End of the European Era: Versailles to Munich

Versailles Peace Agreement

• Victor's Peace
• Problem? Germany. Solution? Punishment.

• vindictive peace!
• Fr. wanted to punish Ger. for pummeling - Britain too but with less vehemence
• U.S. wanted a more just peace, didn't suffer as much
•  - Wilson wanted no victors or vanquished

• ---

  no collective responsibility - all Germany's fault
• took 13% of German territory, 10% of population
• GUTTED German military - from 11 million to 100 thousand soldiers, no tanks/artillery/battleships
• punitive war reparations - $400 billion in today's dollars
•  Germany not even allowed to participate in the talks

End of the European Era: Versailles to Munich

Versailles Peace Agreement

• Create League of Nations; problems

• Wilson thought balance of power/absence of democracy caused war
• wanted to replace balance of power w/community of power - "new world order"
• self-determination! transparency, war isn't a policy
• Problems:
•  - 1, U.S. didn't join (Senate refused to ratify, isolationist tendencies, Wilson = stubborn, no compromises)
•  - 2, Germany & Soviet Union not allowed to join - G. "caused"/Sov. Un. = commies!
•  - 3, had no "teeth" - no enforcement power, no authority or standing army, total failure for collective security
• did succeed in some transnational issues, like health studies

End of the European Era: Versailles to Munich

Versailles Peace Agreement

• political: Germany punished, Russian revolution, US=isolationist
•  - nothing settled, Ger. neither accepted nor destroyed, only weakened
• economic: ALL nations in Europe now deeply in debt
•  - France to US, Ger. to other Europeans (reparations)
•  - U.S. ok, balance of power shifting from Europe
•  - U.S. hadn't shifted to total war, economy still set up for exports
• social: Depression set stage for soc. changes
•  - entire generation of men lost, survivors (esp. German) changed/felt alienated, NOT a "splendid little war"
•  - politics began to fracture - couple with unemployment = powder keg!

WWII: Appeasement at Munich

• definition of appeasement
• What happened at Munich

• appeasement: "conciliation [or pacification] by concessions" in hope they'll be satisfied and ask for no more

• ---

  1, Hitler came to power, 1933
• 2, Remilitarizes Rhineland, 1936 - supposed to be a peaceful buffer zone for France
• 3, Anschluss, 1938 - forcibly annexed Austria
• 4, Hitler provokes Czechoslovakia over Sudetenland, 1938
• nobody knew in 1938 what Hitler would do!
•  - Sudetenland: Czechoslovakia created out of Versailles treaty 
•  - Sud. land = border area, people of German descent
•  - important for Czech. - lots of military support
•  - Hitler: all about self-determination!
• 5, Chamberlain agreed to give it to him, in return for peace and Munich conference

WWII: Appeasement at Munich

• What should Chamberlain have done?
• So what?

• 1, Reaction in Britain: NO support for a war, especially over Czech!?
•  - as is, Britain loved him for "avoiding" war
• 2, U.S.: If you go to war, we won't support you - at best, "benevolent neutrality"
• 3, British military view: we'd lose if we went to war now
•  - "can do nothing to prevent the dog getting the bone"
•  - didn't want another war of attrition & starvation
• 4, Better fight now or later?
•  - based on their best (though faulty) intel, Ger. was better prepared
• war would have been over the freaking Sudentenland and there was NO support for it!

• ---

  could have stopped at the Rhineland (1936) but that was before Chamberlain came (1938)
• beware of simple analogies! - this was the revisionist (not orthodox) view!

Origins of the Cold War: A-Bomb

Dropping the Atomic Bomb: Setting the Stage

• Domestic context: racism
• International context: U.S. soldiers killed & tortured

• U.S. suffered lots of casualties from Japanese (Nazis = political, Ja. = race)
•  - louseous japanicus
• made distinction b/w good and bad Germans, not so w/Japanese
• domestic effects: quarantine for Japanese
•  - was not the same for German/Italian-Americans (a small few, but not many)

• ---

  Japan was losing, but was doing so BRUTALLY
• invasion of mainland would have cost about 500 thousand - 1 million lives
• unbelievable resistance: fighting not to lose emperor ~~ disgraced at home ~~ taught to think US soldiers would rape & kill them ~~ some Marines: take no prisoners
•  - racist beliefs probably influenced that, reflective of Amer. views at the time, military was RACIST & highly dysfunctional

Origins of the Cold War: Dropping the A-Bomb

Setting the Stage

• Dropping the bomb: Aug. 6 & 9, 1945

• some discussion about a demonstration strike, rejected
•  - could be a dud, could kill US soldiers, may not be convinced by it (Ziegler)
•  - scientists could not come up with a convincing explanation!
• 70 thousand died instantly, several more hundred thousand over the next few years
• initially confused (1 bomb = 8th largest city?) - Japanese gov. dismissed it as propaganda
• 2nd bomb dropped, Aug. 9
•  - same day: Sov. Un. entered war against Japan
•  - J. agreed to surrender, papers not yet signed
• Tokyo in final bombing raid, Aug. 14
•  - unconditional surrender Aug. 16

Origins of the Cold War: Dropping the A-Bomb

Assessing the Bomb's Impact on the Cold War

• Orthodox view

• Orthodox: end war & save millions of lives
• 1, island hopping campaign costly, more so for taking the main islands
•  - never seriously crossed their minds not to use the bombs
• 2, killing civilians bad, but that prohibition was long gone
•  - thought they'd save more lives than they took, didn't start the war but would finish it
• 3, decision = justified, moral, only reasonable choice
•  - racism was unimportant
•  - counterfactual: would they have used it against Berlin?

Origins of the Cold War: Dropping the A-Bomb

Assessing the Bomb's Impact on the Cold War

• Revisionist view

• though up about the time people stopped thinking the government was always right
• 1, knew the Japanese were about to surrender, in negotiations
•  - Eisenhower said it wasn't necessary
•  - also wasn't necessary to invade homelands
• 2, dont to intimidate USSR!
•  - used for diplomatic, political reasons - first shot of the cold war
•  - secretary of war talking about bomb as "matercard" in negotiations with the Russians
•  - use this extraordinary power to wring concessions from adversaries
• 3, no moral objections because of racism
•  - Japanese not quite human
•  - would NOT have dropped it on Berlin - it was immoral and illegal! (war crimes! It was only "moral" because they won! [according to a R/M ist])

Origins of the Cold War: Dropping the A-Bomb

Assessing the Bomb's Impact on the Cold War

• Post-Revisionist view: split the difference
• What did the Soviets think?

• 1, primary motivation: to end war
•  - maybe J would surrender, maybe not - not going to take that chance
• 2, atomic diplomacy = a bonus, not a reason
• 3, racism - hard to figure out
•  - not much of a debate so arguments weren't put out
•  - J. surrendered primarily because of Sov. Un, not bomb, though that's what they SAID to save face
•  - counterfactual: not sure

• ---

  Stalin: balance of power has been destroyed
• set out to get his own bomb
• thought Truman used bomb to keep Sov.s out of J.
•  - Soviets wanted a piece of it so they entered the war
• bomb = atomic diplomacy, try to bully Sov.s
•  - Sov.s DEFINITELY thought so! This affected their actions in the Cold War

Cold War: Containment

• U.S. Policy: Containment
• Truman Doctrine

• Kennan's containment strategy:
• 1, strong point defense - not all parts =ly imp., hierarchy of interests
• 2, encourage Comm. split - not all comm.s are the same, nationalists first!
•  - same argument used in "war on terror," pit them against each other
• 3, be patient: USSR will collapse eventually! - all empires collapse eventually

• ---

  Truman Doctrine: 1947
• 1, what's the issue? - Britain weakened, can't help, Greece & Turkey threatened by Comm, Congress = isolationist, no intervention
• 2, oversell threat, changed U.S. interest - turned Gr. & Tur. into VITAL threats, Stalin not evil incarnate, not Uncle Joe the war ally
•  - need intervention in ANY totalitarian threat
• 3, Soviet reaction
•  - Truman is trying to intimidate us, but we don't give a damn!

Cold War: Berlin Crisis, 1948

• Trying to figure out what to do with Germany
• Brinksmanship (definition, information)

• G & F began working to try to create a united West Germany
• Sov.s = big losses in WWII, wanted control of all of Germany
• Stalin cut off access to W. Berlin - either start a war or give up W. Berlin!

• ---

  Brinksmanship: manipulation of a shared risk of war (or any highly undesirable outcome)
• it's all about raising the stakes, a game of chicken!
•  - make it so you can't swerve, even if you want to, and they know it - and you both want to avoid death
•  - toast/suit thing is similar: manipulation of risks

Cold War: Berlin Crisis, 1948

• U.S. Airlift, Stalin's reaction
• Germans as victims

• ---

  all land/water traffic to Berlin cut off
• U.S. monopoly of nukes, Stalin felt he needed to be tough - put the ball in Truman's court
• started an airlift, 13 000 tons/day for 324 days
• Stalin thought he gave Truman the last chance to avoid war, but Truman put the ball back in Truman's court
•  - didn't escalate because the Amer.s let it be known that they had flown in B-29 bombers, leaked that they could carry nukes - Stalin backed down!

• ---

  everybody hated the Germans in 1948, blockade made the Germans into victims of totalitarianism, not war criminals
•  - important change in thought that helped Germany become more integrated into Europe

Cold War: Korean War, 1950-53

• Background

• divided at 38th parallel after WWII
•  - Comm. north, Western south
• N. Korea had military advantage, tries to "liberate" SK
•  - U.S. intervened, started losing
•  - General MacArthur: great move at Inchon, put them back at the 38th parallel
• containment says: stop there!
• - decided to go farther North knowing the Chinese might intervene
•  - U.S. got asses kicked - longest retreat in mili. history
•  - ceasefire (not treaty) @ 38th parallel again, continues today

Cold War: Korean War, 1953

• Realist explanations
• Liberal explanations

• 1, distribution of power? (But Korea was on the periphery!)
• 2, U.S. interests? (Sounds like Truman Doctrine, save them from totalitarianism - not realism!)
• 3, fear of bandwagoning? (Don't want our allies to lose confidence in US if we let Korea get taken over! - but that means that all peripheral interests become core!)

• ---

  1, from strong point to universal, all threats the same
• 2, NSC 68: "clearer than truth" - "a defeat of free institutions anywhere is a defeat everywhere" (no more hierarchy of interests)
• ANTITHESIS of Kennan's containment strategy... but still a domestic focus!

Cold War

What caused the Cold War?

• Realist explanations
• Liberal explanations
• Marxist explanations

• Why did we end up in a confrontation at all?
• the 2 most powerful countries, only had each other to fear - only natural!
•  - MAYBE revisionist goals, but mostly just that they were the balancing hegemons

• ---

  not structurally determined! If Britain had been the other power, it would have been fine
• product of USSR's domestic political system and how the US responded
• liberal state's distrust of illiberal states - perceived as illegitimate because it didn't protect the 3 freedoms

• ---

  1 capitalist, 1 communist: will produce different types of foreign policy
•  - imperialist vs. spread of social systems
• radical Marxist: Soviet Union responding to US's atomic diplomacy, division of Germany, creation of NATO against Warsaw Pact - US much more bellicose!

Cold War

What kept it cold? Realist explanations

• Balance of power
• Nuclear Weapons
• Peace in Europe? US hegemony!

• never got into conflict, but lots of opportunites! 

• ---

  short peace after 1919 (Germany weakened, multipolarity)
• long peace after WWII - bipolarity, simplicity of the system

• ---

  focus on capablities: nukes = TREMENDOUS capabilities!
• nuclear exchange = end of civilization!
• MAD = revolutionary change in military strategy - the loser can still kill the winner!
•  - extremely stable, if terrifying, situation

• ---

  after war, Europe MOST worried about the USSR - B&F also worried about Germans
• Answer: NATO! 
•  - keep Russians out of Europe, Americans in Europe, and Germans down

Cold War

What kept it cold? Realist explanations

• Liberal critique of realist explanations

• BoP, yes, but what about power transition theory? No actual war, and the US didn't take action as the Sov. Union was collapsing
• nukes: important, but emphasis on learning
•  - came to a mutual understanding on how to deal with nukes
•  - Ex: no defensive nuke systems (counterintuitive, but they're destablizing)
•  - we develop a defensive shield, no longer a MAD world - they have a window of opportunity if they find out we're making one, MASSIVE arms race & not increasing anybody's security at all
•  - therefore, mutual understanding
• no war in Europe? NATO?
•  - No, democratic peace as always!

Cold War

Why not more cooperation? (Liberal question!)

• USSR not a liberal democracy
• Domestic politics

• USSR not a liberal democracy, distrust of illiberal states, no 3 freedoms

• ---

  1, in the USSR
•  - Kennan: needed an adversary to justify its dictatorship (the menace of capitalism abroad)
•  - Gordon: similar argument of late/rapid industrialization:
•     - state: absence of capitalism, centralized/bureaucratic, absence of democracy, 
•     - society: weak society, not a strong sense of national identity, need a foreign threat for cohesion! (diversionary war)
• 2, in the US
•  - poisoned relations w/Soviets (atomic diplomacy, Truman Doctrine, NSC-68)
•  - rollback vs. containment
•  - McCarthyism: doesn't matter who they are but what: commies!

Cold War

Why not more cooperation? (Liberal Question!)

• Peace in Europe? 
• Realist critiques

• democratic peace, of course

• ---

  tension: not democracies, so there should have been war!
• peace in Europe: wealthy! less aggressive, already have what they already want
•  - even if they're in debt - they have the Marshall Plan for that!

Cold War

Explaining the Soviet Collapse

• Realists
• Liberals
• Marxists

• external & internal pressure!
•  - aggressive foreign policy - Gadis
•  - economy collapsing (only relevant b/c it deals w/capablities!)

• ---

  Gorby's beliefs
•  - change in beliefs --> change in material capabilites
•   -vice versa for Realists

• ---

  socialism in one country doesn't work!
• Lenin made blunder - tried to skip a stage (capitalism)
• Trotsky: deformed worker state

Gulf War: Decision to go on the Offensive

• Background

• crucial decision: to go on the offensive against Iraq
•  - "new world order"

1. Aug. 2, 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait
2. mid-Sept: 150 000 troops stationed in Saudi
3. mid-Nov.: after mid-term elections, US forces up to 400 000
4. Jan 17, 199: war begins (ends late Feb.) - air strike, 39 days - ground war, 100 hours - did not march to Baghdad brought lots of criticism, now looked at differently
5. 1992: Bush loses re-election to Clinton 

Gulf War: Decision to Go On the Offensive

Liberalism & the Gulf War

• International Law & Human Rights
• Realist critiques

• international law: official reason, Saddam had invaded a sovereign country
•  - against the "new world order"
• human rights: Bush horrified by Saddam's human rights abuses
• *critique: if it was international law, why did the US only respond to this, not when Iraq invaded Iran - we actually HELPED them then!)
•  - R: international law is a tool!
• *critique: human rights? US did nothing in Saddam's previous abuses, was a US ALLY in 1980s

Gulf War: Decision to Go On the Offensive

Liberalism & the Gulf War

• Learning Lessons of Munich
• U.S. domestic politics: Bush up for re-election

• don't appease dictators!
•  - encouraged to think in terms of appeasement by Margaret Thatcher
• *critique: (kinda weak) maybe or maybe not influenced by Munich analogy
•  - analogy doesn't influence policy, policy influences selection of powerful Hitler analogy
• *critique: maybe the analogy did influence them but it shouldn't have! Saddam didn't have Hitler's military capabilities, so it's the wrong lesson!

• ---

  was looking bad for Bush, broke promise on no new taxes!
•  - DIVERSIONARY WAR! short, successful!
•  - said the econ. sanctions they were using weren't working (but it's mostly just that it would take more time than the Bush admin had)
•  - containment = patience! (think Kennan)
• *critique: rally-round-round-the-flag = temporary, bad timing for election boost
• *critique: lots of people without political objectives supported the war - Bush went to war because he thought it was right

Gulf War

Realism & the Gulf War

• National interest: oil & maintain regional balance
• Critiques

• U.S. has vital national interest in maintain access to oil, needs balance of power in control over oil
• Carter Doctrine: use "any means necessary" to maintain access to oil 
• Kuwait had oil, US didn't want Saddam to have possession of it
•  - Saddam would have the West in the palm of his hand!
• *critique: oil's importance exaggerated!
•  - J. & G. more dependent than US and they opposed the war!
•  - debate over how much power it'd even give to the Iraqis - Saddam would sell it and couldn't manipulate the price TOO much
• *Liberal critique: not about oil, about IL & human rights
•  - had Iraq somehow peacefully annexed Kuwait, U.S. would NOT have invaded Kuwait (Realist: it wouldn't have been in the nat. interest to look like assholes - it wasn't what Iraq did, it was how they did it)

Gulf War

Marxism & the Gulf War

• Imperialism
• Military-Industrial Complex

• just old-fashioned imperialism!
•  - needs to maintain access to oil, cheap oil!
•  - same as R argument but presented differently, capitalist motivation (national interest doesn't make it a just interest!)
•  - no justification: imperialism!

• ---

  demands of the military-industrial complex!
• in hands of "friendly royals," like the Saudis, it's OK - not in the hands of terrorists
• industrial: good war for industrial corporatism/profits!
• military: military contracts, military wants resources & respect, got that from WAR

Gulf War

Marxism & the Gulf War

• Critiques

• oil wasn't that important
• military-ind. complex: no evidence that companies supported war
•  - might have been more in their interest if Saddam had raised the price of their oil - more value for them
•  - post hoc explanation!
• military: joint chiefs of staff opposed the war! (Schwarzkopf!)
•  - war would set back the US for a long time in the region
•  - military didn't want war, civilians did

Yugoslavia

Breakup of Yugoslavia

• Emerged out of Habsburg/Ottoman Empire - ethnic makeup
• WWII: Tito's Victory

• Germans invaded in 1941 --> civil war
•  - Serb nationalists (Chetniks)
•  - Croats (Utashes)  - sided with Hitler
•  - Communists (Partisans) - led by Tito, won BRUTAL civil war

• ---

  communist party rule
• stopped ethnic nationalism
• 6 republics: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia
• 2 provinces: Kosovo, Vojvodina (semi-autonomous but not vote in Yugoslavia)

Yugoslavia

Breakup of Yugoslavia

• After Tito
• Slovenian/Croatian Independence

• after Tito = after prohibition of nationalism!
• Serb nationalism emerges
•  - Kosovo, 10% Serbs, wanted to be 7th Republic
•  - minority Serbs afraid of this, didn't want to be a minority in an Albanian-dominated republic
• Rise of Milosevic
•  - exploited Serb nationalism, worked well for him but all the leaders knew it was dangerous!
•  - other Rep.s getting concerned, start to see rise for all kinds of nationalism - proven in elections!
• Slovenian independence, but Croat-Serb war
•  - basically no Serbs in Slovenia
•  - Croatia had Serbs who did NOT want to live under Croats - basically wanted to join Serbia
•  - Serbs controlled army, crushed Croats, who eventually started fighting effectively with "ethnic cleansing"
•  - Serbs responded, ethnic cleansing of Croats
•  - Dec.: Croatia in 1/2, Serbs controlled about 1/3

Yugoslavia

International Reaction

• US reaction
• European reaction

• "no dog in that fight" - US had no vital interest or stake - other big problems to deal with, let Europe deal with Europe

• ---

  Germany: demands internat. recognition of Croatia as the only way to stop the war
•  - Amer./Brit: NO! That'll only make things worse!
•  - Bosnians: don't do it! would leave Bosnia alone, the most multi-ethnic of all the Republics
•  - would put them in the same position of Kosovo, dominated & out-voted by Serbs
• They could either do nothing (mercy of Serbs) or declare independence (war w/Serbs)
• Germany won the debate, Croat independence, peacekeepers sent to Bosnia to "monitor"

Yugoslavia

Serb Paramilitary Slaughters Bosnian Muslims

• "Ethnic cleansing"

• extremist military Serbs, supported by Milosevic, go to war against Bosnia - less war than slaughter
• "Ethnic cleansing" term came about
•  - elimination of an ethnic group from territory
•  - eliminating the group's ability to fight back (killing boys)
•  - terrorize civilians so that future political reconciliation is impossible
• had issues getting peaceful Bosnian Serbs to kill their Muslim neighbors, terrorized them into doing it
• refugees POURED out of Bosnia - and this is the NWO??
• 2 years, 100 000 Bosnians of all ethnicities killed

Yugoslavia

Serb Paramilitary Slaughters Bosnian Muslims

• International Reaction

• moral condemnation & economic sanctions
•  - almost nothing done
•  - Clinton wanted to bomb them, Europe against it
•  - called a "humanitarian crisis," not "state-supported mass murder"
• role for UNPROFOR
•  - located in Sarajevo, "supposed" to protect Bosnians, STOP war
•  - although it was really neutral in the conflict, only there to "monitor" the peace, protect UN personnel
• Sarajevo = UN "safe area," so people congregated there!
•  - once one of the most cosmopolitan cities in Europe
•  - 1995: 8-10 thousand Muslim men & boys killed in Srebrenica, another "safe area"

Somalia

Soviet Collapse Ends US Interest In Somalia

• US support ends 1989
•  - US aid = 1/4 of Somali budget!
• Anarchy, war, and famine!
•  - major drought after US left!
•  - 4.5 million people on the edge of starvation

Somalia

Famine & US/UN Intervention

• Bush's decision
• Aideed (warlord) kills Pakistani/US troops
• Results of US intervention
• Assessing the intervention

• Bush decides to help out, intervene with troops/supplies

• ---

  Oct 3, 95: Black Hawk down, Oct. 5, Clinton decides to pull out

• ---

  prevented famine! (for about 4 million people!)
• anarchy
• reluctant to intervene in humanitarian interests
• - purely humanitarian, US soldiers took fatality --> Rwanda!?

• ---

  continued econ. aid --> no government collapse, would have addressed famine, for $40-60 million
•  - instead, intervention cost $7.3 billion + lives lost + subsequent nightmare (pirates, Al-Qaeda allies)

Somalia

Somalia Today

• 4 parts

• ICU emerges (Islamic Courts Union) & essentially unites country - moderate Islamist group
• 2005: CIA backs warlords against them

• ---

  US backs 2006 Ethiopian invasion
• ICU splits up, leads Al-Shabab, MUCH more radical!

• ---

  2009, Ethiopians leave, US backs moderate Islamist gov. against Al-Shabab & Al Qaeda

• ---

  2010: Shabab, Hizbul Islam (also radical, connection to AQ?), pirates, AQ
• cutting off the $ led to all this?!?! --> chain reaction!

Rwanda

Habyrimia Under Seige

• Economy collapses
• RPF (Rwandan Patriotic Front) attacks RGF (Rwandan Gov. Forces)
• International community demands political reforms

• app. 85% Hutu, 15% Tutsi
• 1987, primary export (coffee) price fell 50% - 90% of Rwandans had been living at subsistence level, now completely dependent on foreign aid

• ---

  RPF (primarily exiled Tutsis) attacks Oct. '90 - RGF only able to defeat them b/c of French help
• Interahamwe (civilian militias) formed

• ---

  political reforms demanded: multiparty system, democracy, minority (Tutsi) rights
• Hutu President didn't have much of a choice, foreign (esp. French) aid CRUCIAL

• power share
•  - 50% Tutsi officer core (where the power is at!), 40% rank
•  - repatriation of refugees
•  - ceasefire
•  - transitional gov.
• UNAMIR (UN Assistance Mission for Rwanda) provide protection?
•  - WRONG! Only "monitor" peace, barely could support themselves in the field, much less the Tutsis in combat (UNAMIR=UNPROFOR!)
• Int.nat. community demands immediate compliance
•  - opposition to let any Tutsis in gov. (gov jobs vs. subsistence living = good job!)
• reports of violence against civilians, Interahamwe violence, etc.
• April 3, 94: demanded Rwandan pres. comply immediately

Rwanda

Genocide & Civil War

• (3 parts)

• political decapitation begins, 4/6/94
• Pres.'s plane blown up, probably by Hut extremists
•  - violence starts, LISTS of Tutsis & moderate Hutus to KILL
•  - probably designed to permanently disrupt Arusha peace process

• ---

  Belgians leave, cripples UNAMIRE - all countries except Ghana: protect selves first!
• Belgians = 3rd-largest component w/heavy weapons & communication equipment

• ---

  RPF enters April 8, conquers RGF, mid-July 
•  - 200 000 refugees in Tanzania in 24 hours
•  - 1 million to Zaine (DRC) in 3 days, 500/minute

Rwanda

Genocide & Civil War

• Possible causes of civil war
• Possible causes of genocide

• 1, colonialism - Belgians established passport-like system that distinguished H from T
• 2, external support of Hutus (France, Catholic Church)
• 3, external support of Tutsis/RPF (US, South Africa)

• ---

  civil wars common but this was accompanied by genocide
• 1, extremist Hutu ideology
•  - evil leader exploited compliant, uneducated Hutu peasants (mob mentality/pressure to conform) - hate radio
•  - describes but doesn't really explain
• 2, Elitocide (kill of the other's elite, like Yugo.) + fear = genocide
•  - began as targeted killing, spread w/fear (fear of RPF invading)
• 3, inexplicable? Didn't explain an interest, Hutus not better off!

Rwanda

Rwanda Today

• doing great!
• GDP per capita about 3X what it was
• Kigani (Pres?) models after Singapore
•  - however, does not allow demo. institutions & leaves people little to identify with except their ethnic identity
•  - dare we intervene again and demand better human rights?

Rwanda

What Could Have Been Done?

• Window of Opportunity: April 7-21

• widely held as obvious
• tanks & big guns would have been effective

• ---

  logistics: lots of people with various weapons, had to get troops and ALL equipment into landlocked country w/280 miles of paved roads that can't support heavy equipment
•  - would have taken 2 weeks to get everybody in anyway
• ZERO political will: just got out of Somalia, no pop./elite/Congressional support, already dealing with Yugoslavia/prepared invasion of Haiti
• intelligence: when did the West know it was genocide? You could argue that they didn't know until about 20 days in, plus the time it would take to get troops in
•  - Realist: intervention could not have been done in a timely way! If liberals hadn't tried to push power sharing/democracy, it wouldn't have happened!

Rwanda

What Could Have Been Done?

• Could the genocide have been stopped?

• YES! If you knew what was coming
•  - Belgian & German colonial policies
•  - Hutu Pres. could have allowed Tutsis back in country before civil war
•  - listen to Dallaire's warning of genocide, not drowned out w/normal levels of violence
•  - great powers shouldn't have meddled in the first place
•  
• "Genocide is a cheese sandwich." - nobody gives a damn about a cheese sandwich!

Darfur

• has been happening since 2004 and we've known about it!!
• know what to do about it and haven't!
•  - although, it has been getting more and more difficult to tell what's going on
• ICC (International Criminal Court) indicted al-Bashir, 2008
• created UNAMID in 2007, to protect Darfurians
•  - had no helicopters until Ethiopia gave them 5, recently... they need about 100

Iraq War

• Realist explanations
• Realist explanations against the war

• 1, WMDs! The fact that Saddam didn't have them didn't matter, only mattered that they thought he did - every intel agency thought so!
• 2, anti-appeasement, assertive unilateralism
•  - demonstration of US power, don't care about alliances
• 3, Terrorism: Al Qaeda
•  - Bush didn't miss an opportunity to link AQ to Saddam

• ---

  1, deterrence and containment works
•  - tough sanctions working, he's not going anywhere
• 2, war & occupation is risky
•  - preventive war (committing suicide out of fear of death - Bismarck)
• 3, Iraq & war on terror UNRELATED! - not operationally connected at ALL!

Iraq War

• Liberal explanations
• Liberal explanations against the war

• 1, overthrow brutal dictator/human rights violations
• 2, war for democracy!
•  - idealistic, transforming Middle East for spread of democracy

• ---

  1, no to unilateralism, yes to UN & IL (international society!)
•  - have to work through the international society to make the invasion legit
• 2, don't spread democracy by military force
•  - unless you're a neocon, but even Max Boot said you have to be willing to spend the time and $ to do it right

Iraq War

• Marxist explanations (against war)
• *Counterargument

• 1, Oil & imperialism!
•  - everybody knew it! It just wasn't politically convenient to say that out loud
• 2, corporate contracts mean big $$ for the corporations!
• *Counterargument: expected to get a modest return of oil
•  - would the government really spend hundreds of billions to get the oil w/out a big payoff, even if the corporations have a lot of clout?

Ziegler

Results of WWI and WWII

• What are the 4 main features of the Versailles Treaty? What was the war guilt clause? 

• new borders for Germany (smaller territory)
• new states - principle of national self-determination for Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, not Germany
• disarmament (almost NO military for Germany)
• repatriation, exorbitant amounts to repay
•  - war guilt clause: it's all Germany's fault
•  - compensate for starting war
•  - if they don't pay, which they couldn't, the victors could occupy Germany if they chose

Ziegler

Results of WWI and WWII

• How was Hitler able to rearm? Why did the Allies react as they did? What's the "toast" thing?

• H said it was b/c Ger's disarmament was supposed to be followed by other states
•  - they didn't, J. justified massive buildup
• Europe was pacifist, did NOT want to get into another war
• "give me your toast or I'll blow my brains out on your suit" - Hitler to Europe
•  - cheaper for Europe (Allies) to buy more bread (appease him) than buy a new suit (war), even if they COULD call his bluff
•  - brinksmanship!

• to convince the rest of the world that he wasn't expansionist
• didn't want to fight a 2-front war (USSR & F/B wouldn't go over well)
• more about timing - he'd take over eventually
• essentially, Stalin was duped

• ---

  Britain held off on rearming
• therefore, they took their time and had superior planes
• they were less rushed to mass-produce cheap materials

• U.S. came out of its self-imposed isolationism
• USSR came out of its externally-imposed isolationism
•  - US still the stronger country & infrastructure wasn't devastated
•  - had the bomb!!
• Germany divided & conquered
• Britain had to focus on rebuilding, rather than staying a great power - only had a war economy
• France devastated, only really a winner on paper

Kennan

The Sources of Soviet Conduct

• What was Soviet foreign policy like? Balance of power of ideology or something else?
• Can the security dilemma explain Soviet conduct?

• fight capitalism outside once it was eradicated inside (o secure regime at home!)
•  - anti heroes!
• diversionary war!
• pursuit of unlimited domestic authority

• ---

  looks like a security dilemma/arms race
• Kennan: no, Russia'a agenda was driven by domestic politics
•  - it was expansionary, not SQ
•  - it was in no rush to get into war, knew there was no "deadline" for global communism

• containment: Soviet Union's lack of timetable = they'd back down if pushed
• need to be patient but firm
•  - no histrionics
•  - constant, long-term pressure because the Kremlin is flexible!
• ? could lead to self reform? Because of internal problems?

• ---

  liberal: ideological explanations about internal actions
•  - policy recommendations linked to that - based policy on analysis of domestic politics & ideology

Ziegler

The Cold War and the Korean War

• Why is the Cold War called the Cold War?
• Why did the Western powers accept Russsian acquisition of the Eastern European states?
• What was the Truman Doctrine and its significance? How did the US and the Soviet Union interpret the Truman Doctrine?

• no battle, war of ideology - no direct conflict, only proxy wars

• ---

  felt that Russians deserved it for their huge losses in WWI (liberal reason!)
• Red Army occupying area, couldn't force them out w/out WWIII (realist)

• ---

  pledge from US to support free peoples resisting subjugation by armed minorities & outside pressure (meaning: Comm. insurgents & Sov. pressure)
• Soviets: US just being aggressive/expansionist (offensive)
• US: no, us trying to stop communism (defensive)
• each side thought they were on the defensive, the other offensive

• make econ. assistance available to any country in Europe
• - vulnerable to Comm. countries w/weak economies after WWII - prop up economy
• incompatible w/USSR & bloc, would lose control over their econ.s
•  - also, wanted to keep US influence OUT!

• ---

  2 superpowers, all the other gravitate towards one or the other
• more stable than multipolarity
•  - not a lot of confusion, 2 clear policies
•  - balanced system, more stable
•  - makes skirmishes less of a big deal - flexibility in alliances
• multipolarity: Austria's one action --> WWI, buck got passed who deals w/Germany when it's "everybody's responsibility" (so no one's)
• Western bloc (NATO) and Eastern bloc (Warsaw Pact)

Ziegler

The Cold War and the Korean War

• What policy changes did the US make in Asia as a result of the Korean War? (Compare the 3 dimensions of those plans)
• What was Acheson's defense perimeter? (The "Acheson line")

• changed policy from containment (Kennan) to rollback (Truman)
• How/what to defend?
•  - Kennan: strong point defense, hierarchy of interests
•  - Truman: univeral defense, vital interests everywhere
• Split up communists?
•  - Kennan: Yes! They're nationalists first!
•  - Truman: No, a commie is a commie - no differentiation
• Have patience?
•  - Kennan: Yes, they'll break up eventually so just encourage it by pitting them against each other
•  - Truman: less patient - why stop at 38th parallel when you can invade NK?
• Acheson line: a "defensive line," didn't include SK - NK/China were hopeful US wouldn't respond to SK invasion

John Lewis Gaddis

The Long Peace

• What is Gaddis's puzzle?
• What is systems theory and how does the Cold War fit the criteria for "stability?"
• Does Gaddis believe in intentions or capabilities?

• why is it that the precarious system after WWI brought stability during the Cold War? 

• ---

  It was a bipolar system!
• independent variable: bipolarity vs. multipolarity
•  - dependent variable: stability vs. instability
• (Systems theory??) measure stability by:
•  - no one nation dominant
•  - most members of individual countries survive
•  - no large scale war

• ---

  capabilities! --> REALIST! (structure of SYSTEM, only intnat. pol.s)

John Lewis Gaddis

The Long Peace

• What are the structural elements of stability? (Why does bipolarity generate stability?)
• Does Gaddis think that interdependence in important for peace? Why or why not?

• 1, reflects where military power is - concentrated at two poles
•  - therefore, only 2 countries have the ability to shape IR
• 2, doesn't require sophisticated leadership to maintain
•  - system FORCES leaders to be cautious (even if they're terrible statesmen)
• 3, alliances are stable
•  - alliances stem from insecurity
•  - only source of insecurity: the other superpower!
• 4, defections from alliances tolerated
•  - little countries don't fundamentally alter BoP

• ---

  No, independence better! Interdependence escalates war (WWI!)

John Lewis Gaddis

The Long Peace

• To what degree can domestic politics explain the stability of the Cold War?
• What are the behavioral mechanisms of stability?
• What role did nuclear weapons play for the stability of the cold war?

• domestic explanations don't really matter (Gaddis is a realist!) - they don't assume war is inevitable

• ---

  "behavioral" meaning characteristics of the time period
• nuclear weapons --> caution! 
•  - clear cost-benefit analysis
• reconnaissance revolution
• ideological moderation

• ---

  guaranteed 2nd strike capability, you KNOW you won't win the war
•  - MAD made it more stable
•  - even MORE stable if everybody had nukes!

John Lewis Gaddis

The Long Peace

• What is the "reconnaissance revolution" and what role did it play in the cold war?
• How important or unimportant is ideology in explaining the cold war?
• Why did the Sov. Un. shift its position regarding ideological interests?

• reconnaissance revolution (reconnaissance satellite)
•  - no sneak attacks possible, calms your fears in crisis if you KNOW what the other side is doing
•  - transparency helps alleviate security dilemma

• ---

  ideological moderation
•  - played a suppressant role
•  - conflicting ideologies moderated over the course of the war (the the same reason that leaders were cautious - the structure of the international system!)
•  - not because of the domestic systems - materials drive ideals and not vice versa

John Lewis Gaddis

The Long Peace

• What were they key rules of the game between the USSR and the US?

• 1, respect spheres of influence
• 2, avoid direct military confrontation
• 3, use nukes only as a last resort
• 4, prefer predictable anomaly over unpredictable rationality
•  - don't trade the familiar for the unpredictable
• 5, don't seek to undermine the other side's leadership

Miller and Yetiv

The New World Order in Theory and Practice

• What is the concept of the New World Order in the post Cold War period? How does it different for the world order during the Cold War period?
• What made the New World Order possible?
• Why was Bush determined to check aggression?

• generating stability in the internat. system
• international cooperation (legitimacy, mutual protection)
• promoting US interests (if other states' interests conflict, the US will not be afraid to do what it must, even w/out multilateral support)

• 1, conditions at the end of the cold war (cooperation)
• 2, Gulf crises (articulate & test Bush's vision of NWO)
• appeasement is dangerous
• failure to check aggression could lead to future problems
•  -- > Examples: Iraq/Kuwait, served as a warning, not an appeasement green light for future dictators

Miller and Yetiv

The New World Order in Theory and Practice

• What are the three key dimensions of the new world order? Did they lead to a clear and well-planned policy?

• checking aggression 
•  - US will use force if needed, blatant aggression not tolerated
• collective action
•  - legitimacy, mutual protection - not just the US being a bully
• great power cooperation
•  - same idea, don't exclude Russia

Miller and Yetiv

The New World Order in Theory and Practice

• Why did Bush prefer collective UN action, even thought US could have pursued a more unilateral approach?
• Why did the US not remove Saddam from power in 1991?
• Why did the Sov. Un. not support Iraq, which was one of Moscow's key allies during the Cold War?

• would help counter Saddam's accusations of US imperialism
•  - would galvanize opinion, legitimize US action
• would still have gone in w/out support but it looked good to have support
• R: The US and UN had the same self interests so they worked together

• ---

  checking aggression - more like Kennan (NWO)
• UN mandate only covered liberation of Kuwait
• don't piss off allies
• US military also didn't think it was a good idea

• ---

  more interested in Western support than relations with Iraq

• R: NWO = interests of USA
• US hegemon, unipolar power advancing its own interests
•  - others bandwagoned in their own interests

• ---

  L: emphasis on joint watchdog mentality/collective security/IOs
• spread democracy (probably not their immediate aim...)
• rule of law
• human rights

• ---

  M: method for corp.s to seek profits (proxy for corporate interests --> classes!)
• state imperialism - all about keeping the flow of oil wealth in cap. states

Stoessinger

From Sarajevo to Kosovo

• Who was Tito, and how did he manage to keep power over multi-ethnic Yugoslavia?
• Who was Milosevic, and how did he come to power? What were the major national/ethnic groups in Yugoslavia at the time?
• What was Milosevic's main political motivation?

• communist leader of Yugoslavia after WWII/civil war
• forbid nationalism, curbed multi-ethnic issues by authoritarian reign

• ---

  overthrew his best friend/mentor who succeeded Tito (Ivan Stambolic)
•  - Serb nationalist
• Albanians Muslims from Kosovo, wanted more autonomy
•  - Milosevic comes, stirs up Serbs against Stambolic's advice, turns them actively against the Albanians
• did the same thing in Vojvodina

• ---

  wanted a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia

• Croat-dominated Slovenia pulls out of Yugoslavia, no big deal
• Croatia wanted the same thing, conflict between them and Serb nationalists who wanted to stay under Serb rule (Croats made up about 2/3 of Croatia)

• ---

  Bosnia = most diverse population, if Croatia broke away, the Bosnian Muslims would be completely under Serb rule
• torn b/w declaring independence and being under Serb rule
• ethnic cleansing in Srebrenica
•  - UN director there helped Bosnian Muslims to evacuate so the Serbs wouldn't just kill them
•  - put them in "safe zones" where the Muslims could go, but it just made it easier for Serbs to kill them - rounded them up and provided false protection, Srebrenica surrounded

• temporary partition
• free elections (but Hague war criminals couldn't participate)
• NATO implementation
• move freely throughout country

• ---

  wanted to get rid of all the non-Serbs!
• 1, crush Kosovo Liberation Army
• 2, change ethnic balance of power
• 3, overwhelm NATO with a relief crisis - even if they focus on refugees, they can't respond militarily
• (Plus it would enhance his political status with the Serbs and guarantee his continued hold on power...)

• western media in Kosovo
• Western public saw Muslim Albanians being loaded into trains, invoked images of the Holocaust
• US & NATO: intense campaign of air strikes, succeeded in part

• ---

  immensity of the crime
• importance of the region to US interests
• presence of an IO capable of dealing with it

• tribunal put together by UN as an ad hoc court
• determined that massive human rights violations committed, Milosevic and 4 advisors held responsible
• Milosevic COULD have turn in his military commanders, said they were acting out of his orders - instead, he was found guilty of helping to plan Operation Horseshoe

• ---

  Great Kosovo battle, 1389
• Ottomans beat Serbs, leads to HATRED of Muslims by Serbs, better to fight it out than live under Muslim domination
• not even true!
• led to want of united Yugoslavia by Serbs

• didn't know what was happening (IDK)
• knew but didn't care (FU)
• knew but realized anything they did would be helpless (FML)

• ---

  was in charge of UNAMIR
• nobody told him what was going on in Rwanda
• commanded horribly-supplied troops

• ---

  Pres. Habyarimana's plane blowing up, April 6

• Black Hawk Down - US gave purely humanitarian aid to Somalia, troops got killed & broadcasted on primetime TV
• lesson: peacekeeping in Africa = trouble

• ---

  had threatened the Hutus with pulling out UN peacekeepers
•  - but that's what they wanted! It's like telling the kids that if they misbehave, we'll send the babysitter home
• bias/trust towards Hutu-controlled state & negotiations
•  - information was taken from the Hutus!
• blindness by familiarity
•  - even the people who KNEW about Rwanda were used to a certain amount of violence, hard to see when that turned to genocide 

• take care of your own foreign nationals!
•  - could have instead used their efforts on peacekeeping efforts
• Hutus learned lesson from Somalia - put dead peacekeepers in front of a camera & the rest will be pulled out (tortured & killed 10 Belgian soldiers)

• ---

  very aware! (according to Samantha Power)
•  - Joyce Leader: 3 types of killings
•  - Dallaire's reports

• ---

  according the the rules of the Genocide Convention, it would have compelled them to act

Samantha Power

Bystanders to Genocide (Rwanda)

• What was the response to Brussels's request for "cover?"
• How important was the use of radio in the genocide? What are some things that could have been done to stop radio broadcasts? What was the American response to these proposals?

• agreed not to support a US military intervention, demands for UN withdrawal

• ---

  very important!
• hate radio, would coordinate chases/murders and broadcast names & addresses that were on the kill lists
• US could have easily stopped it:
•  - destroy antenna
•  - transmit "counter-broadcasts" urging people not to kill each other...
•  - jam the signal
• US (Pentagon) response: too costly, won't achieve much

Samantha Power

Bystanders to Genocide (Rwanda)

• What were Clinton's 3 aims?
• How do policy officials view their performance in retrospect?

• avoid engagement in a conflict in which there was little risk for US interests
• appease restless Congress by showing they were careful with peacemaking (after Somalia, presumably)
• contain the political and moral implications associated with allowing genocide (make it look like he was doing something without actually doing anything)

• ---

  3 groups:
•  - defend US actions unconditionally
•  - say that the situation was out of control, and we couldn't have done much anyway
•  - wished they'd have known more, done more at the time

Samantha Power

Dying in Darfur

• Who are the main ethnic/national groups in Sudan?
• Where is Darfur? Who are the perpetrators and who are the victims of ethnic cleansing?
• What are "janjaweed," and what role do they play in the conflict?
• Who are the Sudanese Liberation Army, and what are their political motivations?

• Arabs/Muslims/government in the north
•  - Africans/some Christians/more diversity in the south
•  - ethnically distinguished Africans & Arabs in Darfur

• ---

  NW part of Sudan
• mastermind: Sudanese gov., hired nomadic Arab janjaweed to put down Darfur's SLA (Sudanese Liberation Army), a rebel group made of both Africans and Arabs
•  - (but they mostly just kill Africans)
• SLA wanted better representation in gov/for their concerns to be included in the US-backed peace process between North and South

• Musa Hilal = government's Sheik agent in Darfur
•  - generally greedy (for money and power)

• ---

  President of Sudan
•  - 1, ethnic cleansing, Kosovo style
•  - 2, Didn't want to lose Darfur to SLA's demands like he had lost the south (or was in the process of) - Hired Hilal, who got off his leash and pushed ethnic cleansing further than al-Bashir was OK with

• ---

  reference US's inability to control Iraq
• attempt to hide evidence of genocid

• (see Pendergast's 5 reasons)

• ---

  dead, refugees, or jailed

• ---

  Clinton: more confrontational
• Bush: based on his faith beliefs

Pendergast & Ismail

Genocide in Darfur: How Sudan covers it up

• How does the Genocide Convention define genocide?
• In what ways do the authors say the Sudanese government is covering up evidence of human rights crimes?

• genocide: when a party intends to destroy - in whole or in part - a particular group of people based on their identity

• ---

  Bashir threw out aid agencies, most of which were working quietly to support/protect thousands of victims of sexual assault
• gov. has systematically denied access to the UN/AU observer missions to investigate attacks on civilians - attacks go unreported, culpability remains mysterious
• humanitarian "black spots," aid agencies can't go there and leave Darfurians unreached by food and medical aid
• systematically denied access to journalists and human rights groups, repressed independent Darfurian civil society groups, no means of independently gathering information or evidence on crimes
• intimidated aid agencies & UN bodies, so no independent info gets released because it would mean expulsion of those groups

Max Boot

Liberal Empire Strikes Back

• What is liberal imperialism?
• How does Boot view the history of US imperialism and the WMB? Overall, was it something beneficial?
• Marxists say US imperialism is always driven by econ. interests. Boot's response?

• "aims to instill democracy in lands that have  known tyranny, in the hope that doing so will short-circuit terrorism, military aggression, and weapons proliferation"

• ---

  mixed success, greater success where we stayed longer
• weight of the WMB encouraged them to annex the  Philippines

• ---

  No! the longest occupations were typically where we had the smallest econ interest (Nicaragua, Haiti, Dominican Republic)
•  - least likely to intervene when we had the biggest stakes (Argentica, Costa Rica)

• economic interest: can add areas to the world free-trade system, within which American prospers
• idealistic interest: US has a duty to save people from starvation, ethnic cleansing, and tyranny - WMB!
• national security: (post 9/11)
•  - Afghanistan: we can only imagine what might have happened if the US had helped build up Afghanistan after the USSR fell - AQ & Taliban might never have entered...

• ---

  subjugate natives vs. bring democracy and rule of law
• racial prejudices vs. self-defense and human rights doctrins
• unilateral vs. usually having international approval