The End of the Cold War & New World Order (PDF)

The end of the Cold War and a new world order: 1989 to the present This booklet consists of two main sections: ❖ The end of the Cold War ❖ A new world order Gr12 History. The end of...

The end of the Cold War and a new world order: 1989 to the present This booklet consists of two main sections: ❖ The end of the Cold War ❖ A new world order Gr12 History. The end of the Cold War and a new world order. Adapted from In Search of History Grade 12 Learner’s Book. N. Bonser, 2014. Edited 2022. 1 THE END OF THE COLD WAR AND A NEW WORLD ORDER: 1989 TO PRESENT How has the world changed since the 1960s? In the late 1980s dramatic changes occurred that fundamentally changed the world from that which existed in the 1960s. The Cold War came to an end, caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Attempts by the new Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, to bring about internal market reforms in the USSR led to the destruction of the Soviet communist system. Popular revolts against communism took place in Eastern Europe, starting in Poland in the early 1980s. In 1989 the Berlin Wall, the key symbol of the Cold War, was brought down and East and West Germany were subsequently reunited as one country. It was in this context that democratic change occurred in South Africa. On the one hand the apartheid government could no longer rely on its role as an anti-Soviet power supported by the West, and on the other hand the ANC had lost a major source of military and financial support. The end of the Cold War led to a new world order dominated by Western capitalism and led by the USA. Capitalist global economic institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation came to control the economies of countries throughout the world. However, their policies caused disruption and unemployment and failed to overcome the problems of poverty and unequal income distribution in places such as Africa and Latin America. In South Africa the end of the Cold War brought about hope with the collapse of apartheid, the introduction of democracy and the end of the civil war of the 1980s. The new government faced massive problems inherited from the past such as poverty, inequality and a largely unskilled workforce. OVERVIEW OF AREAS OF FOCUS The End of the Cold War A new world order ❖ Gorbachev’s reforms ❖ Defining globalisation ❖ Events in Poland ❖ Balance of world power and impact on Africa ❖ Germany: The Fall of the Berlin Wall ❖ Dominance of global Western capitalism ❖ The end of the Cold War and the ❖ Civil society resistance to capitalism collapse of the USSR ❖ Impact of the collapse on South Africa ❖ Emerging economies and different forms of capitalism: BRICS 2 Gorbachev’s reforms in the Soviet Union The situation in the USSR in 1985 Mikhail When Mikhail Gorbachev became leader Gorbachev of the Soviet Union in 1985, his counterpart in the USA was Ronald Reagan, he inherited a country facing many problems, and the country was in crisis. Its resources were being drained by the Cold War arms race, and relations with the West were strained. The Soviet economy was failing: agricultural production was poor, and people were openly talking of economic collapse. They were demoralized by the shortages of essential consumer goods, inadequate housing, poor public health care, alcoholism, a failing economy, and a sense that the government could not find solutions. Those in power had many privileges, but showed little interest in improving the lives of ordinary citizens. Another drain on the Soviet economy was an ongoing war in Afghanistan. In 1979 the USSR sent troops into Afghanistan to back a newly elected pro-Soviet government in the country. The new government was being challenged by Mujaheddin, anti-communist Islamic fighters (who were being supplied with weapons by the USA). The Soviet government wanted to defeat the Mujaheddin as it feared that Islamic extremism might influence the large Muslim population in the Central Asian regions of the Soviet Union. Despite superior weapons, the Soviet army was unable to crush the resistance. By 1985, over 20 000 Soviet troops had died in Afghanistan, and the war was becoming increasingly unpopular at home. A million Afghans had died, hundreds of thousands were refugees, and the economy had been destroyed. Soviet involvement in Afghanistan has been likened to America’s involvement in Vietnam. It became a war that could not be won by the SU, and it continually drained the resources and morale of the USSR. Relations with the West were hostile. Ronald Reagan, the American President, called the USSR an ‘evil empire’. In 1981 he announced a Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI, which people were soon calling ‘Star Wars’) – that was based on a huge laser field in space to protect America against Soviet missiles. The USSR felt weakened because it could not afford to develop a defence system to match that of the USA. The cost of trying to keep up with the USA in the arms race was enormous and began to strain the USSR’s economy until it began to disintegrate. A cartoon of Reagan published in Marxism Today in 1985. It shows his eagerness for the SDI. 3 Gorbachev’s reforms Gorbachev became General Secretary of the Communist Party and head of state of the Soviet Union in 1985. He brought a new energy and drive to the Soviet leadership. He recognised that there were problems, and believed that major changes were needed. But at no stage did he intend to end the communist system or dismantle the USSR. He believed that change should be brought about by the Party itself. Gorbachev decided to withdraw from Afghanistan and within four years all Soviet soldiers had left. He also felt there were necessary reforms that needed to be introduced to bring about meaningful change in the Soviet Union, firstly to end the existing culture of silence and censorship, and secondly restructure the economy. Gorbachev introduced two new reforms/policies: glasnost and perestroika. Glasnost Glasnost meant openness. This meant that people would be allowed to speak more freely and be able to criticise the government. Up until this time, the Communist party controlled all art, literature, theatre, intellectual debate and media. Only forms of expression acceptable to the Communist party were permitted. Everything else was censored or banned. But under glasnost, greater freedom of speech was encouraged. The government still controlled the press but newspapers and magazines could report openly, and question the government. Old versions of Soviet history were debated and stories of oppression and terror, particularly under Stalin’s rule, started to emerge. Many political prisoners were also released. Perestroika Perestroika means restructuring. The aim was to rebuild the Soviet economy. By this Gorbachev meant reforming the communist system, not merely replacing it with capitalism. The main focus of the economic restructuring was to move from a completely state-controlled or centrally planned economy, to one where market forces could operate. Private businesses were allowed to exist and they could make their own decisions about prices, production and marketing. They also had to finance themselves by obtaining loans from newly-created banks. Bankrupt state-owned businesses no longer received support from the state and were closed down. The state withdrew many of its subsidies (money paid by the government to assist and support certain sectors in the economy), leading to more realistic pricing based on supply and demand. People could now start to buy and sell at a profit, and foreign investment was encouraged. Demokratiya Gorbachev also introduced demokratiya or democracy. Some forms of elections were allowed, but the aim was to continue to ensure that the real power remained in the hands of the Communist Party. This reform gave Soviet voters a greater choice. The Russian people took advantage of this and supported Boris Yeltsin who resigned from the Communist Party and became premier of the Russian Republic. 4 Activity 1: Group discussion Study Sources A and B and then answer the questions that follow. SOURCE A A cartoon by the British cartoonist, Michael Cummings, which was published on 24 August 1988. It comments on Gorbachev’s introduction of glasnost. [http://www.cvce.eu/obj/cartoon_by_cummings_on_glasnost_24_august_1988-en-1fb4c805-0b4a-46e5-ae86- 758692ff7cd4.html] SOURCE B A cartoon by the British cartoonist, Nicholas Garland, which also comments on Gorbachev’s reforms. It was published in The Independent on 2 March 1988. [http://www.cartoons.ac.uk/record/36840] 5 1. Refer to Source A. What impact did the policy of glasnost have in the USSR? Refer to both visual clues and the text of the cartoon to support your answer. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ 2. Refer to Source B. What message is the cartoonist trying to communicate about Gorbachev’s reforms? Refer to both visual clues and the text of the cartoon to support your answer. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ The impact of Soviet troops withdraw from Gorbachev’s reforms Afghanistan, February 1989. Gorbachev’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and his internal reforms were welcomed by Western leaders. In an interview with the BBC the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, said, “I like Mr. Gorbachev, we can do business together.’ His reforms ultimately led to the end of the Cold War. 6 In order to re-structure the economy, the Soviet Union had to reduce military spending, and stop the costly nuclear arms race. So Gorbachev initiated a number of meetings with the American president, Ronald Reagan, and they agreed to reduce nuclear arms. Gorbachev’s policies were less popular in the Soviet Union. The aim of perestroika was to promote economic growth and improve living standards, but it was not successful. Without state support and controls many systems collapsed. Prices and the cost of living increased dramatically, especially for food, housing and medical costs. Production remained low and there were shortages, resulting in long queues for basic goods. Inflation and foreign debt increased sharply. Life for the ordinary citizen had not improved under Gorbachev. As a result of these problems, he lost support. As a result of glasnost people could now openly criticise the government. The firm control which the Communist Party had over the Soviet Union since the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 was beginning to collapse. This also had a major impact in Eastern Europe. Activity 2: Individual Activity Study Sources A to E and then answer the questions that follow. SOURCE A Changes under Gorbachev’s leadership For the first time people were encouraged to talk about their situation. Unlike previous leaders, Gorbachev encouraged criticism of the government and personally went onto the streets to hear people’s grievances. As he said: “We are learning democracy and glasnost, learning to argue and conduct a debate, to tell one another the truth”. [J. Bottaro, P. Visser and N. Worden, In Search of History, 2007.] SOURCE B Statement made by Oleg Osipov, a research worker, in the USSR. “We thought the situation could not get any worse, and it has. Now I hear people moaning about the lack of even the most basic food and saying, ‘things were better under Brezhnez; at least we had food in the shops’”. [J. Bottaro, P. Visser and N. Worden, In Search of History, 2007.] SOURCE C A popular song of the late 1980s. Gorbachev was never as popular in the USSR as in the West. People blamed him for the economic hardships that they faced, and they did not like his campaign against alcohol. Sausage prices twice as high Where’s the vodka for us to buy? All we do is sit at home Watching Gorby drone and drone. [J. Bottaro, P. Visser and N. Worden, In Search of History, 2007.] 7 SOURCE D A political joke about glasnost and perestroika First dog: How are things different under Gorbachev? Second dog: Well, the chain is still too short and the food dish is still too far away to reach, but they let you bark as loud as you want. [J. Bottaro, P. Visser and N. Worden, In Search of History, 2007.] SOURCE E The impact of glasnost So Russia was still struggling with perestroika. But glasnost was a different story. It was glasnost that set the breakaway Baltic states on their long and difficult road towards independence. It was glasnost that freed the dissidents – and let them demand further, faster reforms. It was glasnost that allowed a Russian comedian to fill Moscow’s Variety Theatre with his impersonation of … the president himself. [Anna Sproule, Mikhail Gorbachev: The Soviet Leader who ended the Cold War and opened the road to freedom for eastern Audiences Europe, 1990.] creased themselves with laughter as this other Gorby glared, and pronounced: “We must solve our problems, and nobody leaves the room alive until we have solved them.” QUESTIONS 1. Use Source A to explain how Gorbachev’s leadership style was completely different from previous Soviet Leaders. (4) 2. How do Sources B, C and D criticise the reform perestroika? Quote from the sources to support your answer. (6) 3. Before glasnost, songs and jokes (likes Sources C and D) might have been circulated secretly, but performances as described in Source E would never (4) have been allowed. Explain why. 4a. Why was Gorbachev not very popular at home, when he had done so much to reform the USSR? Provide TWO points. (4) b. Was he to blame for this? Explain your view. (4) 5. Are jokes a valuable source of evidence for a historian? Justify your answer. (3) TOTAL RIGHT: President of the United Sates, Ronald Reagan, and Mikhail Gorbachev at their first summit meeting in Geneva, November 1985. The two leaders went on to meet in Reykjavik in October 1986. They met in Washington in December 1987 and in Moscow in June 1988. 8 Events in Eastern Europe After the Second World War, most of Eastern Europe (also known as the Eastern Bloc) had come under Soviet domination. For more than four decades Soviet control of the Eastern European satellite states was absolute. After the Warsaw Pact was formed in 1955, the Soviet Union used troops from Warsaw Pact countries, as well as its own army, to crush any attempts at reform in the satellite states. By the 1980s, people in the Eastern European satellite states wanted change after over 40 years of communist rule and Soviet domination. This led to growing and sustained protests which were inspired by events in Poland and by changes within the Soviet Union. Events in Poland – the significance of Solidarity The first protests in Eastern Europe in the 1980s took place in Poland. Although the communist governments in Eastern Europe had tried to crush the Christian churches, the Roman Catholic Church in Poland remained strong. Almost all Poles were Catholic, and the head of the Roman Catholic Church at the time, Pope John Paul II, was Polish. The Pope was an outspoken critic of communism in Poland. In 1979 he made an influential home visit that inspired Polish Catholics to demand greater Lech Walesa and the Solidarity banner. freedom. By 1980 Poland was also affected by economic problems, and workers were faced with rising prices on the one hand, and a declining standard of living on the other. In August 1980 workers in the Gdansk shipyards (one of Poland’s most important industries) formed an independent trade union, Solidarity. The leader of Solidarity, Lech Walesa (who was an electrician in the shipyards), put forward a list of 21 demands to the Polish government. These included the rights to form free trade unions and to strike, an end to censorship and the right to broadcast Catholic Church services. When the Polish government agreed to all of Solidarity’s demands, support for the trade union increased, from 3 million to over 9 million in just over four months. This was about one-third of all the workers in Poland. Although Solidarity was a trade union and not a political party, many members began to view it as an alternative to the communist government. While the Polish government felt threatened by the trade union, it did not act immediately. The Soviet Union however was concerned about developments in Poland. In its view, Solidarity formed a direct threat to Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. It was not prepared to allow an independent trade union to challenge the communist government in power in Poland. Finally, in December 1981, the USSR acted. The Soviet army carried out ‘training exercises’ on Poland’s borders, while the Polish government introduced martial law (when the government grants the army additional powers to maintain law and order). Solidarity was banned, and 10 000 leaders, 9 including Walesa, were imprisoned. Once again, the Soviet Union had shown that, at this stage, it was not prepared to accept any challenge to its control. The significance of events in Poland for the decline of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe Although Solidarity had been banned, it continued to exert influence and from 1986 began to operate openly again. It co-operated closely with the Catholic Church, and broadcast its views on Radio Solidarity, criticising actions of the government and urging a boycott of elections in 1988. People in neighbouring countries watched with interest to see how the Soviet Union would respond to this open defiance of communist domination. People in Eastern European satellite states had also been given new hope by Gorbachev’s reforms in the Soviet Union. They wanted glasnost as well. The serious economic problems in the Soviet Union meant that the military was no longer able to intervene to uphold Soviet control over the satellite states. In March 1989 Gorbachev told the leaders of the unpopular Eastern European government’s that they could no longer depend on the Red Army to keep them in power. They would have to listen to the demands of their own people. Gorbachev made it clear that he was rejecting the Brezhnev Doctrine. This change in Soviet policy led to dramatic changes later that year. Protests and change in Eastern Europe During 1989 people all over Eastern Europe took part in massive demonstrations demanding change. Their actions were effective in bringing an end to communist rule. The changes started in Hungary and Poland. In May 1989 the Hungarian government quickly realised reform was needed. It started dismantling the Iron Curtain, separating Hungary from non- communist Austria. The Communist Party renamed itself the Socialist Party and announced that freedom of speech and of movement should be allowed, and democratic elections would be held. In June 1989, in response to demands from the Polish people, the government agreed to hold free elections, the first since WWII. The previously banned Solidarity Party won nearly all the seats, and Lech Walesa became the first non-communist leader in Eastern Europe. Activity 3: Group discussion SOURCE A TIME Magazine cover Person of the Year 1980 Why does the cover of TIME state ‘Shaking Up Communism’? How does the cover of TIME portray Walesa? 10 SOURCE B A comment made by Jagoda Urban-Klaehn, a resident of Poland. It was a bit like hunting for gold. We did not say we ‘bought’ products instead we said we ‘captured’ products. After a purchase satisfaction was often tremendous, unknown to people from rich Western countries where food and other products were easy to buy. This time the Solidarity Free Workers Union was established and created a feeling of hope. The rate of people committing suicide decreased sharply and people started to feel more optimistic about the future. [http://www.bellaonline.com/misc/search.asp] Jagoda Urban-Klaehn in Solidarity, Freedom and Economical Crisis in Poland. Polishculture.bellaonline.com/asrticles SOURCE C A comment made by a member of the trade union Solidarity. What we had in mind were not only bread, butter and sausage but also justice, democracy, truth, legality, human dignity, freedom of convictions, and the repair of the republic. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/English/static/specialreport] A member of trade union Solidarity. BBC News Communism The End of an Era What do Sources B and C report news.bbc.co.uk/hi/English/static/special tell about the morale of the Polish people at this time? SOURCE D Lech Walesa speaking to a crowd of four thousand workers in 1980. Shipyard workers! Hull fitters, welders, paint sprayers, plumbers, and you too, members of the intelligentsia, listen to me. (Applause) We demand that prices be brought down, back to their previous levels and if they are not…then there’ll be strikes tomorrow! (More Applause) [T Rea and J Wright, International Relations 1914-1995, 1997.] Walesa talks to strikers What types of people were involved in the protest? What were the aims of the Solidarity movement? 11 SOURCE E An account by a Polish woman. My husband comes home from work and says what they are saying in the District Committee of the Communist Party. They are saying that Lech Walesa, the leader of the strike, has got a criminal record, is a drunkard and a scrounger. [T Rea and J Wright, International Relations 1914-1995, 1997.] T. Rea and J. Wright , An account by a Polish woman in 1980. International Relations 1914-1995, 1997. Why does this source reveal a negative opinion of Walesa? SOURCE F An account of an eyewitness at the Gdansk shipyard in August 1980. “I went to the Shipyard on behalf of the government to define the conditions for negotiations. I remember that first meeting [with Walesa] very well. I entered the shipyard fearfully. The thousands of people at the gate and the difficulty of making my way through the crowd caused great tension. Frankly I imagined a different man: big, hard with a strong determined voice who would stand no opposition. Instead I found a man of medium height with a friendly smile. That friendliness touched me greatly at the time. His attitude to me was very important. It influenced the way I conducted our talk and reported back to my superiors.” [T Rea and J Wright, International Relations 1914-1995, 1997.] An eyewitness at the Gdansk shipyard in August 1980. International Relations 1914-1995, T Rea and J Wright,1997. What personal qualities did Walesa have which made him a suitable leader for the Polish workers at this time? Did you know? Lech Walesa won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983. Fearing that the government would not let him back into Poland, his wife received the prize on his behalf. Walesa donated the prize money to the Solidarity movement. LEFT: Solidarity founding leader Lech Walesa speaks to workers during a strike at the Gdansk shipyard. 12 Protests spread to Germany: the fall of the Berlin Wall and other protests ▪ EAST GERMANY After the reforms in Hungary, the border between Austria and Hungary was opened to allow freedom of travel. In 1989 thousands of East Germans used this opportunity and travelled first through Hungary, then through Austria to escape into West Germany. The mass exodus of 50 000 people within three weeks shocked the East German government. When it responded by closing the border, enormous demonstrations were held in the cities of East Berlin, Dresden and Leipzig. Protestors called for an end to communist rule. In October 1989 Gorbachev visited East Germany and warned the East German government that it could not expect Soviet help to crush the demands for reform. The government’s control over the country collapsed when troops refused to obey orders to shoot the demonstrators. In November 1989 thousands of people in East Berlin marched to the Berlin Wall. When East German guards refused to fire on the crowd, people started chipping away at the wall by hand. Afterwards bulldozers were brought in to dismantle it completely. The Berlin Wall, which had divided Berlin for 28 years and which had become a symbol of the Cold War, no longer existed. The following year the people of East and West Germany voted overwhelmingly for the two countries to be reunited. RIGHT: On November 9, 1989, the wall erected by the GDR that separated West Berlin from all of East Germany was cracked, beginning the reunification of Germany that took almost a year to complete. The fall of the Berlin Wall, the symbol of communist domination of Eastern Europe, inspired the people in the remaining satellite states. ▪ CZECHOSLOVAKIA In Czechoslovakia in November 1989 daily protests were held in support of political reform. As a result, the government opened up its borders with the West and agreed to democratic reforms. Within a month, the Czechoslovakian government was replaced by a newly elected democratic government. These events in Czechoslovakia are called the ‘Velvet Revolution’ because they took place smoothly (like velvet) and without violence or many casualties. 13 ABOVE: Protestors gathered in Prague, the capital of Czechoslovakia, during what became known as the “Velvet Revolution” in November 1989. ▪ BULGARIA In Bulgaria, the communist dictator who had ruled for 35 years was overthrown and put on trial for corruption. In December 1989 the Communist party announced it would permit multiparty elections in the following year. ▪ ROMANIA Not all revolutions were peaceful. In Romania, which had the most authoritarian regime as well as the lowest standard of living in Eastern Europe, the autocratic dictator, Ceausescu, was overthrown and shot in a short and violent revolution in December 1989. The leaders of the coup formed a provisional government, abolished the communist system and announced that free elections would be held in 1990. In less than a year communist dictatorships were replaced by democratically elected governments, the Iron Curtain disintegrated and the Berlin Wall was dismantled, and the Warsaw Pact had ceased to exist. Soviet control of Eastern Europe had come to an end. Relations between the Soviet Union and the USA continued to improve during the eventful days of 1989 as the communist regimes were overthrown in Eastern Europe. At a summit meeting between Gorbachev and the new American president, George Bush (senior), in December 1989, the two leaders agreed that the Cold War was over. 14 The disintegration of the Soviet Union The Soviet Union was made up of 15 different states or republics, which contained 100 different nationalities. The Russian Republic, centred on Moscow, was the dominant power in this union. However, about half the total population consisted of minority groups that had been annexed by Russia over the years, such as Ukrainians, Latvians and Estonians. Many of these groups resented Russian domination. The reforms introduced by Gorbachev gave them the opportunity to challenge this domination, and in 1991 the Soviet Union disintegrated and the various republics of the former USSR became independent states. A map, adapted from The Great Power Conflict, showing the independent republics of the Russian Federation. [S. Govender, M. Mnyaka and G. Pillay, New Generation History Grade 12, 2007.] The impact of Gorbachev’s reforms Gorbachev believed that the Communist party could control the pace of change but this proved to be wrong. The openness that glasnost encouraged led to overwhelming criticism. Although Gorbachev had set in motion a course of action, his moderate reform programme was taken over and pushed much further. Gorbachev was caught between the conservatives (who wanted to return to old ways), and the reformers (who called for more far-reaching changes). It was impossible for him to meet these conflicting demands: 15 Opposition experienced by Gorbachev Conservatives Reformers Officials in the Communist Party Critics, like Boris Yeltsin (the leader resisted changes. of the Russian Republic within the USSR) said Gorbachev’s reforms did not go far enough. They wanted a return to full state Yeltsin and others called for full control. democracy; that is the end of Communist Party rule to allow other political parties to compete for power. He also believed the USSR should be dissolved. Others who opposed Gorbachev’s Yeltsin became a people’s hero with reforms argued that he was his bold criticism of the Communist betraying the communist vision and Party, its corruption and special allowing Western Capitalism to privileges. influence him too much. Did you know? Although Gorbachev encountered fierce criticism in the USSR, he was widely celebrated in the West. Gorbachev appeared on the TIME magazine cover on 4 June 1988. He was named man of the year for the reforms he implemented in the USSR. 16 The impact of nationalism As the internal divisions increasingly weakened the Soviet Union, the different nationalities that made up the Soviet Union called for more autonomy. They did not like the way their own culture and language had been undermined and replaced with Russian. They also resented the fact that Russians held many of the top positions, and that most decisions were taken in Moscow. These feelings of nationalism were especially strong in the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. As the national minorities started to claim their independence, the unity of the Soviet Union came under threat. Gorbachev wanted to preserve the unity of the Soviet Union and so he sent Soviet troops to stop the independence movements in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Lithuania. But these popular movements had too much support and resistance continued. In March 1990 Latvia declared its independence from the Soviet Union. The other Baltic republics, Estonia and Lithuania followed afterwards. This was the start of the collapse of the Soviet Union. LEFT: A million-strong human chain links the three Baltic States. People in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia made an unbroken human chain to protest against Soviet control. 17 The coup against Gorbachev and the break-up of the Soviet Union By 1991 Gorbachev’s position was increasingly under threat. Although he was still leader of the Soviet Union, he no longer had control over the situation. More and more people turned to Boris Yeltsin, who believed that the USSR could not be saved but would have to be dissolved. Realising how weak the Mikhail Gorbachev, the last central government was, Soviet leader, shakes hands other republics within the with Boris Yeltsin in Soviet Union (such as December 1991. Ukraine and Georgia) declared their independence. The USSR was disintegrating. In August 1991 conservatives in the government and leading military officers staged a coup in Moscow in an attempt to take over the USSR before it collapsed completely. They arrested Gorbachev while he was on holiday in the Crimea. The coup failed when huge crowds, who were opposed to the coup, gathered in Moscow. Yeltsin emerged as the leader of the protests. He climbed onto one of the tanks and appealed to the soldiers to mutiny, to the workers to oppose the coup, and for Gorbachev to be reinstated. Although Gorbachev was restored to his position, it was clear that Yeltsin was the leader whom people supported. The failed coup ended Gorbachev’s dream of reviving the USSR. In December 1991 Yeltsin and the leaders of other republics announced that the USSR had been replaced by a Commonwealth of Independent States. Gorbachev formally resigned, and the Soviet hammer and sickle flag was lowered for the last time. The Soviet Union had disappeared. LEFT: A Cartoon commenting on the demise of the USSR. The caption reads: “Gorbachev beholds a crushed hammer and sickle.” It was published in The Waterbury Republican and The Middletown Press in 1991. 18 To what extent were Gorbachev’s reforms responsible for the collapse of the USSR? Historians have debated the underlying reasons for the sudden collapse of the Soviet superpower. Gorbachev’s reforms were one of the factors which led to this collapse. His attempt to solve serious economic problems led to the breakdown of a state-controlled economy and did not bring the economic growth that people expected. They became impatient for more changes. However, historians suggest that there were other factors that contributed to the disintegration of the USSR: The power of the Soviet government rested on harsh authoritarian control. Once people began to question this control, they were no longer prepared to accept it. The growth of nationalism and demands for independence in the different republics undermined the unity of the Soviet Union from within. Popular protest ensured support for the independence movements in the different republics in the USSR. It was ‘people power’ too that played an important role in defeating the attempted coup against Gorbachev in Moscow. The collapse of the USSR had a major impact on world history at the end of the 20 th century. The Cold War came to an end in a way which no-one had foreseen. This was by the internal collapse of the USSR, not by armed or nuclear conflict between these two powers. A new global political situation emerged. The US was now the most powerful state and it seemed as if the Western capitalist and liberal democratic system had triumphed. A cartoon by Doonesbury which appeared in The Guardian on 13 June 1988. [Ben Walsh, GCSE Modern World History, 1996.] 19 The collapse of the Soviet Union and its impact on South Africa The policy of Western governments towards South Africa During the Cold War, the policy of Western governments, especially the USA, was influenced by competition with the USSR for power and influence around the world. These Western governments wanted to ensure that the Soviet Union did not get control of vital mineral resources and strategic sea routes. Therefore, they were concerned when communist governments came to power in the former Portuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique in 1975. During the 1980s, the last decade of the Cold War, the consequences of a Soviet presence in southern Africa were still feared. As a result it suited these Western governments to accept the ‘Total Onslaught’ propaganda of the apartheid government. This emphasised a perceived communist threat and stressed South Africa’s position as a vital pro-Western and anti-Soviet ally. As a result, many Western governments supported South Africa despite pressure from the UN and the Organisation for African Unity (OAU), who called for economic sanctions. The two most influential Western leaders were Ronald Reagan (US President from 1980 to 1988) and Margaret Thatcher (British Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990). Both of them were strongly anti- communist. Thatcher openly called the ANC a “terrorist organisation”. But in the late 1980s, as the Cold War was drawing to a close, attitudes began to change. South Africa (and Africa as a whole) was no longer significant in Cold War politics. Western governments began to apply pressure on South Africa to end apartheid and start talks with the ABOVE: President Ronald Reagan and Prime banned ANC. Minister Margaret Thatcher meet for talks in London in 1985. Changing attitudes in South Africa As the communist governments in Eastern Europe and then in the Soviet Union collapsed, South Africa could no longer use the threat of communism as a means of generating support. It could no longer rely on Western backing for its anti-communist stance. At the same time, the National Party’s fear of a communist-controlled ANC, also diminished, as communism lost ground in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and for the first time it was prepared to negotiate with the ANC. The collapse of the USSR also affected the ANC. The Soviet Union had supported the liberation movements after they were forced into exile in the 1960s. For a while the ANC received most of its financial and military aid from the Soviet Union. The collapse of the SU therefore removed an important source of backing and this resulted in the ANC also being ready to negotiate. 20 Cuito Cuanavale and its impact Even before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the apartheid government had been forced to re-asses its policies in southern Africa. The Battle of Cuito Cuanavale in Angola in November 1987, when South African troops were held back by a combined force of Cubans and Angolans, was a turning point. After this, the South African government was forced to re- evaluate its military strength. It agreed to withdraw from Angola and to negotiate a settlement over Namibia. The peaceful transfer to majority rule in Namibia encouraged both the South African government and the ANC. The NP government saw that majority rule did not necessarily mean the introduction of communism or major economic changes. The ANC hoped that South Africa could now also become a democratic state in which it would obtain majority power. De Klerk and the changes of 1989-90 The changing situation and the growing pressures from mass protests in South Africa led to tensions within the National Party. This in turn led to a change of leadership in August 1989, after which the new president FW de Klerk decided to embark on a policy of reform. During 1989 several long-term prisoners, including most of the Rivonia trialists, were released. In February 1990 De Klerk announced the release of Nelson Mandela, the unbanning of the ANC, PAC and SACP, and the government’s willingness to negotiate an end to apartheid and the establishment of a new and democratic constitution. The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe was a critical factor that led to change in South Africa. De Klerk’s speech of 2 February 1990, which announced a major change in policy, was made less than two months after the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, the event which symbolised to many people the end of the Cold War and the start of a new world order. Activity 4: Individual Task Read Sources A and B and then answer the questions that follow: SOURCE A An Extract from an article by Rob Nixon, which was published in 1992. On February 2, 1990, President De Klerk shifted the terms of the South African struggle with an inspired act of political opportunism that was also a mark of his embattlement: he unbanned the ANC, the South African Communist Party, the United Democratic Front and allied organisations. In announcing these unforeseen measures, De Klerk was quite explicit [clear]: they had been largely occasioned by the upheavals in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Many Afrikaans nationalists railed against De Klerk’s reforms as the suicide of apartheid, somewhat as Soviet Communist stalwarts [loyal supporters] charged Gorbachev with provoking communism’s suicide. De Klerk saw things differently, arguing that his reforms were proportionate to the newly receding threat of Marxism. For, he contended, communism’s demise and the disintegration of the Eastern Bloc had weakened the anti- apartheid organisations by denying them invaluable sources of ideological, financial and military sustenance [support]. [http://www.english.wisc.edu/rdnixon/files/collapse.pdf] 21 SOURCE B An extract from Herman Giliomee and Bernard Mbenga, New History of South Africa, 2007. The dismantling of the Berlin Wall, which began on 9 November 1989, dramatically heralded the end of the Soviet Union’s sway over Eastern Europe, and also contributed to the breaking of the deadlock in South Africa. Communism as a political and economic system was rapidly beginning to disintegrate. These developments presented De Klerk with what he termed a ‘God-sent opportunity’. The National Party could tell its constituency that without Soviet backing the ANC, with its ally the SA Communist Party, no longer constituted a major threat to stability and private ownership. He could also argue that communism was so discredited that the ANC would be compelled to accept the free market, property rights and other investment-friendly policies. For the National Party government the fall of the [Berlin] Wall was a double-edged sword. Anti-communism had long been the main reason why Western governments accepted and even bolstered [supported] white rule in South Africa. But the disappearance of the communist threat and the ANC’s retreat from nationalisation had made the South African government’s anti-communism old-fashioned, and deprived it of its strongest argument for Western pressure to force the ANC to accept power-sharing... Without the fall of the Wall, it is difficult to conceive of the ANC coming to power five years later. [H. Giliomee and B. Mbenga, New History of South Africa, 2007.] QUESTIONS 1. According to Source A and Source B, what was the connection between De Klerk’s announcement of changes in February 1990 and the upheavals that (6) had happened in the communist world? 2. Refer to Source A. Explain why the ANC agreed to negotiate with the NP government. (3) 3. Explain what is meant by “the ANC’s retreat from nationalisation” (Source B) and why the ANC adopted this course of action. (4) 4. Using your knowledge explain why the West would no longer support the apartheid government after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Provide TWO points. (4) 5. Compare the sources to assess which is more useful for learning about disagreements within the NP to De Klerk’s policy changes. (3) TOTAL 22 A new world order Introduction During the Cold War, the two superpowers had maintained an uneasy balance in the world. But the collapse of the Soviet Union brought the Cold War to an end and created a new balance of power in the world. It left the remaining superpower, the USA, in a dominant position. The idea of a ‘new world order’ developed. People thought that there would be no more tension or fears of a nuclear war, but instead they found that the post-Cold War world was more complicated and unpredictable. Since the end of the Cold War there have been numerous regional and civil wars around the world. There were also economic changes in the new world order. Since the 1990s, American capitalism has been the dominant international economic system and we are all part of a ‘global economy’. This is referred to as globalisation. Defining globalisation Globalisation refers to the movement of people, information, investments, goods and services around the world. In the last decades of the 20th century the rate at which people and countries became increasingly interconnected had grown. Globalisation is used to explain changes and links in the world economy, in world politics, in international trade, in the environment, in violence and terrorism, in culture, and in social attitudes and customs. Main features of globalisation: Smaller distances: The world seems to be a smaller place because of advances in technology – especially air travel. Distances are less important. Places are far more accessible than before. The availability of news and information: News and information move around the world with increasing speed, because of developments such as the Internet and satellite television. People can watch developments in other continents and learn about new ideas as they happen. 23  The disappearance of borders: Borders between countries are far less relevant than they were previously. People, goods, technologies and ideas move more easily across boundaries that once divided regions and communities. This is partly due to fewer trade restrictions. It is also due to the formation of large political entities, such as the European Union. Greater movement and migration of people: Millions of people often move from country to country, or continent to continent. This may be a part of the international job market, as migrant workers, as refugees or as tourists. The development of a global culture: New technologies and greater migration has led to the development of a ‘global culture’, in which people share similar social and cultural values and ideas. This is especially true in cities, where architecture, fashion, shops, music and films are similar around the world. The dominance of global corporations (big international businesses): These are huge multinational companies (e.g. Coca Cola and Microsoft) which operate all over the world. The goods they make are known as ‘global brands’. The wealth of these multinationals has given them enormous economic and political power. They are also sometimes referred to as transnational corporations (TNCs). SOURCE A This image designed for a 2003 magazine cover comments on the power of multinational corporations. The usual stars of the American flag have been replaced by the logos of major companies. The image suggests that these companies now control the US and its policies. [J. Bottaro et al., In Search of History Grade 12 Learner’s Book, 2013] 24 SOURCE B A cartoon by Zapiro commenting on global corporations. 1. What comment is the cartoonist making about multinational corporations in this cartoon? 2. Why is the UN concerned about the “Corporates”? 3. In what way are Sources A and B similar? [N.Dlamini et al, Shuters History Grade 12, 2007.] The balance of power and its impact on Africa The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War had two main effects on Africa. Firstly, the failure of communism and the emergence of democracies in Eastern Europe gave encouragement to democracy movements in Africa. As a result, several countries became multi- party democracies. In the early 1990s 18 heads of state were removed in a wave of pro- democracy movements in six years. Secondly, the end of the Cold War meant that Africa was no longer significant in Cold War politics. During the Cold War, the superpowers had tried to gain allies in Africa by supplying aid and weapons. This usually had a negative impact. Over the years, several unpopular and brutal regimes were kept in power by either Soviet or American backing. The end of the Cold War meant the withdrawal of superpower aid and the collapse of some military regimes. The superpowers were no longer competing with each other for power and influence, or for control of mineral resources and strategic sea routes. So, for example, the US dropped its support for anti-communist regimes. At the same time, international donor agencies began to insist on conditions such as good governance (a government has to be able to provide effective and legitimate administration which is not corrupt). The effect of this was to support democratic change. North-South and South-South relations The new world order and the spread of globalisation have created the following economic problems for many African countries: African countries struggled to compete with wealthier developed countries in the global economy. Many of them were not industrialized, and their economies were based on the export of unprocessed raw materials to the developed world. 25  Another problem was the controversial issue of agricultural subsidies: farmers in America and Europe were given subsidies (payments) by their governments. This meant that they could produce food cheaply and sell it on global markets. Farmers from developing countries (economies that are not fully industrialised) could not compete with these cheap prices and so could not find a market for their products. Rising debt is also problematic. Some African countries ran up huge debts by borrowing money from richer industrialized nations. Interest on the debts took up an increasingly large proportion of their national incomes. Mainly because of these economic problems, many people believe that globalisation has had a negative effect on African countries. Most African countries have neither the infrastructure (transport and communications) nor the skills to attract investment from multinational companies, nor to produce goods to sell on world markets. They are not competitive enough in a world of free trade (no restrictions in terms of trade e.g. no taxes on imports). Some critics argue that the effects of globalisation can be compared to colonisation. Many African states have become poorer in the last 20 years and some argue that globalisation is responsible for this. The global economy is dominated by the industrialized nations (such as North America, Europe and Japan), which are sometimes referred to as the ‘North’. The developing countries of Africa, Latin America and some parts of Asia are referred to as the ‘South’. Globalisation has created greater inequality between North and South, and some historians have suggested that a North-South division has replaced the old East-West division of the Cold War. The cartoon on the left shows the developed world having little regard for the developing world, which it is exploiting for its own benefit. The monopolies of the transnational corporations allow them to make massive profits around the globe. The image below was first published in a Canadian magazine in 2000. Why does the sign in this photograph read “Coca- Colonization”? 26 There are signs, however, that the North-South division may be changing. Two of the countries that were formerly considered to be part of the ‘South’ – China and India – have the fastest growing economies in the world. They are now referred to as emerging economies (economies that are growing relatively quickly) rather than developing economies. The countries of the ‘South’ have formed trade links with each other and are starting to have a greater influence on global economic policies. The dominance of global Western capitalism The pace of globalisation accelerated after the fall of communist governments in Eastern Europe in 1989, followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union. The collapse of the SU was regarded as a victory by the West, as the triumph of capitalism over communism, and of democracy over totalitarianism. It left the USA in a dominant position in terms of ideology, the military and the economy. American capitalism was the dominant global economic system. Bretton Woods and the emergence of a global economy The foundations for global capitalism were put in place towards the end of WWII at a conference at Bretton Woods in the USA. In 1944 Allied leaders met there to discuss the future world economy. They believed that global trade would be the best way for countries to recover from the economic destruction caused by WWII. They also believed that free trade was the best way to ensure future economic stability, peace and prosperity. This was in contrast to the protectionist trade policies (policies applied by governments to protect their own economies, for example, restrictions on imports) which most countries had followed before the war. To implement these ideas, they set up financial institutions to encourage international trade. The policies followed by these institutions led to the development of a new economic order – the global economy. It is dominated by three international financial institutions, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation. The International Monetary Fund The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was established in 1944 to regulate international financial activities. For example, the IMF monitors exchange rates between different currencies and tries to keep the rates stable. It also makes loans available to countries that have built up debts. In return these countries have to agree to adopt capitalist economic policies favoured by the IMF, such as Structural Adjustment Programmes. 27 In the 1980s and early 1990s, especially, governments of African states had to cut state spending, reduce the number of people working for the state, privatise government enterprises and increase export production, according to the Structural Adjustment Programmes imposed by the IMF. These policies caused great economic hardship and opposition. The IMF has a great deal of power, because those countries that are not approved for credit by the IMF cannot obtain credit from other banks. The IMF funds its work from the fees paid by the member states. The World Bank The World Bank was also founded in 1944, originally to assist with the reconstruction of Europe after WWII. Today it uses investments from its wealthier members to fund projects in developing countries. Its chief aim is to reduce poverty by helping poorer countries to develop their economies. The World Bank performs several main roles: It lends poorer countries money at low interest rates and supervises how the loans are spent. It provides advisers to help with development projects such as dams, power plants and other infrastructure developments. It gives special aid when a disaster such as an earthquake or tsunami strikes. Like the IMF, it imposes conditionality. The development projects it is funding are subject to strict guidelines. Loans must be repaid promptly. The headquarters of the IMF and World Bank are situated in Washington DC. Both organisations are dominated by the USA and other rich countries that provide most of the funds used by the IMF and World Bank. As a result the IMF and World Bank are often accused of serving the USA, the West and the big multinational corporations rather than their poorer members. Critics argue that the two institutions are being used by global capitalism to dominate the world. The World Trade Organisation In 1947 the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) was set up to promote free trade among countries and reduce the trade barriers (tariffs) that obstructed trade in agricultural, mineral and manufactured products. In 1995 GATT was replaced by the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The WTO deals with the global rules of trade. The WTO’s main roles are as follows: To “ensure trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible”. 28  The organization holds meetings at which member governments discuss problems around international trade issues. One of the most serious problems is “unfair terms of trade”. This happens when developed countries levy high import duties [tariffs] on the imported goods from developing countries. This makes it difficult for developing countries to sell their products abroad. The WTO encourages its members to reduce tariffs and other restrictions on international trade. The WTO promotes free trade in services (such as banking, telecommunications and travel) as well as goods. Member countries have to abide by the rulings of the WTO, and if necessary, amend their own laws in order to do so. The WTO is often accused of serving the interests of its most powerful members – the USA, the European Union (EU) and Japan. The WTO for a period of time was dominated by the G8 (which is short for Group of 8), the main industrialized countries in the world. The G8 included: the USA, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Canada (G7) and Russia. In March 2014 Russia was suspended indefinitely from the G8 following the annexation of Crimea, and the political forum’s name reverted to G7. In recent years a larger group of countries, called the G20, has been involved in many of the discussions and decisions that are made. The G20 includes many of the countries from the ‘South’, which used to be considered developing countries (such as Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea and Turkey). SOURCE C A cartoon produced by R. Dondis Ferrera in 2006. 1. How has the WTO been portrayed in the cartoon? 2. What message is the cartoonist trying to convey about the WTO? Refer to TWO details from the cartoon to support your answer. 29 Civil society resistance to global capitalism From the late 1990s, there was a growing reaction to aspects of globalisation from a wide range of civil society (the organisations and groups that represent citizens’ opinions). Not only were people in developing countries opposed to globalisation, but also people in industrialized countries feared they would either lose their jobs or that their wages would be lowered. Ordinary people everywhere became concerned about the power that the WTO and the multinational companies had over the global economy. They believed that global society should function in the interest of the people, not in the interest of big business. They also believed that there was too much focus on economics and profits, and social issues were not given enough attention. People put pressure on governments and multinational companies to bring about changes. The first mass protest Anti-WTO protests, Seattle, 1999 took place in Seattle in the USA in 1999, when the WTO was meeting to discuss new trading agreements that would give more power to the multinational companies. Over 50 000 people from around the world participated in the demonstrations. Their main message was that WTO policies favoured corporate interests at the expense of workers, the poor, consumers, developing countries and the environment. Although the police used violence against the protestors, the WTO meeting had to be abandoned. The Seattle protests raised public awareness of a growing anti-globalisation movement. Since the Seattle protest, most world meetings on economic issues (such as the WTO, G8 or World Economic Forum meetings) have attracted vast crowds of demonstrators. Thousands of people have travelled around the world to take part in these protests. In 2001 activists formed the World Social Forum (WSF) as an alternative to the World Economic Forum, an annual meeting of government and business leaders. Using the slogan ‘Another World is Possible’, the WSF meets annually in developing countries to share ideas about alternatives to globalisation policies. 30  Nelson Mandela attends a Make Poverty History rally in Another initiative was the Trafalgar Square in the run up to the 2005 G8. Make Poverty History campaign which called on developed countries to cancel Third World (developing economies mainly in Africa and Latin America) debt. In July 2005 over 200 000 people marched in Edinburgh, Scotland, to protest about the effects of globalisation, and the issue of debt owed by African countries. They argued that this debt was caused by neo-colonialism (a new form of colonialism, used to describe the state of economic dependence of former colonies on industrialised countries). The industrialized world and the global financial institutions’ domination of the economies of developing countries also contributed to the debt problem. The protestors called on the governments of the G8 countries to support ‘Trade Justice not Free Trade’, to ‘Drop the Debt’ and to ‘Make Poverty History’. In some countries there was resistance from consumers who used their buying power to challenge globalisation. One such campaign was the Fair Trade movement that aimed to ensure that producers in developing countries were paid a fair price for their produce. Another way in which consumers used their buying power was by buying environmentally friendly products. Some consumers also campaigned for better conditions for workers in factories owned by multinational companies in developing countries. Organisations such as No Sweat and Labour behind the Label, have used poster campaigns to raise public awareness of conditions in sweatshops (factories where workers are paid very low wages and working conditions are poor). 31 Emerging economies and different forms of capitalism: BRICS What is an ‘emerging economy’? An emerging or developing economy has the following attributes: Although it is not fully developed, it is developing very fast. Its GDP [the total value of goods and services produced in the country] is growing rapidly. It is becoming industrialised. It is becoming ‘internationalised’ [closely linked to the rest of the world]. Its exports and imports are growing, it trades with other countries, attracts foreign investors and has an efficient banking and financial system. It has low labour costs, because its workers are paid less than in developed economies. Different forms of capitalism Most economies today are capitalist or ‘free market’ economies. No capitalist economy today is 100% privately owned. In most capitalist economies, the state owns and controls parts of the economy and allows the rest to operate on free-market (capitalist) principles. This kind of capitalist economy is actually a mixture of state-owned and privately owned businesses. The state often owns and runs the following: some big companies or mines; the electricity supply corporation; large-scale farming projects; and strategic industries such as iron and steel or armaments. However, most large and small businesses are owned and run by private people or companies. This is the case in South Africa. 32 BRICS In the South some of the governments of emerging economies found ways in which they could develop capitalism without being completely dominated by the institutions and free trade policies of the developed economies of the North. This approach has been particularly successful in the largest economies of the South: Brazil, Russia, India and China. In 2006 the foreign ministers of these countries started a series of meetings which led to the formation of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) in 2009. The purpose behind the meetings was to discuss reforms to the global financial institutions as well as ways in which developing countries could become more involved in global decision-making. At the end of 2010 South Africa was invited to join the other four, and the organisation became known as BRICS. At the time South Africa was the largest economy in Africa, the only major continent missing from BRIC. The five members of BRICS are considered to be the leading emerging economies which have an important influence either globally or in their own regions. Together these countries represent 41% of the world’s population, 24% of the global GDP and 16% of global trade. [These statistics are from the World Bank (2019).] Although the members of BRICS vary a great deal, they have many similarities and common interests. Brazil, Russia and South Africa are all major exporters of raw materials to resource-hungry China and India. The group holds annual summit meetings and encourages political, economic and cultural co-operation between its members. At their 2012 summit meeting in Delhi, the leaders discussed ways of giving more voice to emerging economies by pushing for reforms to the IMF, and discussed the possibility of establishing a ‘development bank’ as a parallel to the World Bank. BRICS has decided to press the IMF for increased voting rights for its non-Western members. During the Sixth BRICS Summit in Fortaleza (Brazil) in 2014, the leaders signed the Agreement establishing the New Development Bank (NDB). The bank’s headquarters are located in Shanghai, China. The NBD promises to give BRICS members more autonomy in matters of financial assistance. Since its formation in 2015, the NDB has issued more than 35 infrastructure loans, totalling $10.2bn across many sectors, from renewable energy to transport. Despite several instances of mutual benefit, the BRICS states could do more to demonstrate they are in agreement. This will not be easy because of the many demographic and social differences that currently exist. First, the populations of the five states vary considerably: while South Africa has around 57 million inhabitants, India and China have more than a billion each. In terms of GDP per capita, Brazil and Russia remain ahead, with India ranked much lower than the other members. Other differences exist in terms of inequality, trade and ease of doing business. In terms of economic development, BRICS has not wholly lived up to expectations. Members have failed to become the driving forces of the 21st century’s global economy – even Chinese growth has slowed down. 33