break faith with those who are risking their lives, on every continent from Afghanistan to Nicaragua, to defy Soviet aggression […] Support for Freedom fighters is self-defence.” SOTU, 6 Feb. 1985 A republican conservative, one of the most anti communists of the us president history. We must help people fighting communist, it’s an obligation and not an interference but just self-defence. Reagan doctrine in practice Reagan: Anti-communism trumped support for democracy, human rights o Kirkpatrick hypothesis justifying the double standard dictatorship El Salvador: o Substantial US aid to dictatorial regime against Leftist insurgents Nicaragua: o Fall of Samoza in 1979 and takeover of Ortega’s Sandinistas o US Support to Contras in overthrowing Sandinistas o International condemnation & International Court: US guilty of supporting terrorism Iran–Contra Affair o Boland II amendment o Arms sales to Iran – through Israel – to finance Contras (after 1985) American Invasions in Grenada (1983) and Panama (1988) Although President Reagan is often credited with cracking down on communism and ending the Cold War and bringing down the Soviet Union, it can hardly be said that Reagan was a staunch or successful defender of democracy and liberal freedoms. As mentioned previously, the most important thing for the Reagan administration was anti-communism – this was more important than supporting democracy or human rights About Kirkpatrick and the double standard: Jeanne Kirkpatrick was a political scientist who criticized the Carter administration who had demanded its allied dictatorships to liberalize and allow more political freedom. Kirkpatrick argued that this had caused anti-American opposition groups to come to power; groups who were even worse than the initial dictators. Iran can serve as a good example of Kirkpatrick’s thesis. Moreover, while the Carter administration pressured its own allies for more political freedoms, the same thing had not been demanded from communist regimes. Hence, her conclusion is that it is good to demand for more political freedoms, but when a regime is facing a violent opposition, it is better to have a pro-American dictatorship than to allow freedom for an anti-American regime to take over. The Iranian revolution is a good example of this. Her criticism made Kirkpatrick popular among republican supporters and eventually got her a job in the following republican Reagan administration as ambassador to the UN. Kirkpatrick argued that there was a distinction between pro-US dictators who were capitalist and could be reformed over time, contrary to totalitarian anti-US communist countries. Hence the double standard vis-à- vis those two categories. Reagan was a very active president in fighting communism, but this also got him into serious trouble. 91  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard In El Salvador, the US provided substantial sums of aid to support the dictatorial regime against the left- wing insurgents. In Nicaragua, it was the opposite, as the US was aiding the Contra’s, right-wing insurgents against the left- wing Sandinistas. In Nicaragua, the US had supported the repressive right-wing dictator Samoza. In 1979, Ortega’s Sandinistas took over control with the support of Cuba and the Soviets. The Americans now feared that events in Nicaragua would spill over onto El Salvador and started to support the right-wing Contras. The US blocked World Bank loans to Nicaragua to sabotage Ortega’s regime and supported the Contras in their terrorist activities, murdering Sandinista officials. The American activities were widely condemned, not only by the international community but also by the international court of justice in 1984. The American Congress had restricted the aid that the US government was allowed to provide to support the Contras by outlawing aid that served the purpose of overthrowing the Nicaraguan government through the Boland II amendment. Therefore, after 1985, the Reagan administration, which was keen on continuing its support to the Contras, set up an arms trade deal to be able to continue to finance the Contras. The plan consisted of secretly selling US weapons via Israel to Iran – who needed these weapons in its fight against Iraq. The money from these arms sales would then be used to support the Contras in their fight against Ortega’s Sandinistas. Eventually, the whole scheme was exposed and the Contras, who were losing heavily, had to agree to a cease-fire, and received amnesty. This deal had been advocated by other Central American states, and particularly Costa Rica’s President, Arias, who would receive the Nobel prize for his contributions to Peace. The whole Iran-Contra affair reflected very poorly on the Reagan administration. Latin America was clearly the playground of the United States, as the US also invaded Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1988. In Grenada, the US intervened after communist takeover. The US took advantage of an internal dispute within the communist regime to launch an intervention. They found several Soviet advisors, which comforted the Americans in their idea that this intervention was justified. In 1988, Panama had been a loyal ally in the fight of the Contras against the Sandinistas. Panama was led by a dictator, called Manuel Noriega. Noriega quickly became an embarrassment to the US, as he was involved in drug trafficking. By 1987, his removal became a priority for the US, especially in a country defending such a vital interest to the US as the Panama Canal. The military operation, involving 25,000 US troops was a first display of the American military superiority, as it was the first operation using stealth technology. The most important thing you need to take away from this, is how it mattered more to the American administration to support anti-communists than to promote liberal values of democracy, personal and political rights and liberties. The tactics the Reagan administration was willing to use stood in sharp contrast with those values it claimed to defend and to represent. 92  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard The end of the Cold War The second cold war Soviet leadership o Brezhnev († Nov 1982) o Yuri Andropov († Feb 1984) (KGB chief) o Konstantin Chernenko († Mar 1985) o Mikhail Gorbachev (Mar 1985 – Dec 1991) Reagan’s ‘Evil Empire’ speech (1983) o Reagan doctrine – Support anti-communist movements and guerillas (overt and covert) o Afghanistan, Angola, Grenada, Nicaragua o Outspend Soviets on defense Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) Operation Able Archer (Nov. 1983) The period after détente is often referred to as the second Cold War. During the first part of the 1980s, the Soviet Union knew a rapid succession of leadership whereby one communist crocodile replaced the other after brief passages onto power. Brezhnev had been in power for 22 years, from 1964 until his death in 1982. His successors were less lucky, as Andropov, the former chief of the Soviet intelligence service known as the KGB, was only in power for less than two years before passing away himself. He was then followed by Konstantin Chernenko, who was, himself, only in power for little over a year. Chernenko was succeeded by Mikhail Gorbachev, who would become the last leader of the Soviet Union. This first half of the 80’s was characterized by a deterioration of the relations between US and Soviet Union. In 1983, In a speech, President Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as the Evil Empire. This is the period of the strongest anti-communist rhetoric since Kennedy, as well as anti-communist policies to match. Reagan’s foreign policy mainly consisted of fighting communism, by supporting so-called freedom fighters in Afghanistan, in Central America and Angola. These were, of course, not freedom fighters, fighting for liberal ideas of political and individual freedom. A second part of Reagan’s policies consisted of outspending the Soviets in terms of military expenditures. The goal was to hurt the Soviet economy by forcing the Soviets to spend much of their budget on the military, money that they could not spend on their economy, innovation or social programs. This would, eventually lead to the demise of soviet communism. The Reagan administration initiated the so-called Star Wars programme, a defense program designed to counter and neutralize Soviet nuclear strikes. This programme, if successful, would completely change parity between both powers and put the Soviet Union at a serious disadvantage. The only way to counter such an anti-missile defense system would be to overwhelm it with nuclear missiles, this way contributing to a possible renewal of the nuclear arms race. Reagan refused to meet with high level emissaries if the Soviet Union did not show its willingness to make concessions. A notable event was operation able archer in November of 1983. Military exercises among NATO members were announced to make sure it would not be misinterpreted or confused with an actual attack. And so, this exercise was also announced to the Soviets and to the Warsaw Pact members, but it was conducted at such a large scale that the Soviets feared that it was a cover up or an excuse for an actual attack on the USSR and some parts of the Red Army were put on standby. 93  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard 1985: end of the second cold war Signs of a thaw? o Reagan’s second term in Jan 1985; Gorbachev in office o INF and START talks renewed o Geneva summit, November 1985 Or continuing Cold War? o Conflicts go on: Afghanistan, Nicaragua o Gorbachev hopes to reinvigorate USSR o Warsaw Pact renewed After 1985, it seems that the relationship between the two superpowers will start to improve. There are several possible explanations for this. The first, and probably most important one is the change in leadership in the Soviet Union, where an open-minded and Gorbachev will be open to reforming the Soviet Union to improve it. On the American side, Ronald Reagan will be re-elected as President. Generally, a second presidential term tends to liberate Presidents, as they no longer need to be re-elected – American Presidents can only serve two terms of four years. The fact that can no longer be re-elected often means that they can enact the policies they really want, they really believe in, and not just those that will be popular among the public. It is also during a second term that Presidents will start to think about their legacy – what do they leave behind and how will they be remembered in history. What would turn out to be very important is the will of both men to move forward, as well as the growing trust between them, something that had been completely absent during the first years of the 1980s. And thus, both countries will again engage in disarmament talks after the last round of START negotiations. START will be renewed and they will also engage in the INF (Intermediate-range nuclear forces) negotiations, which will result in the INF Treaty of 1987. Once Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union, he froze the use of INF in April 1985. Later that same year, Gorbachev and Reagan met in Geneva and this meeting signified a turning point in the relations between the two countries, as it was surprisingly cordial and friendly. And both leaders agreed to meet again. It would be the first of several meetings and an increasingly intense working relationship.  However, the improved relationship did certainly not bring an end to existing tensions and problems. Indeed, the Soviets were still fighting to support the communist regime in Afghanistan and the US were still supporting anti-communist rebels in Nicaragua.  While Gorbachev would become the last leader of the Soviet Union, it is extremely important to note that it was certainly not his wish to bring down the Soviet Union. On the contrary, his goal was to reinvigorate the Soviet Union, modernize and reform it, and stabilize its relations with its neighbours. During this time, the Warsaw pact between the Soviet Union and its allies was also renewed. 1987 INF treaty (intermediate nuclear forces) Change in Soviet policy, Jan-Feb: o ‘Delinked’ intermediate talks from other issues o Accepted ‘zero option’ o Agreed on-site verification Washington treaty, December 1987: o First US-Soviet treaty since 1979 o Major disarmament agreement o Destroys missiles with range 500 to 5,500 km (short medium-range & intermediate-range) o USSR loses about 1750 missiles, US 850 (= true cuts) 94  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard o But only affects 6 percent of nuclear arsenals The INF was very popular in Europe, as it signified an important reduction of nuclear weapons in Europe, and it was an important step towards European denuclearization. The INF treaty entailed the removal of all the ballistic and cruise missiles with a short-medium range (500-1000 km) and intermediate range (1000-5000 km). The treaty did not apply to air or sea-launched missiles, which is why in Belgium, but also the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey, there are still B61 nuclear weapons that can be launched from F16 air fighters, for example. Early talks had struggled to make improvements, and in 1981, Reagan had proposed what is known as the zero option, meaning a total removal of these weapons, knowing that the Soviets would not accept this, since INF was the only nuclear domain in which the Soviets had an advantage over the Americans. By the late 1980s, the Soviets countered the zero option by proposing a complete zero option throughout Europe that would include nuclear systems deployed from the air, as well as complete removal of British and French deterrence systems, which would of course, also be refused. So, at this point, both countries are making excessive proposals but unconstructive as they would never be accepted by the other party. It is important to understand that part of this was propaganda, as the Soviets wanted to pressure Americans and Western governments by appealing to Western European peace and anti-armaments movements. The Geneva meeting of November 1985 had signified a turning point in the relations between the two countries, as it was surprisingly friendly. However, this certainly does not mean that all subsequent meetings went well. A breakthrough regarding INF would only come after the failed meeting in Reykjavik of October 1986, where Gorbachev had demanded concessions regarding the American SDI or Star Wars project, which was bluntly refused by Reagan. And so, no advance was made on INF. In retrospect, it could be argued that the failed Reykjavik meeting would not be that bad, since it would later lead to the INF Treaty that achieved much more than could ever be achieved in Reykjavik. In February 1987, Gorbachev agrees to decouple negotiations on INF from those regarding the Strategic Defense Initiative. Gorbachev signaled he was willing to accept the zero option and on-site verification, allowing controls to verify the enactment of the agreement. This resulted in the INF or Washington Treaty of 1987. This Treaty was the first treaty between the two superpowers since 1979 (the SALT agreement that was never ratified). INF foresaw a very important, major disarmament, as all missiles with a range between 500 and 5000 km would be destroyed. Of course, the agreement did not include missiles that could be launched from the air by fighter jets or from submarines. It did, however, cut the soviet capacity by 1750 missiles and the US by 850. For the first time, there were actual reductions, not just limitations. To put things in perspective, this only entailed a total reduction of the superpower’s nuclear capacity by 6%. The impact of Gorbachev Last Soviet Leader from March 1985 Reform at home: Glasnost and Perestroika o Unleashed uncontrollable forces New type of foreign policy o Détente with West o Retreat from Third World conflicts o Reform in Eastern Europe BUT: a Communist hoping for a revived USSR not its collapse In most of Europe, it is particularly the role of Mikhail Gorbachev that is appreciated and deemed crucial in bringing Peace in Europe, and in most of the rest of the world, as the greatest transition and effort had to be 95  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard done on the Soviet side. In Russia, however, Gorbachev is certainly not viewed as positively, as many hold him responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union. At home, Gorbachev started a major reforms programme consisting of two main elements; Glasnost, openness, about the problems Soviet society was facing and how to handle them, and perestroika, or restructuring/reform, aimed at improving the political and economic structures. These reforms would, however, unleash forces and evolve in a way that would later become uncontrollable and impossible to revers or to limit. Gorbachev also enacted a new type of foreign policy that would become much less threatening to the West. He actively sought to improve relations with the West and gradually retreated from third World conflicts. He would also allow and promote reform in Easter European communist countries. The goal was to end the Cold War and provide security through cooperation not confrontation. But again, his goal was not the collapse of the Soviet Union, but quite the opposite, as he wanted to take the necessary steps for the Soviet Union to survive and revive. Things would just turn out very differently. Communist Collapse in East Europe Lack of popular support for Communism: no local roots o Imposed by Stalin Severe economic problems Gorbachev unwilling to use force o Intervention would damage efforts to end the Cold War Soviet domination of Eastern-Europe became a liability to USSR Reforms were irreversible Failings of the Soviet system – e.g., Chernobyl Slowly, but surely, communism was unraveling. It is important to remember that there had never been wide popular support for communism. In most countries, even though there existed communist groups and communist organizations, communism had very little local roots. Instead, communism had been imposed throughout Eastern Europe by Stalin after the war. Over time, the economic problems in communist countries had grown, resulting in food shortages and shortages in other essential products. The communist economic model, as well as the one-party political model, were struggling to survive. Moreover, and contrary to his predecessors, Gorbachev was not willing to use force to counter or reverse what was going on within the Soviet Union or in communist satellite countries, as he correctly believed that such an intervention would damage all the efforts that were being made to end the Cold War. Also, the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, which Stalin believed was needed to provide the Soviet Union with security, had now become a liability. Instead of strengthening the Soviet Union strategically, it was now draining the Soviet Union financially, as it had to provide military means and economic support to the failing Eastern European regimes. In 1981, a year with major political turmoil in Poland, Soviet support to the Polish regime that year only had cost Moscow about 3 billion dollars. Finally, the reforms that had been set in motion by Gorbachev after 1985 would be irreversible. Granting people more political freedom and granting the republics within the Soviet Union with more political power was not something you could reverse easily. The republics would not give back the power they gained, as would the people. The glasnost reform, or openness to talk about problems, would also quickly haunt the Soviet leadership following the nuclear disaster In Chernobyl, a city not too far from Kiev, Ukraine’s capital. The Soviet 96  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard leadership had underestimated and downplayed the effects and radiation caused by the disaster. And while children were demanded to come out in the streets of Kiev for the May Day Parade while the children of the party leadership were flown out, Chernobyl became the symbol not of a nuclear disaster but of the failing Soviet system. In Ukraine and Belarus, this would also further encourage independence movements. Poland and Hungary at forefront of liberalization Poland o Solidarnost (1980) and Lech Walesa o Martial Law and military command (Gen. Jaruzelski) o 1988: Strikes after insufficient proposed reforms o Feb. 1989: roundtable including catholic church and Walesa o Open elections in June 1989: Poland first non-communist government of Warsaw Pact Hungary o Jan 1989: free multi-party elections planned for March 1990 o Gorbachev’ promise to withdraw Red Army (April 1989) o Abolishment of Communist regime by October 1989 o Gradual opening of borders with Austria in May 1989 → over 10,000 people fleeing East Germany → Western fears of crackdown Poland had been pushing for reforms since the early 1980s where the free trade union Solidarnost, led by Lech Walesa, became increasingly popular, particularly in reaction to rising prices. With the country paralysed and widespread food shortages, the government on 31 August 1980 again caved into workers’ demands, granting wage increases, a review of sentences on political prisoners, the broadcasting of religious services, and promising a free trades union, Solidarity. Military manoeuvres began on the Polish border with the purpose of intimidating Solidarity. In November the East German government urged intervention, and on 3 December 1980, in one of his last significant acts as President, Jimmy Carter sent a hot-line message to the Kremlin warning it to avoid military action. Martial Law was introduced and a military government under general Jaruzelski was installed – this had not been a Soviet intervention, as it was carried out by the Polish army and around 200,000 of the Solidarnost supporters were arrested in Dec 1981. Although he had successfully cowed the opposition, or at least dissuaded it from open revolt, Jaruzelski decided in 1987 to follow Gorbachev and embrace reform. He not only advocated decentralized decision- making in industry but also multi-candidate (though not multi-party) elections and, in November, held a referendum on his proposals. This provided the ideal occasion for Solidarity to organize once more. Less than half the electorate backed the government in the referendum and, in spring and summer 1988, there were widespread strikes. In February 1989, after months of uncertainty, the government entered round-table discussions with the ever-influential Roman Catholic Church and, more controversially the Solidarity leader, Lech Walesa. The open, honest elections turned out to be a fiasco for the Communists—a humiliating, definitive repudiation by the Polish people. The Polish people did not want communism. Although many seats were ‘reserved’ for Communists, by September, Jaruzelski had been forced to appoint a non-communist Prime Minister though, in Tadeusz Mazowiecki, a nervous and ineffective one. It was a key moment for all Eastern Europe, because it meant that the Warsaw Pact now included a non-communist government. Events in Hungary moved almost as quickly and had, perhaps, a greater international impact. The party replaced Kadar with Karoly Grosz in October 1988. In January 1989 it was Hungary that became the first 97  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Eastern European state to promise free multiparty elections the next year and to legalize organizations outside communist control. By October, as in Poland, events were moving at a pace which was difficult to believe: elections had been set for March 1990, the communists had become the Socialist Party and Hungary ceased to be styled a ‘People’s Republic’. But Gorbachev signaled his approval of such developments by promising, in April 1989, to withdraw the Red Army from the country. The liberalization of Hungary, which eventually led to a non-communist coalition being formed in April 1989, was doubly important because it was accompanied by the opening, in May, of the country’s borders with Austria, allowing thousands of people, including East Germans to flee. In the West, some feared that these changes were succeeding each other too quickly and feared a crackdown to reverse the situation. Tearing down the wall Impact on East Germany Oct. 1989: Gorbachev accuses Honecker of failing to respond to popular opinion 9 Nov.: free travel allowed by Krenz government o Decision communicated by East German party spokesperson Schabowski o Border crossings through the Wall into West Berlin o Confusion at checkpoints ¡ Visa-free travel for West Germans on 23 December German reunification, formally concluded 339 days later 3 October 1990 The events going on throughout Eastern Europe also had an impact on East Germany. In May of 1989, Hungary had opened its border with Austria. Given the relative openness of the borders between Eastern European countries, for example between Czechoslovakia and Hungary, it became easier for people to flee from the East to the West. And so, East Germany initially tried to make travel to the West more difficult. But this decision was met with a lot of protest. In East Germany, as in the other Eastern European countries, opposition and mass protest had started to organize. When Gorbachev visited East Germany in October of 1989, he accuses Honecker, the East German leader of failing to respond to demands from the people. By mid-October, Honecker resigns and is followed by Krenz. Krenz wants to ease the protests and makes concessions with respect to the travel restrictions to make it easier to travel to West Berlin. A new law is conceived to allow free travel for East Germans. East Germans had demanded more freedom, and freedom of travel, and had protested shouting “wir wollen raus”, or “we want out”. The goal of the law was to allow the disgruntled to leave and let them stay away. This decision to allow free travel would then be communicated in a very confuse way, which would start a chain of events that would eventually bring down the wall between east and West Berlin. So, on 9 November 1989, the spokesperson of the communist party, Gunther Schabowski, would announce new, temporary travel measures to the press. The problem was that Schabowski had not had the time to read the entire note, and so he did not know the full details of the measures who were supposed to take effect the day after. When the journalists asked Schabowski when the new measures would take effect, he was not aware of any specific deadline and responded: "As far as I know —immediately, without delay." This meant that it would allow East Germans and people from East Berlin to travel freely to Western parts, including West Berlin. Now, initially, it would take effect the next day when passport offices were open to process requests to travel. Now Schabowski had made it seem that there were no restrictions at all and that there was free crossing back and forth between East and West. 98  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard Shortly after this statement, Numerous East Berliners rallied around the six crossing points. The guards at those crossing points, however, did not know what was going on and tried to receive clear orders on what to do. As no one dared giving the order to pull them back or, worse, shoot at the people and generate a blood bath, the crowds grew bigger and by 11.30 pm one Stasi officer decided to open the gates at the Bornholmer Straße border crossing, letting people cross into West Berlin. On the other side, they were met by West Berliners with flowers and Champagne. Young people started climbing the wall and greeted each other. Instead of a blood bath, it turned into a mass celebration. It could be said that this was truly the end for East Germany, and people started to destroy the wall by themselves. As the guards were vastly outnumbered, they could do very little to stop them. What happened on the night of 9 November also changed perceptions of east Europeans in the West. Most of them wanted better lives but did not necessarily want to move to the West. Open and free elections in the GDR are announced and less than one year later, East and West Germany would be formally reunified on 3 October 1990. Is the cold war over? When did it end? o 1987 (INF) – 1991 (collapse of the USSR) o June 1988: Vice-President Bush says ‘the Cold War is not over’ o Dec 1988: Gorbachev UN Speech: Marxist-Leninism not absolute truth 1989: Bush takes time to review policy o May 1989: Bush announces end of anti-communist policies o Dec 1989: First Bush-Gorbachev summit in Malta  Common statement that the Cold War was over While some would argue that the INF Treaty completely changed the nature of the relationship between East and West, and radically improved perceived security in Europe, others will argue that the Soviet threat would only disappear with the Soviet Union itself and would, thus, say that it ended in 1991. In June of 1988, when Reagan was walking over the Red square in Moscow, he was asked about his Evil Empire statement and replied that he was talking about another time, another era. His VP Bush, and candidate to succeed him as President in the upcoming elections at the end of 1988, said that the Cold War was not over yet. Later that same year, in a speech to the UN, Gorbachev made an important declaration that Marxist- Leninism was not the absolute truth and, therefore, the conflict between East and West was no longer necessary. This was the first speech to the UN of a Soviet leader since the embarrassing appearance of Khrushchev where he banged his shoe on his desk in protest to a speech of Philippine delegate. In January of 1989, President George Bush is sworn in as President of the United States, after being VP for 8 years under Reagan. Bush’ Presidency will have a heavy focus on foreign policy, navigating the end of the Cold War, German reunification and War against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. When he takes office, instead of giving a welcoming response to Gorbachev, Bush takes three months time to review the international issues at hand. And so, Bush’ entry slowed down the process and the momentum that had been created by his predecessor. By May of 1989, after the policy review, Bush would start to make several speeches and statements reaching out to the Soviets and by the end of 1989, the Bush administration had a coherent policy based on the idea of testing Gorbachev and pushing him to translate his rhetorical commitment into concrete policies. 99  Geopolitics Q2 Babette Léonard In October of 1989, Bush and Gorbachev agree to meet in Malta in December of the same year. By then, political revolution in Eastern Europe had already begun and would become irreversible. If some within the Bush administration had doubted that the Cold War was over, by now it had become very clear. In a common statement, Bush and Gorbachev announced that the Cold War was over. A pattern of unravelling ‘Palace coup’ in Bulgaria o Mladenov replaces Todor Zhivkov and wins elections (June 1990) ‘Velvet Revolution’ in Czechoslovakia o Early repression from Husak in 1989 faced criticism from Gorbachev o Resignation of Politburo after Mass demonstrations o Return of Dubček as speaker of Parliament and Vaclav Havel as President Violent fall of Ceauşescu in Romania (1965-1989) o Captured and executed o Ex-communists win elections but liberaliz ➔ Bulgaria In the wake of Honecker’s departure, two other orthodox communist governments in the region also gave up hope, though in radically different ways. In Bulgaria, always very loyal to Moscow, there was a ‘palace coup’ against Todor Zhivkov, who had dominated the government since the mid-1960s. The new leader, Petar Mladenov, evidently had Gorbachev’s support, promised reform and easily won elections in June 1990 as head of the renamed ‘Socialist Party’—though he was forced to resign soon after by revelations of how closely he had been associated in the repression of the Turkish minority among others in Zhivkov’s last years. ➔ Czechoslovakia In Czechoslovakia, meanwhile, another veteran leader, Gustav Husak had initially tried to repress opposition in early 1989, only to face criticism from Gorbachev. Remember that Czechoslovakia had known a repressive regime after the Prague Spring. Rather than a palace coup, the whole Politburo was forced to resign on 24 November after days of mass demonstrations. But this did not prevent a general strike on 27 November, leading to the end of the communist monopoly of power two days later. By the end of the year, Alexander Dubček, the reformist leader of 1968, had become the speaker of Parliament, and the best-known Czechoslovakian dissident, Vaclav Havel, had been made President. ➔ Romania Romania will know a very different outcome for its leader, Nicolae Ceausescu. Instead of being swept away like the leaders of Czechoslovakia and East Germany, some hoped for a transfer of power on the Bulgarian model. But, as the Securitate tried to repress the opposition, leading to bloodshed, ‘Ceausescu’s overthrow could only be accomplished by force. The army captured and (on Christmas Day, 1989) executed Ceausescu, while his lieutenants formed a National Salvation Front. One leading ex-communist, Ion Iliescu, became President and at first violently repressed any opposition. However, when they won elections in May 1990, the National Salvation Front, despite their communist pedigree, emulated other East European governments by dismantling the centralized economy, embracing private enterprise, and accepting the costs of these reforms in the form of inflation and unemployment, problems that were familiar to the West but new in the former communist world. 100