Lecture Notes History of International Relations - IRIO - RUG

Lecture 1

The Concert of Europe

Establishment

In the early 19^th century, the French empire, led by Napoleon Bonaparte, attempted to conquer Europe. However, the combined coalition of the other European powers eventually lead to the defeat of France in 1815. After this return to the status quo, the Great Powers met in Vienna to discuss the establishment of a lasting peace in Europe. The five Great Powers were the most powerful states in Europe, who dominated not only their own continent but also colonized much of the known world. They included Great Britain, France (welcomed back despite its past actions), Russia, Prussia (later Germany after the German unification) and Austria (later Austria-Hungary after splitting into two semi-autonomous nations). This congress lead to the establishment of the Vienna System, more commonly known as the Concert of Europe. The general principle of the Concert of Europe was that the Great Powers would hold regular meetings and together govern international law and ensure European stability.

Success

This proved successful in ensuring the peace throughout the 19^th century thanks to four key factors. Firstly, the Concert served the interests of the Great Powers, allowing them to focus on colonial expansion and economic advancement instead of having to deal with the constant threat of potential war. Secondly, since all the major powers were benefitting from the collective security, they had no reason to break the peace and eliminate one another. In other words, there was no ‘zero-sum game’ in which the benefit of one Power would result in clear loss for another. Thirdly, the ‘balance of power’ politics ensured that no one Great Power would gain a clear superiority, as this would cause the other four to close ranks and form an opposing coalition in order to restore the balance. Finally, the Concert of Europe created a shared ‘way of doing things’ among the European elite, and thus cooperation was promoted. This included ideologies concerning colonialism and military strategy.

Long-Term Causes of WW1

There are a number of long-term circumstances and influences that contributed to the tensions building up to the First World War, which broke out in the summer of 1914. Four of the most notable are as follows.

Alliances

Firstly, the political flexibility upon which the balance of power, a discussed above, depended was stagnating as a result of rigid alliances forming between the great powers. Two key blocs emerged as a result of these alliances. On the one side there was the Dual Alliance of Germany and Austria-Hungary, which was established in 1879 and later became the Triple Alliance with the entry of Italy into the pact in 1882. On the other side, France and Britain formed the Entente Cordiale in 1904, later joined by Russia in 1907. With the balance of power disrupted in this fashion, conflict between these two coalitions seemed inevitable.

The Arms Race

Secondly, the scramble for military superiority resulted in an arms race between the various Powers. Germany and Great Britain fought over maritime superiority, while France and Russia faced off against Germany and Austria-Hungary in regards to land superiority. Gradually, it appeared that the Central Powers would not be able to keep up with the Entente Cordiale, leaving Germany and Austria-Hungary in a position of desperation. If war was to come, it had to come soon, otherwise the Triple Alliance would face definitive defeat because of the sheer military superiority of the Entente Cordiale.

War Plans

This connects with the third factor, namely the various war plans of the Great Powers. All of the Powers had established highly aggressive plans in case of a European war, with the expectation of a short and effective campaign leading to victory. Germany’s Schlieffen Plan, for example, was made in the case of a war against France and Russia, a war on two fronts. The underlying assumption was that Russia would take a longer time to assemble an offense due to its ongoing recovering after being defeated by Japan. Thus, Germany hoped to invade France by means of the neutral Belgium, bypassing its defensive fortifications and reaching Paris in a manner of weeks. With France defeated, Germany’s full force could then be turned against Russia. However, in light of the arms race discussed earlier, this plan would have to be put into effect very soon if it was to work, thus pressuring Germany into taking military action in a form of a pre-emptive strike.

World Policy

Finally, another point of tension was the ‘Weltpolitik’ or World Policy that became prominent in Germany and other Powers. The concept was that in order to become or remain a great empire, one must also attain a vast colonial power. Since Germany was late to the game of colonialism, with much of Africa and Asia already being colonized by the British and French, there grew a sense of unease in Germany about its position as a great power. Again, if things continued as they were, Germany would slowly disappear from relevance. Something had to be done to stop this from happening, even if this meant war.

Short-Term Causes of WW1

While all the factors above lead to a high tension between the various Powers, a ‘fuse’ still needed to be lit in order for war to break out. This came in the form of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the heir to the Austria-Hungarian throne, in Bosnia by a Serbian nationalist. This lead to Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia, again based on on-going long-term tension.

Only a few days after this war broke out, Germany’s Chancellor Bethman Hollweg provided Austria-Hungary a ‘blank cheque’, promising Germany’s unconditional support if war were to occur in Europe. On the other side, Russia was a close ally of Serbia, and thus was drawn into the War as well, along with France thanks to the Franco-Russian Alliance. With Germany and Austria-Hungary, the Central Powers, facing off against France and Russia, the Schlieffen Plan was put into action.

Great Britain had signed a treaty with the neutral Belgium promising military support in case of an invasion, but given the age of this treaty, Germany was counting on Britain refraining from entering the conflict. However, the double obligation of protecting Belgium and the Entente Cordiale with France caused Britain to do just that. Thus the two opposing parties were established and the First World War had begun.

The Triple Stalemate

According to the war plans established by the various powers, the war should have been over in a matter of weeks. However, it lasted from 1914 to 1918, a full four years, thus putting a huge burden on all involved parties. The reasons for this prolonged conflict are summarized in what is called the Triple Stalemate, a combination of 3 factors which together resulted in the impossibility of a quick solution.

Firstly, there was a diplomatic stalemate, as despite numerous secret meetings and attempts at negotiation, there appeared to be no possibility of compromise. Secondly, the military stalemate emerged as a result of trench warfare and the impossibility of any advancement of troops without huge losses thanks to the fortified positions of the defenders on both sides. Thirdly, there was also a stalemate at the home front. This took the form of a strong sense of nationalism and both civilian and military support of the war effort. In other words, with the exception of Russia, there was no major internal resistance to the conflict that could have pushed for peace.

It was not until 1917 that the stalemate started to break down, primarily thanks to the entry of the USA into the war. Aside from simply providing manpower to the Entente Cordiale, America also saved France and Great Britain from bankruptcy with much needed financial support. Additionally, America’s maritime power helped overcome the German blockade and reinitiate British supply and trade routes. Ultimately, Germany and Austria-Hungary were forced to accept defeat and sign an armistice in 1918, officially ending the war.

Paris Peace Treaty

After the war, a series of treaties were signed around Paris, which are collectively known as the Paris Peace Treaty. These treaties included the Treaty of Versailles with Germany, the Treaty of Trianon with Austria-Hungary and the Treaty of Sèvres with the Ottoman Empire. These documents contained two different elements.

Idealistic Element

The idealistic element of the treaties dealt with the establishment of lasting peace and a structure to replace the failed Concert of Europe. It is heavily based on Woodrow Wilson’s proposed ‘Fourteen Points’. These included themes such as open, transparent diplomacy as an alternative to the covert, informal discussions that often took place within the Concert. Additionally, self-determination was emphasized in regards to the various nations of eastern and central Europe. This lead to the separation of Austria Hungary into its various national components, as well as serving to create a number of ‘buffer states’ against the strange new power known as the Soviet Union arising in the east. Other points included the freedom of the seas, free trade, a general reduction of armaments and, most importantly, the creation of the League of Nations as a supra-national organization with the purpose of maintaining global peace.

Punitive Element

The treaties also came with a punitive element, that is, a list of consequences faced by the losing powers. This included a loss of territory, as seen by the returning of Alsace and Lorraine from German to French rule, the separation of Austria-Hungary and the separation of Poland from the German empire. The central powers also had to surrender all their colonies. Certain restrictions were also put in the Central Powers, such as a highly limited standing army and exclusion from diplomatic matters. Reparations, that is, repayment to the victors to make up for the costs of the long war, were also imposed. These reparations were impossibly high and crippled the German economy severely for many year henceforth. Finally, and perhaps most critically, the losers of the war had to accept a ‘war guilt clause’, assuming full responsibility for starting the war and causing all the destruction.

This last aspect in particular struck deep against German nationalism, and lead to the ‘stab in the back’ conspiracy, which argued that Germany had not in fact been losing the war, but had been betrayed by its own government and was now suffering the undeserved consequences. This fueled German spite and would prove immensely useful to the National Socialist (Nazi) party in rallying support behind Hitler.

The Rhineland Pact

Thus, ultimately the Paris Peace Treaty merely resulted merely in the end of the war, but did not succeed in creating a lasting peace. An attempt was made to reduce the once again growing tension within Germany with the Rhineland Pact of 1925. This agreement, signed by France, Belgium and Germany, allowed Germany to finally join the League of Nations, enabling renewed diplomatic relations. Additionally it established an inviolability of borders between these nations, safeguarding against another invasion. This Pact lead to a brief period of relative prosperity for Germany, known as the ‘Spirit of Locarno’. However, with the coming of the Great Depression, this prosperity and the underlying peace was not to last.

Developments Overseas

Away from the European stage, Japan was also undergoing change. After expectantly defeating Russia in the war of 1904-1905, Japan became increasingly involved in regional power struggles, particularly in regard to the Chinese mainland. Thus rapid power growth lead to Japan being recognized as a significant player in global politics, however this was done only reluctantly. Due to both Euro-centrism and racial presumptions, Japan was largely ignored. However, its rapid growth was eventually recognized as a threat to the residing Pacific maritime power of the USA. In an attempt to control this expansion, America attempted to establish a number of treaties with Japan at the Washington Conference. Japan managed to evade being controlled however, and gradually became more aggressive in its regional policies. By the time the Western powers took serious notice, it was already too late.

Lecture 2

Colonial Empires

The European Great Powers are perhaps best known for their sprawling colonial empires, having dominated most of the world in the name of imperialism. This colonization process can be tracked back for many centuries, however it was most prominent in the 19^th and early 20^th century as a result of industrialization.

Benefits

What made colonies so important to the Great Powers can be separated into two categories.

Firstly, we see the material benefits the colonizers reap. These include resources such as raw materials, commodities and foodstuffs, as well as a vast supply of manpower to serve as both labor or, in the case of war, as soldiers. These resources have the added benefit of promoting trade between the colonies and the metropolis, as well as helping establish a state of autarky, that is, self-sustainability. This helps protect the empire in times of economic hardship or large-scale war. Indeed, it was largely due to their vast overseas empires that Britain and France managed to outlast the Central Powers in the First World War.

Secondly, there are also non-material benefits of becoming a colonial power, namely a strong influence on world affairs as well as a level of prestige among the other Great Powers. The concept of ‘Weltpolitik’ discussed in the previous lecture links colonial power to a nation’s status as a Great Power in the first place.

Governance

Given how large colonial empires became by the start of the 20^th century, it is no surprise that the system of colonial governance became more complex as well. There are three general methods through which the Great Powers ruled their colonies.

The most obvious form of control was of course a direct rule over a colony, meaning national and regional governance was exclusively in the hands of the metropolitan Power. This method was predominantly used in African colonies where local leaders were deemed too ‘traditional’ and incapable of reliable self-rule.

Secondly, colonies such as India (under the British Empire) operated under a system of indirect rule where regional matters were allocated to local leaders while the Great Power held a more indirect form of power and dealt only with larger, national issues. These colonies became known as ‘protectorates’.

Finally, some colonies were provided with complete self-governance, though still having strong ties to the mainland. These included Canada and South Africa’s status towards Great Britain. These colonies are thus known as ‘dominions’ and operate independently from the metropolis.

The problem with this complex system of governance was that it became overly confusing and inefficient, with sometimes all three methods of ruling being found within the same general region, as was the case with Malaya. Additionally, as will be seen later, this gradual shift towards self-governance raised expectations towards ever greater independence from the colonizer.

Modernization

In order to maximize the benefits attained from their colonies, in the 20^th century the Great Powers embarked on a process of modernization. This took the form of a two-fold change for colonies, namely higher taxes to pay for the large-scale development, and an enhanced role for the indigenous populations in managing local and regional affairs.

This in turn eventually led to systems of representative government at all but the national level, and an increase in education for the local population. This proved to be a self-destructive strategy, as there was now a growing group of knowledgeable locals with a hunger for greater independence. The resultant wave of nationalism called for representation at the national level, threatening to destroy the hold the Great Powers had over many of their colonies. Calls for self-determination were also motivated by Woodrow Wilson’s fourteen points as discussed in the previous lecture.

Other Threats

Of course, this was by far not the only danger to the stability of the colonial empires in the early 20^th century.

The First World War taxed the colonies greatly in terms of both resources and manpower, as the Great Powers struggled to remain standing in the drawn-out conflict. With the European states severely weakened, their already strained grip on their overseas territories started to falter.

The fate of Germany’s former colonies was another issue. While officially under the mandate of the League of Nations, in practice they were simply absorbed into the French and British Empires, all promises of self-determination quickly forgotten. Naturally, this was seen as highly unfair by the locals and lead to increased tensions.

The communist ‘ComIntern’ movement initiated by Soviet Russia promoted an agenda of anti-imperialism and called for a change in the accepted world order. Many communist parties in colonial regions such as China and Vietnam took this to heart and promoted the rise of nationalism and self-determination against the European imperialists.

Finally, the rise of Japan as a non-European power stirred a sense of nationalism in many colonies. Here was a non-European nation that had defeated a Great Power, refuting the myth of an invincible western ‘superior’ race.

All these factors combined gradually began destabilizing the global colonial order, though it was not until after the Second World War than it disintegrated completely.

The Inter-War Year

After the Rhineland Pact discussed in the previous lecture, things seemed to be going well again for Europe, with the “Spirit of Locarno” promising economic recovery and peace. However, this was not to last.

Ideologies

The underlying hostilities between the various new and competing ideologies made a lasting peace impossible. The rise of Nazism in Germany and Fascism in Italy clashed with the liberal democracy advocated by the ‘status quo’ Great Powers of Britain and France. Additionally, the rise and spread of communism in the east was seen as a threat by all of Western Europe.

The Great Depression

With the rise of these new ideologies came an attitude of ‘anti-establishment’ and revisionism, calling for a change in the world order. This movement thrived on the suffering caused by the Great Depression of the 1930s, as the existing economic structure of trade collapsed. Britain and France sought policies of protectionism, protecting their own economies at the expense of one another, while the totalitarian Powers of Central Europe attempted to achieve autarky. It was seen as a failure of the capitalism system, and thus heralded the rise of a new world order.

The League of Nations

The organization which seemed so full of potential to bring peace proved ineffective as well. This resulted from a number of fundamental flaws in the system, such as how war was to be prevented with the threat of more war. Additionally, while the League of Nations officially recognized all states as equal, in reality, the Great Powers were in fact the true decision-makers, making it little more than another Concert of Europe with slightly different actors (see Lecture 1 on Concert). Finally, there was no true binding obligation for states to obey policies set forth by the League, so the organization was entirely dependent on inter-state relations and had no power to enforce order.

Escalation

Finally, the European situation escalated when in March 1938 Hitler initiated his ‘Anschluss’ and Germany absorbed Austria in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. France and Britain did nothing to stop this, hoping it would end there.

This proved a false hope, as in September of the same year Hitler called for the annexation of large parts of Czechoslovakia, namely the German-inhabited Sudetenland. This time, in order to prevent an all-out war, Britain took action, and called for negotiations with the German Chancellor. Thus, Britain, France, Italy and Germany met in Munich to come to an agreement on the question of Czechoslovakia, in a manner eerily reminiscent of the Great Power negotiations of the 19^th century. Britain adopted a strategy of ‘appeasement’ and once again allowed Hitler to have his wish, a vain attempt to keep the peace in Europe. Hitler, however, was not impressed and proceeded to invading the rest of Czechoslovakia shortly after.

In August 1939, to the shock of the western Powers, Germany met with its bitter rival the USSR and established a non-aggression pact. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, named after the Russian and German foreign ministers, called for peace between the two Powers, as well as including a secret protocol about the division of Central and Eastern Europe once annexations began.

The invasion of Poland ensued soon after. This time, ‘appeasement’ was not an option, and in September 1939, Great Britain and France declared war on Nazi-Germany, beginning the Second World War.

The Second World War

The war quickly was quickly established in two opposing ‘alliances of necessity’, with the Axis on one side, consisting of Germany, Italy and Japan, and the Grand Alliance (or Allies) on the other with Britain, the USA and the USSR as the key actors.

Nazi-German Advance

Despite declaring the war, the liberal Powers adopted a defensive strategy at first, allowing Germany to move its armies into place and begin a massive invasion of Western Europe. In much the same manner as in WW1, the Nazis moved through Belgium to bypassed French fortifications, only this time, they did not become caught up in trench warfare and stop. With advanced weaponry, air support and large numbers of tanks and armored vehicles, Germany’s assault pushed westward into France and invaded Paris in a number of weeks in what became known as the ‘Blitzkrieg’ (lightning war). Britain, however, proved more resilient and valiantly resisted a German invasion of the British Isles.

Nevertheless, with Western Europe largely out of the picture, Germany turned its gaze to the Soviet Union in what was quickly becoming a more successful re-enactment of the Schlieffen Plan of WW1. In June 1941, the Nazi invasion of the USSR came as a surprise to Stalin, who had relied on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as a guarantee of at least temporary peace. The German army pushed deep into Russian territory and did not slow down until it came within a few kilometers of Moscow itself.

Axis Defeat

But this initial push outward by Nazi-Germany was not to last. In 1943, the German army in Russia was defeated by the Red Army in the appropriately named city of Stalingrad. This acted as a turning point for the eastern front, as the Soviet army pushed Germany back all the way to Berlin. In the west, the critical point came with the Allied invasion of Normandy, after which American, French and British troops reclaimed France and destroyed the German occupation forces. Unlike the First World War, they did not stop there but invaded Germany as well, preventing the arising of another ‘stab-in-the-back’ myth and breaking the German nationalist spirit. After Hitler’s suicide and the siege of Berlin, the German generals finally conceded and gave an unconditional surrender in May 1945. The European war was over.

However, the World War continued in the Pacific, where Japan was fighting a losing war against the US, China and the USSR. Unfortunately, it took the dropping of two American atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to finally bring the Japanese emperor to surrender in August 1945.

Post-War Discussion

Even before the War came to an official close, Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin representing Britain, the USA and the USSR respectively, met in Yalta in February 1945. The ‘Big Three’ discussed a number of items in regard to the post-war world order.

One such item was the establishment of the United Nations as a replacement for the obsolete League of Nations. This time around, the problem of Great Power dominance was resolved with the formation of both a General Assembly for all nations and a Security Council consisting of the most prominent Powers. This dual system, along with many other changes, would make the new organization far more capable in ensuring peace.

Secondly, the three Powers signed the “Declaration on a Liberated Europe”, allowing all liberated nations to decided their own future in regards to governance. This call to self-determination served the liberal Powers by creating a ‘buffer zone’ of independent states between the distrusted Soviet Union and the democratic Central and Western Europe. Stalin, however, saw this as an opportunity to further Soviet control by legal means, as the Red Army still occupied many of the eastern European states and thus gave him a strong influence on this process of ‘self-determination’.

Finally, another issue on the agenda was the borders of the liberated Poland. In light of the territory promised the USSR through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the soviet military occupation of the region, Poland was ‘shifted’ westward, at the expense of Germany and to the benefit of the USSR.

Lecture 3

The Division of Europe

Post-war Disagreements

After the end of the Second World War, the Great Alliance unfortunately did not last long, not in small part due to disagreements over the structuring of the post-war Europe. Despite a number of seemingly unanimous agreements at the Yalta conference discussed in the previous lecture, the various powers had strongly opposing ideas on a number of issues.

For example, the “Declaration on Liberated Europe”, which called for the right for each nation to determine its own future, was agreed upon for vastly different reasons. While the western powers, particularly the USA, saw it as a step towards self-determination, the USSR used this declaration as a means of creating a ‘buffer zone’ between itself and the western powers. Because of the military and political dominance it had over much of Eastern Europe at the time, it was able to set up communist governments as puppet regimes for its own benefit, something the West did not approve of.

Another issue of contention was the dividing up of occupied Germany among the Allies. Once again, while both sides agreed on the necessity of the division, the western powers saw it as a temporary arrangement to manage the rebuilding process and re-establish Germany as a dependable member of the Europe community. In contrast, the USSR wanted to keep Germany fractured, thereby crippling it and preventing any further threats to Soviet dominance in the east.

Finally, when it came to the paying of reparations, the West wanted to avoid a repeat of the Versailles treaty and prioritized keeping Germany out of poverty to paying of war debts. The USSR, having suffered extensively due to the war, could not accept this and thus demanded repayment.

Superpower Rivalry

With Germany split apart, France decimated and Britain rapidly losing hold if the remainders of its empire, the only remaining global powers were the USA and the USSR. The two superpowers’ opposing ideologies created an increasing atmosphere of extreme distrust and opposition, but fear of a third world war (with nuclear weapons this time) kept the two giants from military conflict. Thus, this period of rivalry because known as the ‘Cold War’.

One area where this opposition was very clearly visible is in regards to the German question. West Germany, formed through the unison of the French, British and American sections of the country, represented western ideals and values, such as democracy, capitalism and freedom of speech. In contrast, soviet-controlled East Germany took after the communist model and became a puppet for the greater Soviet Union. Ultimately, this division led to the creation of the Berlin Wall, seen by many as being symbolic of the ‘Iron Curtain’ across Europe, and indeed the global division of American-influenced and Soviet-influenced regions.

Global Cold War

The Truman Doctrine

The American perspective on Soviet activities gives great insight into the growing tension between the two powers. The American diplomat George Kennan believed that in essence, the soviet government was both very insecure, fearing any threat to its regime, and revolutionary and expansionist, striving to spread the communist ideology to ever more nations.

Based on this view, the USA adopted a policy of ‘containment’, that is, ensuring by all means that communism does not expand beyond the status quo. This was made explicit with the proclamation by US president Truman in 1947, in which he affirmed the US responsibility to protect people from communism anywhere in the world. This became known as the Truman Doctrine.

Critical elements of this mentality include economic and political support for American allies, such as seen in the Marshall Plan, which offered developmental aid to European states. Equally important is cooperation with these allies, manifested in political and military alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO). Finally, the US was also willing to provide direct military support to countries under threat of a communist or Soviet takeover, as was the case with Vietnam and Korea.

Korean War

The Korean War is an example of the Truman Doctrine in action. Korea is split between two opposing parties, both of which claim to be the sole legitimate government. The communist party in the north is allied with and support by both the Soviet Union and China, which the southern, democratic party is protected by the USA. In an attempt to seek a diplomatic solution to the resulting conflict, it was decided that the country would be split in two, with a communist North and a democratic South. This was a temporary solution in preparation for nation-wide elections in the near future.

However, North Korea, with indirect support from the USSR (and later China), decided to invade the South in hopes of quickly conquering the entire nation. The South, however, received direct support from the USA (and later a UN-coalition). Thus, the conflict turned into a ‘proxy war’, where the two superpowers fought one another through third party surrogates as opposed to direct conflict with one another. This has the advantages of allowing for conventional combat without a risk of nuclear retaliation or escalation to another world war.

Nuclear Arms Race and Détente

Beginning of the Arms Race

Initially, the USA had a monopoly in nuclear arms, allowing for a strategy of ‘massive retaliation’ to deter the notion of a direct war. In other words, the USA would respond to any armed attack with an overwhelming nuclear response. However, in 1949, the Soviet Union developed its own atomic weapons. Thus began an arms race as both powers struggled to stay ahead of the other. The result was an atmosphere of insecurity and suspicion, as a single wrong move could set off a nuclear holocaust that would decimate both parties (along with most of the rest of the world). Massive retaliation was therefore replaced with a reality of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

This tension came to a climax with the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, where the Soviets attempted to set up nuclear missiles in Cuba, right next door to USA itself. The resulting confrontation and stand-up brought the world to the brink of a Third World War. Fortunately, the USSR backed down after some frantic negotiation and the crisis was resolved. However, the massive scare lead to a reassessment of the political situation, and a call for arms reduction.

Détente

The result was the ‘détente’, a period of de-escalation where both powers strove to improve relations and find diplomatic solutions to their disputes. The first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT 1) was signed between the two superpowers in order to keep nuclear arms to a reasonable amount. A second treaty, SALT 2, was drafted but ultimately failed to be ratified due to the escalating situation in Afghanistan in 1979.

Additionally, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) was held, resulting in a vital agreement known as the 1975 Helsinki Accords. This document contained three dimensions. Firstly, the political-military dimension dealt primarily with matters of border recognition and inviolability, something the Soviet Union was very keen on. Secondly, the environmental-economic dimension called for the safeguarding of people from environmental hazards, something that would eventually provoke protests after the Chernobyl incident in Soviet Ukraine. Finally, the human dimension dealt with human rights and was strongly supported by the USA. While the USSR did sign the Accords, this proved to be a grave mistake, as it lead to the formation of Helsinki Committees that created much dissent in the Soviet Union in response to human rights violations.

In the short term, however, the two superpowers appeared to agree with one another on a number of issues. Unfortunately, this détente came to an abrupt end with the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR to protect the communist regime there. This lead to the USA cancelling the ratification of SALT 2 and moving in to provide support to the Islamic opposition parties, commencing another proxy war. History would prove USA’s support of the Taliban to be rather ironic.

The End of the Cold War

On November 1989, the Berlin Wall was finally opened, and the Iron Curtain removed. The factors that lead to the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union can be said to be both external and internal.

External Factors

While the détente between the USA and the USSR ceased to exist with the Afghan War, its effects continued to be felt in Europe. The Helsinki Accords provided the people of the Eastern Bloc with ammunition to initiate protests and form dissident parties. Gradually, this resulted in the weakening of the communist regimes in the region.

Additionally, the US for course played a key role in the weakening of the Soviet Union. In particular, Reagan launched another round of arms build-up which the near-bankrupt USSR simply could not keep up with, thus making it lose the arms race. Reagan also applied propaganda pressure to the communist bloc, especially with his iconic Berlin Wall speech, where he blatantly demanded that “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this Wall.”

Internal Factors

Internally, the situation was growing dire for the Soviets as well. The communist system was all but bankrupt due to its involvement in the Afghan war, and thus had lost the ability to effectively intervene in the disintegrating conditions of the various puppet regimes.

Mikhail Gorbachev himself attempted to stabilise the stagnating communist system by introducing ‘perestroika’ and ‘glasnost’. ‘Perestroika’, which means restructuring, involved a loosening of constraints on the population and a great involvement of the people in policy-making. However, this policy simply did not have enough time to come to fruition and was unable to turn back the tide of change. ‘Glasnost’, meaning openness, attempted to end the oppressive nature of Soviet communism, promote free speech and return back to the ideological roots of the communist system. However, it had the opposite effect and simply accelerated the counter-revolution by legitimizing the various protest movements and enabling people to freely oppose the regimes.

Disintegration of the Soviet Bloc

Ultimately, all the factors became too much to bear and the USSR began to fall appart. This began with the various Eastern European satellite states breaking away from the Union and commencing a ‘return to Europe’, reuniting with the western states. Finally, in 1990, the Union itself imploded and broke up into its component states, bringing the Cold War to an end.

Lecture 4

Decolonization in Asia: 1945-1954

Post-War Asia

After the Second World War, there existed a power vacuum in Asia as Japan had been removed as the dominating power in the region. This vacuum, along with various other factors, lead to a wave of chaos and revolution as nationalism thrived. Using this opportunity of relative freedom from colonial rule, a number of states declared their independence from their former masters and pursued independent governance. Notable examples include Vietnam’s communist party rising up under Ho Chi Minh, and Sukarno’s call for a liberated Indonesia only two days after the end of the Pacific War. However, this sudden demand for autonomy did not sit well with the former imperial powers, who were looking to reclaim their colonial possessions. A struggle thus ensued between nationalist movements, often in the form of communist regimes, and the restoration of colonial power.

Attitudes of the Colonial Powers

There are three main attitudes that can be identified among the colonial powers and reflected in their actions in regards to post-War Asia. These attitudes emerge from a consideration of political-ideological, economic and psychological factors.

Firstly, there were examples of voluntary decolonization, for example of the Philippines by the US in 1946. While seemingly an act of good faith in line with the Atlantic Charter, the US made sure to secure its economic and military interests through a series of treaties, allowing for the continued existence of regional military bases as well as full exploitation rights over the Philippines’ maritime resources. In essence, the situation is a good example of neo-colonialism in action.

Secondly, we see an attitude of accommodation and pragmatism. This was employed by Britain in regards to its Indian colony. Britain, worn out by the war and unwilling to commit to a new power struggle so soon, allowed India to attain its independence (though remaining within the Commonwealth). The recent shift of government to the leftist Labour party played a key role in this change of attitude, although the fact that India’s cotton export was no longer considered a vital economic source of income was also important.

Finally, we see an attitude of resistance to decolonization by France and the Netherlands. These refusals to give up their colonial possessions were motivated by a fear of losing status as a colonial power. Additionally, the severely weakened European nations were economically dependent on colonial income in order to recover from the damage done during the war. This resistance ultimately culminated in open war in Vietnam and Indonesia respectively.

China: 1945-1949

In China, two prominent parties fought over leadership of the state: The US-supported GMD, led by Jiang Jieshi, and the communist CCP under the leadership of Mao Zhe Dong. During the Second World War, the two had formed a temporary United Front to repel the Japanese invasion, however this alliance of convenience quickly fell apart and civil war ensued soon after. While initially backing up the GMD with the hopes of establishing a regional ‘policeman’, the US eventually reduced its military and economic support to the corrupt regime, which was then overrun by the smaller but more popular communist party. This led to the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 and the GMD’s retreat to the small island-state of Taiwan.

Unstable Asia

With colonial powers rapidly receding, the ex-colonies were frequently left is highly volatile and weak states. Domestic problems such as ethnic and religious disputes created internal turmoil, while neo-colonial economic relationships left the new countries in a permanently underdeveloped state. A key reason for this fragility was that the primary uniting factor was nationalism and opposition to the imperial oppressors. With this enemy defeated, the people had very little to hold them together. In this tumultuous environment, communism and anti-imperialist ideologies thrived.

The Second Cold War Battleground

With Europe gradually adopting the new status quo, the great powers turned their gaze to Asia as a new battleground upon which to wage ideological war. From the perspective of the USSR, the independence movements and resulting attempts at suppression by the West represented a propaganda victory, as well as costing the USA significant resources. Two key proxy wars that emerged in Asia were the Korean War of 1950-1953 and the Vietnam War, which started against the French in 1949 and would gradually draw in the US in 1965. The US soon expanded its ‘containment policy’ to the east as well, with J. F. Dulles famously stating that ‘neutralism is not an option’, promoting the image of an Asia polarized between the two Global Powers. The USA enforced this policy by means of a series of individual military and political alliances with various regional actors, as well as a collective security pact in the form of the South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) formed in 1954.

Africa after 1945

Post-War Africa

Unlike the power vacuum in Asia, the colonial powers initially held on firmly to their colonies in Africa to preserve the vital economic benefits and the resultant political prestige. Indeed, the common strategy in Africa was one of modernization in order to maximize these benefits. However, these policies, which involved improved education and greater local representation, only fueled the growing demand for independence. Additionally, the success of nationalism in Asia brought expectations of decolonization to Africa as well. This anti-colonial mood, dubbed the ‘winds of change’, eventually resulted in Britain willingly relinquishing control over Ghana in 1957.

1960: Year of Africa

Due to political pressure as well as a diminishing economic dependence on colonies, the European Powers adopted various degrees of decolonization in their African territories. As with the independence of India, Britain stuck to a mostly peaceful, gradual decolonization policy, ensuring the persistence of positive economic and political relations to its former colonies. This paved the way for neo-colonial exploitation later on.

France was more reluctant in its policies, attempting to form a neo-colonial institution in the form of the French Community to retain some of its influence over the region. This attempt proved unsuccessful and eventually France gave up most of its possessions. The only exception was the overseas province of Algeria, which inhabited over a million ethnic French citizens. France fought a long and brutal war over this territory from 1954 onwards until finally relinquishing it in 1962.

Belgium’s decolonization attempts proved highly chaotic due to the fact that its territories were not prepared for the sudden power vacuum, plunging them into civil war and turmoil. Only Portugal adamantly refused to engage in any decolonization whatsoever.

Pan-Africanism

With the African states gradually becoming independent, a movement known as Pan-Africanism rose to meet the newly established regimes. The idea was the establishment of a federal unity among African states on the basis of collective identity and solidarity. The movement called for the abolition of colonial borders and a united foreign policy.

However, this movement soon collapsed as a result of an ideological rift among the African states. Two factions evolved out of the new community, namely the pro-western, conservative Monrovia group, lead among others by Ethiopia, and the radical Casablanca group which called for anti-imperialism and promoted Pan-Africanism. Additionally, the formation of the Organization for African Unity (OAU) lead to an upholding of the status quo and thus removed the possibility of such a movement taking effect.

Ultimately, the new states were pre-occupied with domestic issues such as overcoming the legacy of decades of imperialist influence and struggling to stabilize governmental control, especially in light of the Congo civil war that had emerged so soon after independence.

Cold War in Africa

The 1970s especially were filled with proxy wars as the Great Powers clashed over the newly liberated continent. Examples include the Horn of Africa conflict, where the socialist revolution in Ethiopia lead to war against the US-supported Somalia. While the USSR was not directly involved, Cuban troops were actively fighting on the communist front. Southern Africa faced similar struggles, with both Angola and Mozambique fighting for independence from Portugal and Cuban military troops once again getting involved.

End of Apartheid

The infamous Apartheid system was fully established in 1948 in South Africa, and lead to much criticism of the state throughout the Cold War era. In the 1970s and 1980s, South Africa was increasingly isolated by both its regional community of states as well as globally, being temporarily excluded from the British Commonwealth and the United Nations General Assembly. Apartheid did not come to a formal close until the 1990s. In addition to South Africa, racial segregation was also found in neighboring Rhodesia, in which the Smith-regime was constituted of predominantly white individuals.

The Third World

Founding of the Third World

The concept of the ‘Third World’ is based on the idea of neutralism and comprises those states that are not aligned with either the First World, consisting of the USA and its allies, or the Second World, consisting of the Soviet Union and its allies. This third position was established at the Bandung Afro-Asian Conference of 1955, which also gave birth to the Non-Alignment Movement. Indian Prime Minister Nehru acted as the moral leader of this movement due to his strongly anti-imperialist attitude and views on non-alignment. These include the right for Asian (and later African) countries to remain free of the East-West Cold War conflict, the importance of solidarity between ex-colonies, and the goal of peaceful co-existence.

The Conference resulted in the so-called ‘Bandung Spirit’, which was a collective affirmation of Nehru’s Five Principles of Co-existence, a denunciation of colonialism and hegemony, as well as a general desire to distance themselves from the USA-USSR conflict. Additionally, emphasis was put on solidarity with the poor, and a desire to promote economic development. Notable figures of the Non-Alignment Movement include Nehru, Ghanaian President Nkrumah, Egyptian President Nasser, President Tito of Yugoslavia and Sukarno, President of Indonesia.

Non-Alignment Movement

The Non-Alignment Movement, while initiated as a result of the Bandung Spirit, was formally established in the 1961 Belgrade Summit with certain key objectives identified. These included a committed non-involvement in Great Power conflicts, an effort at easing the ideological tensions of the Cold War, and a united opposition of neo-colonialist and imperialist practices and racial discrimination. Additionally, great focus was put on promoting economic development among the weak ex-colonial states.

Growing Third World Influence

With the entering of so many ex-colonies into the world theatre, the number of non-western states quickly formed a majority in the UN General Assembly. The Group of 77 (G-77), representing the Non-Alignment Movement, could thus set the UN’s agenda and focus on matters of decolonization and economic development. Additionally, intergovernmental organizations such as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) were formed to provide collective representation of the Third World.

Due to their unique position as independent from either side of the Cold War, the Third World states were able to play the two superpowers off against one another to maximize economic and political influence. The USA and USSR adapted to this new group by adopting the use of developmental aid, something the Third World desperately craved, as a Cold War instrument to further their own gains in the various world regions.

Economic Development

With the efforts of the Non-Alignment Movement and the G-77, western attention gradually turned away from the Cold War conflict and a global effort was made at ending poverty, which was identified as a key source of political instability. This manifested in the form of World Bank and IMF loans, as well as a series of new international organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

Modernization theory was proposed as a potential solution, emphasizing the importance of comparative advantage and integration into the international market. However, particularly in the Latin American countries, this strategy proved ineffective and the ‘development decade’ of the 1960s was ultimately a failure, with only a select few successes to be seen globally. This was largely due to high debts and the lack of the predicted economic boom that was expected upon receiving large quantities of developmental aid.

New International Economic Order

One final attempt was made by the G-77 in establishing a global economic system in which the developing countries could thrive. In 1974, they used their majority in the UN General Assembly to pass the New International Economic Order (NIEO) resolution, a document that promoted fairer terms of trade in favor of the Third World countries, fixed commodity prices to stabilize the income of ex-colonial economies, a lowering of western trade protectionism and greater access to developmental aid and loans from the World Bank and IMF. One key advantage of the Third World was that OPEC served as a key political instrument due to the west’s dependency on oil.

Ironically, this would prove to be one of the factors involved in the failure of the NIEO to make a concrete impact on the world order. The oil crisis of the 1980s lead to a severe economic recession, which in turn lead to crushing debts for the developing world. Additionally, the formerly united Third World began breaking apart as a result of ideological and political differences. Particularly after the death or downfall of many of the charismatic leaders of the movement, the front ultimately broke apart. Another factor in the failure of the Third World to achieve its goals was the establishment of the Group of 7 by the West, which created a united front aimed at securing the interests of the developed world. This move eventually lead to the promotion of neo-liberalism, in particular through the implementation of the Washington Consensus.

Lecture 5

USA and Latin American: Pre-1945

19^thCentury US Imperialism

Already in 1823, the USA had announced the so-called Monroe Doctrine, which called for the European Powers to refrain from involvement in the Western Hemisphere (the Americas), while the USA would in turn refrain from interfering in European matters. This separation of spheres of influence lead to the USA attaining a form of ‘invisible empire’ due to being the regional hegemon.

This came about partially as a result of the American concept of ‘Manifest Destiny’, which outlined a God-given purpose for the civilized US to spread the values of democracy and freedom to its regional peers. In practice, this resulted in little more than a different form of imperialism, as smaller states were subjected to US interests. This lead especially to the Caribbean Sea being dubbed an ‘American lake’, because of the strong military and political influence of the USA on the surrounding states.

Additionally, after the ‘splendid little war’ with Spain in 1898, the USA took control of various island territories in the Pacific, including the Philippines, which established its place as a Pacific Power. In response to the protectionist economic policies of Europe, the USA’s open door policy with China allowed for free trade in the Pacific and helped secure its regional influence.

Early 20^thCentury

Two key actors who helped achieve this regional influence of the US over the Western Hemisphere in the early twentieth century were presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

Roosevelt, a firm believer in Social Darwinism and Realpolitik, promoted a policy of ‘gun boat diplomacy’, which revolved around the threat of force being used to influence regional leaders into agreeing to US demands. Examples include the Platt Amendment in the Cuban Constitution, which enabled the US to intervene in the case of external or internal threats to the democratic system, as defined by the US itself. This Amendment was later expanded upon with the Roosevelt Corollary, which provided the US with the right to act as a sort of regional policeman over the entire Caribbean. Roosevelt also brought the valuable Panama Canal under US control through political maneuvering.

Wilson, by comparison, preached a ‘moral diplomacy’ and a move away from state interventionism, as outlined in his Fourteen Points after the First World War. However, his actions did not match his words, and he initiated military interventions in Mexico, Haiti, the Dominican Republic and others in order to secure US interests both politically and economically.

Post-WW1

After the Great War, the US withdrew once again from the European scene and focused on consolidating economic and imperial interests in the Western Hemisphere. Due to the lack of Great Power opposition thanks to the Monroe Doctrine, the US’s expansion went highly smooth and without significant costs, making it an empire ‘on the cheap’. In the Pacific, the ‘Washington system’ agreement with Japan helped reduce the threat to US interests as well.

By the 1920s the US was experiencing an economic boom known as the ‘roaring twenties’, establishing itself as an economic super power. The Latin American and the Caribbean states became an exclusive field of economic interest for the US thanks to its ‘closed door policy’, which barred the majority of external power economic interference in the region. The Central American states thus became US protectorates and earned the mocking title of ‘banana republics’ due to their exports of fruit and raw materials to the US in a colonial fashion. Anti-imperialist sentiments inevitably sparked due to this among the dominated populations.

The Great Depression placed a heavy burden on the ‘colonized’ states to support their patron and resulted in further anti-American dissent. In light of this, F.D. Roosevelt decided to initiate a chance in the system. His ‘Good Neighbor’ policy emphasized the principle of non-intervention, but instead utilized local strongmen to secure US interests.

Roosevelt also promoted pan-Americanism, in particular when it came to taking a united stand against the Axis-powers by the time of the Second World War. This manifested in a number of treaties such as the Lima Treaty, the Declaration of Panama and the Act of Havana, which emphasized collective security and a mutual opposition to fascism. Throughout the War, the USA maintained a strong grip on Latin American, as it depended on the region to support the Allied War effort with raw materials and resources.

USA and Latin American: Post-1945

Post-WW2

After the Second World War, the rising Cold War atmosphere lead to the US taking a tougher stance on the Latin American states due to fears of communist influence on the region. This resulted in the Rio Treaty of 1948, which was a collective security pact that went on to inspire the NATO treaty, and the founding of the Organization of American States, which promotes economic and developmental cooperation to this day.

In an attempt to neutralize communist sentiments, the US employed the Truman Doctrine of containment in a number of ways, including supporting a number of dictatorial puppet-regimes to keep socialist regimes from emerging and supporting coup attempts where unfavorable regimes held power, such as in Guatemala in 1954.

Ironically, these actions were viewed by the Latin American population as oppressive and imperialist, and lead to anti-American nationalism and a rise in socialism. Prime examples of this are the ‘Yankee Go Home’ riots in Venezuela and the eventual Cuban revolution in 1959 lead by Fidel Castro.

Alliance for Progress

After a failed CIA-supported coup attempt in the form of the ‘Bay of Pigs’ incident and the climactic Cuban Crisis of 1961, the US resolved the Cuban question with a strict embargo in the socialist island state. However, the event had left a resounding message on the ineffectiveness of the US interventionist system.

In response, President Kennedy initiated the Alliance for Progress in 1961 as a long term developmental program to promote economic growth in the Latin American states. This was done for similar reasons as the Marshall Plan in Europe, in the hopes that an increasing standard of living would reduce the appeal for communist ideologies. The difference to the Marshall Plan was that in this case, economic aid would come only with political change, as the Alliance demanded democratization and free market reforms. The concept relied on Modernization Theory, which promised a significant economic boom after an initial influx of developmental aid.

Unfortunately, this initiative proved to be a failure due to high levels of corruption, an unwillingness to accept social reform, and the US insistence on enforcing its ‘one size fits all’ policy on its regional peers. He result was disillusionment and increased anti-US movements, including the export of the Cuban Revolution to other states by Che Guevarra. As a result of the failed economic aid project and a large population boom, Latin America entered a period of economic decline in the 1970s and 1980s.

End of American Hegemony

After the failed Alliance for Progress, the US returned to its policy of open interventionism and sponsored coups in order to suppress revolutionary movements, including in the Dominican Republic (1965), Chile (1973), Nicaragua (1980s) and many others.

After the end of the Cold War, US dominance remained relatively unaffected, with continued interventions in Nicaragua and Haiti to maintain American interests. However, beginning in the 1980s, a wave of democratization has come over Latin America and the US gradually released control over the ‘banana republics’. Anti-American resentment continues to remain strong in many of these states, but gradually globalization has led to a period of economic growth for Latin America, notably in Brazil. This came particularly due to increased Chinese investment in South and Central America to support its own growth rates. Finally, in 2013, Obama declared a formal end to the Monroe Doctrine.

Japan as a Developmental State

Japan after 1945

After defeating the Japanese in the Second World War, the US occupied the country for seven years to help shape the post-War Japanese society. In order to prevent any risk of a second Japanese uprising, emphasis was put on establishing a rural economy, a democratic system of government, and a complete demilitarization, the last of which was achieved through an addition in the new Japanese constitution that removed Japan’s right to build an army or go to war.

However, in 1948 the US shifted gears and enacted the ‘reverse course’, which focused on re-establishing Japan as a regional power to oppose the rise of communism in the region, especially in the form of the PRC taking power. In 1951, the San Francisco peace conference was organized, where Japan formally signed peace treaties with a number of regional states. Additionally, in 1952 the US Security Pact was signed, providing Japan with full sovereignty, formally ending the US occupation.

The newly independent Japan could still rely on US protection however, as it had no army of its own. This allowed it to take a ‘free ride’ with US military and financial support and focus on economic development, particularly in the form of industrialization. With the establishment of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Japan quickly surged forward and became a regional, and later global, economic superpower. Not only did this benefit Japan, but it had a spin-off effect in that it served to provoke development in the whole South-East Asian region as well.

Politically, Japan adopted the democratic 1955 system, which polarized the various political parties into two factions: the conservative ruling party and the socialist opposition party. This system stabilized internal governance as well as making Japan into a microcosm of the larger Cold War two-power system. In 1960, in order to reduce internal disputes, the government adopted the income doubling policy, which led to a remarkable ‘economic miracle’ for Japan’s economy and standards of living.

Japan: Economic Super Power

In 1971, in accordance with the Nixon Doctrine, the US reduced its level of support to Japan, calling on the now prominent economic power to stand on its own feet and become a ‘responsible stakeholder’ in the Cold War. Japan thus strengthened regional economic relations through what became known as ‘Yen Diplomacy’, promoting trade and development in South East Asia and later China, and becoming a supporter of the Third World. Additionally, a number of states that became known as the Asian Tigers began mimicking Japan’s developmental state model to establish their own prominent economies.

In 1972, with the permission of the USA, Japan finally normalized diplomatic and economic relations with China. While some hostilities remained, and still do to this day, the two Asian Powers finally signed a formal peace treaty in 1978. In the 1980s, Japan’s rapid growth led it to become so prominent on the global market that it rivalled the USA itself, leading to some tension between the two. This was emphasized by the fact that Japan started following its own foreign policy course rather than adhering to the Cold-War focused American mindset.

Ultimately, by 1989 this rapid growth came to a slow-down and lead to an economic stagnation, partly due to the frozen domestic political situation. Due to the 1955 system, the government had little in terms of structural reforms to offer after a certain point, and this lead to a level of economic flexibility that ultimately brought the nation to a standstill. Japan’s focus also gradually shifted away from purely economic aspects and the goal became a normalization of Japan as more than simply an economic powerhouse. With the growing Chinese rivalry and the danger of a radical North Korea at its doorstep, Japan especially considered a re-interpretation of article 9 in its constitution, which prohibited the proliferation of armed forces.

The Rise of China

Establishment of the PRC

The People’s Republic of China came into existence in 1949 with the defeat of the ruling party, led by Jiang Jieshi, by Mao’s communist party. Jiang and his party thus fled to the Island-state of Taiwan, where they continued arguing their legitimacy as the true Republic of China. Due to being an allied with Jiang, the Americans recognized Taiwan’s legitimacy and they kept their Permanent Seat in the UN Security Council, much to the dismay of Mao’s mainland regime.

While initially allied with the USSR, as seen in China’s involvement in the Korean War, the Sino-Soviet Alliance began crumbling apart in the 1950s as a result of both political and ideological differences. In the political side, Mao sought a more equal relationship with the USSR as opposed to being treated as a subservient entity. Additionally, Mao’s domestic reform strategies stood in opposition to the Soviet’s ideas, leading to disapproval from the Kremlin. Ideologically, Mao disapproved of Russia’s revisionist attitude after the passing away of Stalin. The new Soviet premier, Nikita Khrushchev, adopted a more pragmatic foreign policy, especially in regards to the USA, which clashed with Mao’s more radical ideals.

Post Sino-Soviet Alliance

After the Soviet Union and China parted ways in the 1960s, they adopted an ideological rivalry. China, now disconnected from the Soviet Union but still stigmatized by the anti-communist USA, was left as a minor power with big domestic problems. After failed economic reforms left the country suffering from a serious famine, Mao brought forth a new wave of radicalism in 1966 with his Cultural Revolution, which pulled the whole of China into a period of chaos and turmoil.

In 1972, things were finally starting to improve for China as Nixon had a formal meeting with Mao, resulting in a quasi-alliance in order to counter-balance the Soviet Union. Though many disagreements persisted, the two powers settled on a policy of peaceful co-existence. Additionally, the PRC was finally recognized as the ‘legitimate’ China and granted its seat in the Security Council. Naturally, in accordance with the One China Policy, this meant that Taiwan was left in political isolation.

Post-Mao China

After the death of Mao and a short period of internal political turmoil, Deng Xiao Ping took power in 1978. His new pragmatic attitude lead to a number of significant changes in China, including radical economic reforms, greater diplomatic and economic relations with the West and Japan, and a general integration into the capitalism world order. However, very few domestic politic changes occurred. The new leader did however promote order and stability in Asia through means of developmental aid and so-called ‘smile diplomacy’.

In 1989, the infamous Tiananmen protests occurred, which had a significant impact on China’s policies. While it did not lead to any significant political reforms as initially demanded by the protestors, it did lead to a speeding up of economic development in the hopes that a higher standard of living would appease the population. While China’s human rights abused lead to boycotts by the West, including an arms embargo, this did little to slow down the impending economic boom.

Chinese relations with Asia and the non-Western World allowed it to expand its availability of resources and a consumer-base massively. After the Cold War ended, the Chinese powerhouse took off and quickly outstripped Japan to become the second largest economy in the world. This new position as a world power lead to China’s aspirations to becoming a regional hegemony, resulting in strongly assertive behavior, especially in regards to East and the South China Sea. It’s rivalry with Japan and the US continues to this day, however there is hope of a peaceful rise that will not result in another Cold War, though this remains to be seen.

Lecture 6

Pre-Israel Era

The ‘Twice Promised Land’

From 1882 to 1914, tensions began mounting between the Jewish immigration and the pan-Arab movement, as both sought to control the Palestinian region. This was further complicated during the First World War by Britain’s foreign policy. On the one hand, Britain had promised the territory to the Palestinians in exchange for Arab opposition to the Ottoman Empire in the Hussein-McMahon deal. However, on the other hand, the Balfour Declaration guaranteed a Jewish home in Palestine for their behind-the-scenes contribution to the War.

In the end, neither promise was fulfilled, as before the war had begun France and Britain had already made plans to carve up the Middle East between them in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. This agreement was formalized at the San Remo Conference in 1920, to the dismay of both the Zionists and the local Palestinians.

British foreign policy continued to be contradictory, with the local representatives promoting Palestinian ideals while the government in London stood with the Zionists thanks to significant lobbying in the metropolis.

Zionist versus Palestinian Nationalism

Palestinian Nationalism, the idea of an independent Palestinian state, was born largely as a reaction to Zionism. Britain’s ‘divide and rule’ foreign policy placed it at odds with this movement, and this resulted in a wave of intercommunal violence which culminated in the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt.

The British responded by establishing the Peel Commission in 1937 to find a solution to the conflict. The result was the first partition plan, by which the land was to be separated between the two opposing communities. The Arab Revolt ended in no small part due to the publishing of the MacDonald White Paper of 1939, which restricted further Jewish immigration and land buying, as well as promising the establishment of a Palestinian state within 10 years.

Institution Building

Institutions played a significant role in the eventual creation of a Jewish state and the failure of the emerging of a Palestinian one. From an early stage onwards, the Zionists had established an organizational structure that reflected a quasi-state in its scope. Notable institutions include the Jewish Agency established in 1929, which acted as a governing body as well as managing the expansion process and lobbying in Western governments. The Haganah was a paramilitary group purposed with providing security and later transformed into the Israeli Defense Force. In addition to these institution, the 1930s immigration wave provided the Zionists with a large population of educated Jews from Western Europe, especially Germany.

On the Palestinian side, the institution building process was slow and largely unsuccessful. Thus, while a collective Palestinian Identity was achieved, there was a lack of the unity necessary for a state. This was due to a variety of factors including the continued influence of pan-Arabism, which clashed with the idea of an independent Palestine, tribal factionalism, and the British clamp-down on the Palestinian national movement after the Arab Revolt.

World War Two

Throughout the Second World War, the two factions took sides along with most of the rest of the world. While the Zionists sided with the Allies due to the anti-Semitism in Germany and its allies, Palestine, along with most of the Arab states, joined the Axis in opposition to Britain and Israel.

The Holocaust brought about a sudden stop to Jewish immigration, and those that did make it over the Mediterranean were turned around by the British naval blockade set up to prevent further escalations in Palestine. The Zionists, having lost faith in the British, instead turned to the emerging super power of the USA. Jewish lobbying played a significant role in the 1944 elections, securing strong Israeli-American relations.

After the war, immigration ramped up significantly again. Additionally, the revelations of the Holocaust left the international community in deep sympathy and moral guilt towards the Jews. In particular, the US became a big supporter of the Zionist movement. With the implementation of the Atlantic Charter, the value of self-determination was emphasized, and so Israel was formally established as a state, serving both as a form of penance and as an effective solution to the new ‘Jewish problem’ resulting from all the Jewish refugees.

The Arab-Israeli Conflict

UN Partition of Palestine

With Britain taking on more of a pro-Palestinian role in the conflict, there was a quick escalation leading to the Jewish Revolt in 1947. Overwhelmed by the continued turmoil and inability to find an agreeable solution, Britain promptly handed over Palestine and its problems to the United Nations.

The UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was established to find a workable solution and eventually this lead to the approval of a ‘two-state solution’, albeit with protests from the Palestinian side. This strategy split Palestine into various sections which were allocated to either Israel or the local Palestinian population, with Jerusalem and the surrounding region put under international control.

1948: The First Arab-Israeli War

On May 14^th, 1948, Israel formally declared its independence, a claim which was surprisingly recognized by both the USA and the Soviet Union. The day after, the Arab League declared war. Surrounded on all sides, the young state of Israel was unprepared for battle and struggled to hold the offensive back. However, the invasion was not successful in exterminating Israel and the UN called for a ceasefire in 1949.

Israel settled a number of so-called ‘no war, no peace’ agreements with the Arab states, resulting in territorial gains but no recognition or security guarantees from the League. Thus, it quickly turned to other sources, entering into arms trades with the USSR, much to the displeasure of the United States. Additionally, Israel achieved full UN membership after the war, leading to a de-facto recognition by the majority of the global community.

The true victims of the war were the Palestinians, to the point where the event became known among the locals as ‘Al-Naqba’ (The Disaster). Not only did they lose territory to both Israel and the Arab League, but the war also resulted in a permanent refugee problem that has not been resolved to this day.

The Wider Picture

Israel, having survived its first war with the Arab League, sought for recognition and both internal and external security. In pursuit of the later, it adopted an aggressive defense policy, working through retaliation and pre-emptive strikes to eliminate terrorist threats, as well as constantly expanding its strategic depth in the event of another larger conflict.

Palestine, by comparison, was still struggling to establish a state that would allow it the same level of diplomatic and political influence as Israel. In the meantime, it’s method of opposition to the heavy-handed Israeli presence was armed struggle through guerrilla warfare and terrorism.

The still unstable Arab world, having only recently come out of bondage of the Ottomans and then the European colonists, sought both social and political stability as well as legitimate governance. Thus, it needed political and strategic equality with Israel in order to maintain its own internal stability. With these three perspectives in mind, it is no wonder that the Arab-Israeli conflict has been ongoing to this day.

1949-56: Arab Developments

From 1949 onwards, a number of developments shaped the continued tensions between Israel and its Arab neighbors. One of the most significant was the instability that continued to threaten the Arab states. After ‘losing’ the first conflict with Israel, the prestige and therefore legitimacy of the Arab governments was put in question. The only way to restoring this was be exacting revenge upon the hated foe.

In particular, Egyptian premier Nasser emerged as a key leader in the Arab world, with his promotion of secular Arab socialism and Pan-Arabism. His support of Algerian independence put him at odds with much of the West, but he was nevertheless internationally supported by the recently founded Non-Alignment Movement.

1956: Suez Crisis

In 1956, a series of events lead to what is known as the Suez Crisis. This began with Nasser’s outreach to the communist bloc by engaging in arms trades with the Czech Republic. This angered the US, who promptly ceased their funding for the Aswan Dam, Nasser’s personal prestige project. Partially in retaliation and partially to maintain his reputation, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal to make up for the financial loss.

This in turn provoked France and Britain, who had been profiting significantly from the Canal. These two, joined by Israel, decided to form an alliance and attack the Suez Canal in October 1956. The conflict was quickly stopped via a US-enforced ceasefire, resulting in a French and British retreat.

While the European powers suffered a significant loss to their reputation and trade relations, Egypt retained the Canal and Nasser proclaimed a hero for defeating the Western powers. However, the previously Egyptian Sinai Peninsula was made a UN-monitored buffer zone between Egypt and Israel to prevent future conflict. Israel was condemned for the attack, but ultimately profited from the Crisis due to its recognition as a regional military power.

On an international level, the conflict did not bring about any solution to the Palestine situation. Instead, it created a power vacuum due to the British and French withdrawal. This naturally resulted in the Middle East becoming another Cold War battleground. The Eisenhower Doctrine, set forth in 1957, was an extension of the Truman Doctrine to the Middle East, justifying US intervention in the case of a communist takeover. This lead, for example, to the intervention in Lebanon in 1958.

1967: Six-Day War

While the Suez Crisis was perceived as a victory for the Arab World, it did little to overcome the domestic issues faced by the various states. With Arab socialism leading to economic collapse, something had to be done to re-establish the population’s trust in the leadership.

Thus, in 1966, Syria’s new Ba’athist regime formed a security pact with Egypt, later joined by Jordan. Nasser demanded the withdrawal of the UN peacekeeping forces in Sinai, and plans were made for a final, destructive war against Israel in 1967.

Unfortunately for the Arab states, an intelligence leak lead to Israel finding out about the imminent invasion and launching a pre-emptive air strike. The attack took the Arabs totally by surprise and decimated their air forces. The ground war began and ended soon after, with the Arabs suffering a humiliating defeat. A UN resolution called for a return of all conquered territory and a permanent peace settlement between the two sides.

In six days, Israel had tripled the size of its territory, taking control of the Sinai, Golan, the Gaza Strip, the entire West Bank and Jerusalem itself. It then used these gains in a peace-for-land deal with the Arab nations to broker a temporary truce. Israel however remained unrecognized by the Arab states.

The humiliation unleashed chaos in the Arab World. The disillusionment with secular regimes lead to various uprisings and political turmoil. Pan-Arabism was viewed as a failure in light of failing socio-economic conditions and was replaced with conventional nationalism. Political Islam also emerged as a moral alternative to the failure of secularism. Finally, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) found traction and began representing the local Palestinian voice.

1973: Yom Kippur War

Amidst the turmoil in Egypt after Nasser’s death, Sadat rose as the new leader with a seemingly new policy direction. Aiming to establish a position of equality with Israel, he offered Israel a more permanent peace treaty in exchange for land and economic support. After this proverbial olive branch was rejected, however, his attitude quickly mirrored that of his predecessor.

Thus, in October 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel during its holy day of Yom Kippur. While Syria pursued a traditional goal of total annihilation, Sadat sought to use the war only as a means to bring Israel to the negotiating table as an equal. Thus, the operation proved a success for the moderate Sadat, but a failure for the more radical Syria. Israel found itself pushed back significantly, but was ultimately saved by US support. The result was a ceasefire and a return to the borders of 1967.

1979: Egypt-Israel Peace Agreement

The military and geographic consequences of the war were minimal, but the political result proved highly significant. In 1979, with the USA as a mediator, Egypt became the first Arab state to sign a permanent peace treaty with Israel and politically recognizing it. Additionally, the Sinai was returned to Egypt and the Suez Canal re-opened. American also made a pledge to support Egypt with economically.

Two key consequences resulted from this in the Arab World. Firstly, Egypt was made a pariah state for its actions, and Sadat was eventually assassinated in 1981. Secondly, the non-involvement of the PLO in the negotiations lead to strong uproar among the Palestinians and resulted in further radicalization.

The Palestine-Israeli Conflict

The Rise of the PLO

From 1964 onwards, Palestinian resistance evolved and unified in the form of the PLO. Under the leadership of Yasser Arafat, this organization became a significant actor in the conflict. The initial goal of the PLO was to utilize terrorism as a means of forcing the local conflict onto the international agenda.

Initially based in Jordan, the PLO was expulsed from there by the army in an event that became known as Black September. After this dispersion, the PLO set up its new headquarters in Lebanon. In fact, its presence became so prominent that the presence of Palestinians lead to a civil war in Lebanon. Israel and Syria both infiltrated the situation and it soon became a proxy war throughout the 1970s and 80s.

1982: Lebanon War

This conflict in Lebanon escalated as a result of the aggressive policies of the Israeli government at the time, who clamped down on terror attacks with an ‘iron fist’ policy. In this case also, Israel took the ‘hawkish’ course of action and launched the ‘Peace for Galilee’ invasion.

The purposes for this were diverse, ranging for putting an end to the constant PLO attacks of Israeli settlements to driving out Syrian forces and influences in Lebanon. Additionally, Israel hoped to establish a pro-Israel Christian regime in Lebanon, providing another ally in the ongoing conflict.

In 1983, the short war ended with an armistice with mixed results. While the PLO was removed from Lebanon, the war hadn’t resulted in peace or stability in the region. Additionally, Israeli troops remained in parts of Southern Lebanon under 2000, a source of continued tension between the two states.

Radicalization of the PLO

After the establishment of the PLO, and the gradual signing of peace treaties with the Arab states, the conflict took a dramatic shift from the Arab World to the domestic, Palestinian level. The populations of the Gaza Strip and West Bank were filled with despair and frustration at the inability and unwillingness of the Arab states to intervene on their behalf. With the PLO banished to Tunisia and millions of Palestinian refugees living in permanent camps, ultra-nationalism and radicalization was inevitable.

Thus, the Palestinians relied on continuous guerilla warfare and terrorist tactics to pressure Israel and the international community to take notice of their cause. This civil disobedience culminated in the First Intifada of 1987-1991. In a sense, this movement proved successful, as it brought about an international recognition that the Palestinian cause could no longer be ignored, and without the PLO no lasting peace could be forged.

Post-Cold War Palestine

1993: Oslo Accords

After the Cold War had ended, the USA was left in the position of global hegemony. However, this has little effect on the turmoil in the Middle East. The 1990 war in Kuwait proved that there could be no lasting peace in the region without finding a solution to the Arab-Israel conflict.

After decades of struggling for recognition and security, Israel was economically and politically exhausted. Added to this was the massive influx of immigrants from the former Soviet Union, the vast military expenditures, and the growing reluctance of the USA in providing further aid to the Zionist cause. Thus, Israel reluctantly engaged in negotiations with Palestine in order to bring the century-long discord to an end.

The result was the 1993 Oslo Accords, an agreement between Israel and the PLO mediated by the USA. It included the Declaration of Principles, an outline of stages leading to the formation of a Palestinian state, which was agreed on in exchange for Palestinian recognition of the state of Israel. Additionally, Israel agreed to allow the Palestinian Authority to self-govern the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Shortly after this agreement, Israel also managed to broker a peace deal with Jordan in 1994. Things seemed to be going well, but this illusion was not to last.

Collapse of the Peace Process

Unfortunately, the plans for peace never came to fruition, as hostilities ran too deep between the two factions. Soon after, Israeli Prime Minister Rabin was murdered, and Arafat’s death was suspected as resulting from poisoning. This radicalization on both sides was joined by Syria’s unwillingness to cooperate with Israel. Additionally, new religious factors were coming into play with the rise of Political Islam as a prominent ideology.

Within the PLO camp, disunity was spreading with the clash between the Islamist Hamas and Hizb’allah and the secular Fatah party. Despite Hamas willing the 2007 elections, Fatah president Abbas took political lead. With the Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza, this lead to a geographic separation.

The proposed 2003 Roadmap for Peace was rejected as illusionary by both parties, who had lost hope in a diplomatic solution. Thus, old patterns continued to this day, leading to the second Intifada from 2000 to 2005, a second Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 in retaliation to Hizb’allah rocket attacks, and an ongoing blockade of the Gaza Strip starting in 2007.

Some progress was made in terms of Palestine’s state-building. In 2013, it achieved observer status in the United Nations along with significant international recognition. US president Obama has been especially urging of Israel to cooperate, however to little success. In 2014, a Hamas-Fatah coalition government was formed, another step towards a unified Palestinian state. Ultimately however, no progress towards a solution can be made without Israel’s cooperation. In 2015, we see a potential third war in Gaza commencing, and we are still no closer to implementing a two-state (or otherwise) solution.

Lecture 7

Rise of Political Islam

Historical Background

Islam was founded and made prominent in the 7^th century by Muhammad, who became known as The Prophet. After his death came the period of the Righteous Caliphs, a form of golden age for Islam in which it became a significant empire and hub of sciences and arts, in particular in contrast to Europe, which was undergoing the Dark Ages at this time. The Islamic state was based on Shari’a, a set of Islamic laws that governed everything from religious practices to social and political matters.

The Islamic world was united under the rule of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and finally Ali. This is when a split emerged within the religious community, resulting in the formatting of the two major sects of Islam. The Shi’a saw Ali as the sole legitimate heir of Muhammad, and believed that leadership should be passed down according to blood lineage. In opposition, the Sunni sought to establish elections for a leader from within Muhammad’s tribe, the Quraysh.

The Shi’ites are nowadays based primarily in Iran and Yemen, with roots in Afghanistan and Iraq as well. The Sunnis, in comparison, are especially prominent in Saudi Arabia, Syria South East Asia and North Africa.

Political Revival of Islam

The revival of Political Islam in the 19^th century and onwards was inspired by a number of significant people. Al Afghani, a political activist, proposed the concept of pan-Islamism. He argued that all Muslims, Sunni and Shi’ite alike, formed one community united in their struggle against the ‘Sophisticated Infidel’, referring to the modernized West, which was threatening the Islamic way of life.

One of Al Afghani’s disciples, Hasan al-Banna, put these principles into practice in the early 20^th century by founding the Muslim Brotherhood, a global network of Muslims with headquarters in over 80 countries. Hasan’s vision was an Islamic ideology that covered all aspects of life, politically, economic and social. This vision is reflected in his statement, “Islam is a faith and a ritual, a nation and a nationality, a religion and a state, spirituality and action, Qur’an and sword.” However, despite this striving towards pan-Islamism, he showed a willingness to work within a constitutional democracy, as well as accepting the existence of separate Islamic states.

Another key member of the Muslim Brotherhood was Sayyid Qutb. He is iconic for extensive commentary on the Qur’an, as well as his book ‘Milestones’, which outlines steps towards re-creating the Muslim world. Some key ideas presented by him include the idea of Western and Islamic values being fundamentally different, as well as a strong dualist imagine of God (Allah) versus the Devil.

Thus, the struggle of Islam against other world religions, as well as western and communist ideologies was represented as a moral war as opposed to a political or military one. He approached this ‘battle of ideas’ with missionary teaching and social aid in the form of education, medical care and fighting poverty. His political theory of Islam was based more on the idea of conscience than of law, making it highly subjective.

Developments of the 20^thCentury and Beyond

Abolition of the Caliphate

In 1924, the Ottoman Empire collapsed, ending the final caliphate in the Middle East. The resulting shift in political dynamics cleared the way for new Political Islamist thinking, as well as a myriad of new Muslim states forming in the region. While the Caliphate had ruled along religious lines, its removal left the Arabs in disunity as they sought new unifying factors upon which to build a nation-state. The Young Turk movement was a key group involved in this pursuit of nationalism. Additionally, with the West playing a greater role in the Middle East, the role of Muslims in international relations and politics became a big topic of concern.

Rise of Political Islam

After the Second World War, Arab leaders mobilized in achieving a mission of anti-colonialism, anti-Zionism and Arab nationalism. Nasser, the Egyptian President in particular advocated a form of secular Arab socialism along with the Ba’ath parties in Syria and Iraq.

However, this set of reforms and political action proved ineffective and left the Arab world in a highly unstable political and economic state. Added to this was the severe humiliation of the 1967 Six Day War with Israel, which lead to great disillusionment among the population. In short, the failures of the secular, socialist system left only one untarnished option to the Arab states: a return to the fundamentalist moral system of Political Islam.

Thus, the modern Islamist movement was in large part a reaction to the socio-economic condition, the rapid urbanization and upheaval of traditional lifestyle and mass unemployment. Political Islam represented a returning to the cultural and ideological roots of the Arab world, back to the time of the Righteous Caliphs.

Fundamentalism: A New Phenomenon?

While the wave of Fundamentalism appeared like a new phenomenon, it’s roots had been present for a very long time. The idea of going back to the roots to revive a Golden Age has been present in the Muslim community for as long Islam itself. An appeal to mass political unification into a single Islamic entity can be found being made numerous times, dating as far back as the 9^th century. Finally, while a separation of religion and government did take place in history, it was never formally acknowledged, and indeed political power was seen as a critical part of the Islamic religious project throughout history.

However, two new developments in the modern rise of Political Islam can be identified. Firstly, the scale of events rarely developed beyond the tribal and dynastic level, whereas now the context of the modern nation and state has led to a direct Islamic opposition to the idea of secular nationalism and the nation-state, which were seen as Western inventions. The West in general was now heavily opposed and served as a sort of scape-goat from which the Islamist movement drew a sense of a unified stance.

Secondly, the concept of ‘Jihad’, the ‘Struggle’ was emphasized in the political sphere. The external interpretation of this concept, as opposed to the more internal idea of self-improvement, promoted the idea of religious martyrdom and sacrifice for the cause. Especially in radical spheres, this concept became a prominent one.

Differences in Strategy

There are two key strategies by which the various Islamic groups strive to achieve their goals. Firstly, there is the political approach. This involves using political, social and educational means to achieve an Islamic state and the spreading of the Islamic way of life. This bottom-up approach works with-in the existing system and can thus be seen as more moderate. Examples include the work of the Salafi groups around the world, as well as much of the Muslim Brotherhood’s work.

Secondly, there is the more radical militant approach. It is by nature anti-systematic, as it seeks to destroy the existing status-quo and rebuild it entirely. These groups consider the use of violence to be just and holy, and often engage in terrorist activity or military coups. Examples include Al-Qaida and the so-called ‘Islamic State’.

These strategies should be seen as a spectrum rather than a categorization, as most groups contain elements of both. For example, Hamas and Hizb’allah are both groups that work through both military and political means. This is possible due to the various internal factions present in the groups, some of which work within the system while others seek to destroy that very institution.

1979: The Iranian Revolution

The success of the Iran Revolution in served as a shining example of what political Islam was capable of achieving. Ayatollah Khomeini’s regime was the first Islamic party to take power in a major modern state. The act was an even greater achievement when consider that the ousted monarchy had withstood both Arab-Muslim and Mongol invasions throughout the centuries.

Not only did this victory serve as inspiration of political islamists everywhere, but the newly established regime worked hard to export the revolution to the rest of the Middle East, for example through the funding and supporting of Hizb’allah in Lebanon.

However, the event was not seen in as positive a light by the West. In particular, the Tehran Hostage Crisis, in which Iranian radicals had stormed the US embassy and taken 52 citizens hostage for over a year, did not bode well for future diplomatic relations.

Indeed, the US took significant steps to weaken Iran, both through economic sanctions and political isolation. In the Iran-Iraq war, the US supported Iraq, and in after the events of September 11^th, 2001, US President Bush described Iran as part of the ‘Axis of Evil’. Only recently have US-Iran relations improved due to their united stance in the Syria crisis against the IS.

Iran’s Shi’a ideology also put it at odd with the Sunni Saudi Arabia, leading to a continuing rivalry for regional hegemony. This has resulted in a number of proxy wars as well as political tensions.

Global Jihadism

During the Soviet-Afghan War of 1979, Muslims from all over the world displayed solidarity with the Mujahedeen guerilla fighters, to the point where a significant number of foreign fighters joined the cause directly. After the 1989 withdrawal, these militants brought the sense of triumph and revolution home to their respective states.

These ‘experienced’ revolutionaries formed the basis of many radical Islamist groups, in particular after the First Gulf War of 1990, which left Iraq in tatters. Extremist groups like Al-Qaida used the resultant anti-US sentiments to their advantage for mass recruitment and eventually attacked the US directly in the infamous 9/11 attacks.

The American response was quick and brutal, with President Bush declaring the ‘War on Terror’ and the Bush Doctrine, legitimizing pre-emptive strikes against potential security threats. First the Afghanistan War of 2001 against the Taliban, and then the questionable invasion of Iraq in 2003 left the Middle East in turmoil. With sectarian violence resulting from the power vacuum left in its wake, the US was heavily criticized for its unjustified interventions and the cruel treatment of terrorist suspects.

However, the damage had been done, and from the turmoil emerged the Arab Spring, as Islamist uprisings rose in many Middle Eastern states. The general population was now ready to take action, and given that non-violent political reform appeared largely ineffective, terror attacks became a significant tool in the mission. The US, while having moved out of Iraq, continued its neutralization attempts through controversial regular drone attacks, killing a significant among of civilians in the process.

One particular group that emerged from the chaos in Iraq was the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, later known as simply the ‘Islamic State’. With Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as their leader, this ultra-radical terror group sought to destroy secular borders and re-establish an Islamic Caliphate. It proved so radical that even al-Qaida came into conflict with it. What makes this faction so successful in recruiting followers is its extensive use of social media to promote their global jihadist ideology. It remains to be seen whether this new group can be stopped or whether the Middle East will continue in its cycle of anti-Western terror and violence.